Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 10: On the authority of the Latin Vulgate edition
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book II: On the Editions and Versions 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 remains the third, and that the chief, question — namely, of how great authority the Latin Vulgate edition is. And indeed the heretics of our time, although they differ not a little among themselves in choosing an authentic Latin edition, yet against the Church all agree marvelously. For the Lutherans will have it that Luther's version alone is to be held authentic, as is plain from a certain Leipzig decree, to which Melanchthon, Pomeranus, Major, and very many others subscribed. Of which decree see Staphylus in the third topical predicament of Lutheran Theology.
But the Zwinglians, with whom the Anabaptists and Calvinists agree, will have it that no version is authentic, as is plain from the preface of the Zurich edition, where they teach that the Church ought not to be bound to any one version. Nevertheless both the Lutherans and the Zwinglians agree in this, that the Latin Vulgate edition is not to be held authentic, since innumerable errors are found in it.
Hence from the camp of Luther there came forth into the battle-line Martin Kemnitz, from the camp of the Zwinglians John Calvin, who, writing against the Council of Trent, vex the fourth session above the rest, in which the Council defines that the Vulgate Latin edition is to be held authentic. On the same matter also wrote George Major in his preface on the Psalms, and Tilmann Heshusius in the book On six hundred errors of the Papists, title 2.
But not fewer wrote for the Vulgate edition, among whom are John Driedo book 2 On Ecclesiastical doctrines and Scriptures, Francis Titelmann in the apologetic prologue for the Vulgate edition of the New Testament, Andreas Vega book 15 on the Council of Trent chapter 9, Jodocus of Tielt in the first part of his Apology for the Council of Trent against Kemnitz, Lindanus book 1 On the best kind of interpreting, Melchior Cano book 2 On theological topics chapter 13, and Sixtus of Siena book 8 of the Holy Bibliotheca in the refutation of the last heresy. Whose diligence desiring to imitate, we prove this same thing by these arguments.
The first is the argument of the Council itself. For the Synod of Trent says that that Latin edition of the sacred books is approved by it which has been approved by the long usage of so many ages in the Church itself. For not rashly did the whole Latin Church, for almost a thousand years, that is, from the time of blessed Gregory, use this one edition; all preachers explained this and set it before the people; all Councils brought forth testimonies from this edition to confirm the doctrines of the Faith. Now that the Church, for a whole eight hundred or nine hundred years, lacked the genuine interpretation of Scripture, and in those things which pertain to Faith and religion venerated as the word of God the errors of some interpreter or other, is a marvel — if to anyone it does not seem a marvel and an absurdity, especially if he has learned from the Apostle, 1 Timothy 3, that it is the pillar and ground of truth.
The second argument I take from the testimonies of the ancients. For either this our version is Jerome's, or at least that ancient common one which Augustine calls the Italic. If it is that ancient one, it has a great testimony from Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 15, where he says it is to be preferred to all; but if it is Jerome's, as we have proved above, it has the testimonies of all the ancients who could see it. For, first, blessed Augustine book 18 of the City of God chapter 43: “Although there has not been wanting in our times the presbyter Jerome, a most learned man, and skilled in all three tongues, who translated the same Scriptures into the Latin speech not from the Greek but from the Hebrew — but though the Jews confess his so learned labor to be truthful, etc.” And in epistle 10 to Jerome he says that his version, or rather emendation, of the New Testament is approved by all. Likewise blessed Gregory book 20 of the Morals chapter 32: “Since,” he says, “this new translation from the Hebrew is reported to have rendered all things to us more truly, it is to be believed in whatever is said in it, and our exposition ought subtly to search out its words.”
Blessed Isidore book 6 of the Etymologies chapter 4: “The presbyter Jerome,” he says, “skilled in three tongues, translated the same Scriptures from Hebrew into the Latin speech and eloquently rendered them, whose interpretation is deservedly preferred to the rest.” And book 1 On the divine offices chapter 12: “From the Hebrew into the Latin speech only the presbyter Jerome translated the sacred Scriptures, whose edition all the Churches everywhere generally use, because it is more truthful in the sentences and clearer in the words.” So he, to whom Rabanus subscribes book 2 On the instruction of the clergy chapter 54.
Moreover those who followed thereafter — blessed Anselm, blessed Bernard, Rupert, Haymo, Hugh, Richard, and all the rest — sufficiently show that they approved this edition above the rest, since they undertook to explain it alone. Add also that not only the Latins approved this version, but even the Greeks, who turned certain divine volumes, translated by Jerome from the Hebrew into Latin, from the Latin into Greek, as blessed Jerome testifies book On Illustrious Men, in Sophronius, and book 2 against Rufinus.
The third argument. The Hebrews had in their tongue an authentic Scripture; the Greeks too had in Greek an authentic Scripture, that is, the Old Testament from the version of the Seventy, and of the New Testament the very first sources; therefore it was just that the Latin Church, in which is the See of Peter, and in which the Christian Faith was perpetually to remain, should have in its tongue an authentic Scripture; but it has had almost no other for a thousand years than this; therefore this is to be reckoned authentic.
The fourth argument. In the general Councils of the Church either very few, or sometimes none, are found skilled in the Hebrew tongue; ill therefore would it have been provided for the Church, if in grave matters it could not trust the Latin edition, but had to have recourse to the Hebrew codices, and to beg the truth from the Rabbins, its enemies. The same we can say of the Greek tongue: for although now, after a fashion, many are found who know Greek, yet it was not always so. For if we believe Rufinus book 10 of the History chapter 21, out of six hundred Bishops who came to the Council of Ariminum, there was none who knew what [homoousios] meant. And therefore, when certain crafty Arian heretics proposed to the Synod whether it wished to worship Christ, or [homoousios], all cried out that they were unwilling to worship [homoousios], but Christ.
Finally the same is proved by experience. For we see that our heretics, who, despising the ancient edition, are zealous for new interpretations, coin editions so diverse and dissenting among themselves that scarcely anything certain can be had from their editions. Wherefore Martin Luther in his book against Zwingli, On the truth of the body of Christ in the Eucharist: “If,” he says, “the world shall stand longer, it will again be necessary, on account of the diverse interpretations of Scripture which now are, that for preserving the unity of the Faith we receive the decrees of the Councils, and flee to them.”
It remains to solve the arguments of the adversaries; but first it pleases me to note certain open falsehoods which Martin Kemnitz and John Calvin mixed into their arguments.
The first falsehood of Calvin is that it was done neither by judgment nor by right choice that out of the diverse interpretations one prevailed among the unlearned. But certainly, since, all interpretations being abolished, this our one was in use in the whole Latin Church for above a thousand years, either there were many learned in the Church for a whole thousand years, or Calvin lies impudently. Then Sophronius, Augustine, Gregory, Isidore, Bede, Anselm, Rupert, Bernard, and so many other notable men I do not think are to be numbered among the unlearned; and yet all these, as we have demonstrated above, praised our edition, either among the rest or even above the rest.
The other falsehood of the same is that the Fathers of Trent decreed that they are by no means to be heard who bring forth the pure liquor from the fountain itself, and from the certain truth convict the false. This I call a falsehood, because nothing of the kind is read in the decree of the Council. For the Fathers made no mention of fountains, but only chose, out of so many Latin versions as are now carried about, one which they should prefer to the rest; and (as befitted the gravity and constancy of the Church) they preferred the ancient to the new, the one approved by long usage to the recent and (so to speak) crude, and finally one to many dissenting and fighting among themselves.
The third falsehood is of the same Calvin: that there is in the Vulgate edition no whole page entire, so that scarcely are there three continuous verses not defiled by some notable error. But if it is so, why, in the same place, when Calvin had undertaken to note the places in the Psalms wrongly translated, did he note nothing at all in the translation of the first Psalm? Has perhaps the first Psalm not three continuous verses? But there is no need, I think, to linger in refuting such open falsehoods. Let us come to Kemnitz.
The first falsehood of Kemnitz is that the Council of Trent decreed that, for those things which the Holy Ghost wrote in the Hebrew and Greek fountains, we should receive those which were changed, mutilated, or added by the copyists. That this is a manifest falsehood everyone understands. For who — I say not a Catholic, but a man of sound mind — would ever say that the faults of the copyists are to be received for the words of the Holy Ghost? Then does not the Council in the same place command that the sacred Bible be printed as correctly as possible?
The second is of the same: that in the index of prohibited books published by Paul IV all editions of the Bible are condemned, even of the old Interpreter, in which even certain most manifest errors of the Vulgate edition have been corrected. This too is a most gross falsehood: for in that index none are condemned except certain editions made by heretical or suspected printers; and all others are permitted.
The third falsehood of the same Kemnitz is that the Council of Trent, session 21 chapter 2, in order to prove that the Church has authority to dispense in the substantials of the Sacraments against the institution of Christ, abuses the equivocation of the old version, where 1 Corinthians 4 the ministers of Christ are called dispensers of the mysteries of Christ. At which place Kemnitz exclaims: “Good God, how great is the impudence of Antichrist, in so great a light of the knowledge of tongues, to play so childishly on so grave a matter! whereas Paul calls the ministers of Christ [oikonomous], stewards.” So he.
But we may deservedly exclaim: Good God, how great is the impudence of the heretic, that he does not fear to obtrude most gross falsehoods for the truth! For the Council in the same place expressly testifies that the Church cannot change the substantials of the Sacraments, but only appoint the manner and order in which the Sacraments ought to be administered. Then the Council does not abuse the word dispenser, as Kemnitz dreams; for it does not say that the Church can dispense in the Sacraments, as it dispenses in vows and laws, but that it can dispense the Sacraments, that is, administer, reach forth, deliver them to the Faithful; and, after the manner of a faithful and prudent steward in dispensing the goods of his lord and feeding the household, provided that nothing be done against the laws and commands of the Prince.
The last falsehood of Kemnitz is that the Council of Trent willed the Vulgate edition to be authentic because it is wholly transformed to the Papal doctrines. Which falsehood is not only of an impudent man, but also of an imprudent one, since it fights most of all against its own author. For if the Papal doctrines are had in the Vulgate edition, it follows that the Papal doctrines are most ancient, and their own contrary doctrines are plainly recent; for even they themselves confess the Vulgate edition to be most ancient. Besides, if the Vulgate edition had been made after Luther's times, there would be some ground for suspecting that it was of set purpose accommodated to the Papal doctrines; but it was made a thousand years ago, and all the things which they reprehend in the Vulgate edition. But the adversaries believe that what they themselves do is done also by others; and because Martin Luther translated the Bible with the worst faith (as is plain from John Cochlaeus in the life and acts of Luther, year 1522, where we read that in the new translation of the New Testament made by Luther about a thousand places were noted as changed, that is, added, or taken away, or depraved), therefore they think that the Catholics too do this; but certainly they are deceived. For the Catholic Faith needs not the aids of falsehoods, as do their fictions.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. De auctoritate Latince editionis vulgatae. Tertia, eaque potissima restat quaestio. Quantae videlicet auctoritatis sit Latina vul¬ gata editio. Et quidem haeretici nostri tem¬ poris, quamquam inter se non parum dis¬ sentiant in authentica editione Latina eli¬ genda : tamen adversus Ecclesiam mirifice omnes consentiunt. Siquidem Lutherani vo¬ lunt, solam Lutheri versionem habendam esse authenticam, ut patet ex decreto quo¬ dam Lipsiensi, cui Melanchthon, Pomeranus, Major, aliique permulti subscripserunt. De quo decreto vide Staphilum in tertio topico praedicamento Lutheranae Theologiae. At Zwingliani , quibus Anabaptistae et Calvinistae consentiunt, nullam esse volunt authenticam versionem, ut ex praefatione Tigurinae editionis patet, ubi docent, non (1) Eccl. II, 3. — (2) Isai. XI, 1. — (3) Matth. II, 23. — (4) Isai. XIX, 17. — (5) Gen. I, 2. CAPUT X, 139 debere Ecclesiam alligari ad unam aliquam versionem. Nihilominus tamen tam Luthe- rani, quam Zwingliani in eo conveniunt, ut editio Latina vulgata non sit habenda pro authentica, cum innumerabiles errores in ea deprehendantur. Hinc ex castris Lutheri prodiit in aciem Martinus Kemnitius, ex castris Zwingliano- rum Joannes Calvinus, qui adversus Conci¬ lium Tridentinum scribentes, quartam ses¬ sionem prse caeteris vexant, in qua Concilium definit, vulgatam editionem Latinam haben¬ dam esse pro authentica. Scripsit etiam de eadem re Georgius Major praefat. in Psal., et Tilmannus Heshusius in lib. de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum tit. II. At non pauciores pro vulgata editione scrip¬ serunt, in quibus sunt Joannes Driedo lib, II. cap. de Ecclesiast. dogmat. et Script. Franciscus Titelmannus in prologo apologe¬ tico pro editione vulgata novi Testamenti, Andreas Yega lib. XV, in Cone. Trident. cap. 9. Jodocus Tiletanus in I. part. apolog. pro Cone. Trident. cont. Kemnitium, Linda- nus lib. I. de opt. gen. interpret., Melchior Canus lib. II. de locis cap. 13. Sixtus Se¬ nensis lib. VIII. Biblioth. sanctae in refuta¬ tione ultimas haeresis. Quorum diligentiam imitari cupientes, his argumentis rem eam- dem comprobamus. Primum est argumentum ipsius Concilii. Ait enim Synodus Tridentina, eam a se pro¬ bari sacrorum librorum Latinam editionem, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa Eccle¬ sia probata est. Nec enim temere per annos fere mille, hoc est, a tempore B. Gregorii omnis Ecclesia Latina hac una editione usa est, omnes Concionatores hanc explanave¬ runt et populis proposuerunt, omnia Conci¬ lia ex hac editione testimonia protulerunt ad confirmanda dogmata Fidei. Porro Ec¬ clesiam totis octingentis vel nongentis annis germana Scripturae interpretatione caruisse. atque in iis quae ad Fidem et religionem pertinent, errores interpretis nescio cujus pro verbo Dei coluisse, mirum est, si cui mirum et absurdum non esse videatur, prae¬ sertim si ex Apostoior didicerit, Timoth. III eam esse columnam et firmamentum veritatis. Secundum argumentum sumo ex testimo¬ niis Veterum. Nam vel haec nostra versio est Hieronymi, vel certe illa antiqua cum- munis quam Augustinus vocat Italam: si est illa antiqua, magnum testimonium habet ab Aug. lib. II. de doct. Christ, c. 15. ubi di¬ cit, eam omnibus esse praeferendam : si au¬ tem est Hieronymi, ut nos supra probavi¬ mus, habet testimonia omnium Veterum, qui eam videre potuerunt. Nam in primis B. Augustinus lib. XVIII. Civit. D^icap. 43. « Quamvis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus homo doctissimus, et omnium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebraeo in Latinum elo¬ quium easdem Scripturas converterit : sed ejus tam litteratum laborem quamvis Judaei fateantur esse veracem etc. » Et epist. 10. ad Hieronymum dicit, ejus versionem, seu potius emendationem Testamenti novi omni¬ bus probari. Item B. Gregorius lib. XX. Mo- ral. c.32. « Quia, inquit, haec nova translatio ex Hebraeo nobis eloquio cuncta verius trans¬ fudisse perhibetur, credendum est, quidquid in ea dicitur, et oportet ut verba illius nos¬ tra expositio subtiliter rimetur. » B. Isidorus lib. VI Etymol. c. 4 « Presby¬ ter, » inquit, « Hieronymus trium lingua¬ rum peritus, ex Hebraeo in Latinum elo¬ quium easdem Scripturas convertit, elo- quenterque transfudit, cujus interpretatio merito caeteris antefertur. » Et lib. 1. De offic. divin. c. 12. « De Hebraeo, inquit in La¬ tinum eloquium tantummodo Hieronymus presbyter sacras Scripturas convertit, cu¬ jus editione generaliter omnes Ecclesiae us¬ quequaque utuntur, eo quod veracior est in sententiis, et clarior in verbis. » Haec ille, cui subscribit Rabanus lib. II. De institut. Cleric. cap. 54. Porro qui deinceps secuti sunt, B. Ansel- mus, B.Bernardus, Rupertus, Haymo,Hugo, Richardus, et alii omnes satis ostendunt, se hanc editionem prae caeteris probasse, cum eam solum explanandam susceperunt. Adde etiam, quod non solum Latini versionem hanc probarunt, sed etiam Graeci, qui quae¬ dam divina volumina ab Hieronymo in La¬ tinum ex Hebraeo conversa, ipsi ex Latino in Graecum transfuderunt, ut B. Hieronymus testatur, lib. de vir. illust. in Soplironio, et lib. II. contra Ruffinun. Tertium argumentum. Habuerunt Hebraei sua lingua authenticam Scripturam : Graeci quoque habuerunt Graece authenticam Scrip¬ turam, id est, Testamentum vetus ex ver- sione LXX, et Testamenti novi ipsos primos fontes ; igitur aequum fuit, ut Latina Ecclesia, in qua sedes Petri est, et in qua perpetuo Fides cliristiana mansura erat, haberet sua lingua authenticam Scripturam : non autem 140 LIBER II. habuit aliam fere a mille annis quam istam ; igitur ista authentica censenda est. Quartum argumentum. In Conciliis gene¬ ralibus Ecclesiae, aut paucissimi, aut inter¬ dum nulli» inveniuntur linguae Hebraicae pe¬ riti ; male igitur provisum esset Ecclesiae, si in rebus gravibus non posset fidere Latinae editioni, sed deberet recurrere ad Hebraicos codices, et mendicare a Rabbinis hostibus suis veritatem. Idem dicere possumus de Graeca lingua : nam etsi nunc utcumque multi inveniuntur qui Graece noverint, tamen non semper ita fuit. Nam si Ruffino credi¬ mus lib. hist. X cap. 21. ex sexcentis Epis¬ copis qui ad Concilium Ariminense convene¬ runt, nemo fuit qui sciret, quid sibi vellet ofzoouo-to?. Et propterea cum callidi quidam haeretici Ariani proponerent Synodo, an vel¬ let Christum colere, an oy.oovmo-j, omnes cla¬ maverunt, se nolle bpoowiov, sed Christum. Denique idem experimento comprobatur. Videmus enim nostros haereticos, qui con¬ tempta antiqua editione novis interpretationi¬ bus student, adeo diversas et inter se dissen¬ tientes editiones cudere, ut nihil fere certi ex eorum editionibus habere possit. Quare Mar- tinus Lutherus in lib. cont. Zwinglium : De verit. corp. Christ. inEuchar. «Si diutius, » inquit, « steterit Mundus, iterum eritnecessa rium, ut propter diversas Scripturae inter¬ pretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservan¬ dam Fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus. » Superest argumenta adversariorum solve¬ re, sed antea libet notare mendacia quaedam aperta, quae Martinus Kemnitius, et Joan- nes Calvinus suis argumentis admiscue¬ runt. Primum Calvini mendacium est, nec ju¬ dicio, nec recto delectu factum esse, ut ex interpretationibus diversis una obtinuerit inter indoctos. At certe cum omnibus inter¬ pretationibus abolitis, haec nostra supra mille annos in usu totius Latinae Ecclesiae fue¬ rit, aut multi fuerunt totis mille annis in Ec¬ clesia docti, aut impudenter mentitur Cal¬ vinus. Deinde Sophronium, Augustinum, Gregorium, Isidorum, Pedam, Anselmum, Rupertum, Bernardum, aliosque tam mul¬ tos insignes viros non existimo inter indoc¬ tos numerandos esse : et tamen isti omnes editionem nostram, ut supra demonstravi¬ mus, aut inter caeteras, aut etiam praeter cae- teras laudarunt. Alterum ejusdem mendacium est. decre¬ visse Tridentinos Patres, minime esse au¬ diendos eos, qui ex fonte ipso purum liquo¬ rem proferunt, et ex certa veritate falsum coarguunt. Hoc ideo mendacium voco, quod nihil ejusmodi in decreto Concilii legatur. Nec enim Patres fontium ullam mentionem fecerunt, sed solum ex tot Latinis versioni- bus ; quae nunc circumferuntur, unam dele¬ gerunt, quam caeteris anteponerent : et (quod Ecclesiae gravitatem, et constantiam decebat) antiquam novis, probatam longo usu recentibus adhuc, ac, ut sic loquar, cru¬ dis , denique unam multis inter se dissiden¬ tibus, et pugnantibus praetulerunt. Tertium mendacium est ejusdem Calvini, adeo nullam esse in vulgata editione inte¬ gram paginam, ut vix tres sint continui ver¬ sus non insigni aliquo errore foedati. At si ita est, cur ibidem Calvinus, cum suscepis¬ set notandos locos in Psalmis perperam ver¬ sos, nihil omnino in primi Psalmi transla¬ tione notavit? non habet fortasse primus Psalmus tres continuos versus ? Sed non est opus, opinor, in tam apertis mendaciis re¬ fellendis immorari. Ad Kemnitium venia¬ mus. Primum Kemnitii mendacium est, Conci¬ lium Tridentinum decrevisse, ut pro iis quae Spiritus sanctus in fontibus Hebraicis et Graecis scripsit, ea recipiamus, quae a Libra¬ riis mutata, mutilata, vel addita sunt. Hoc esse mendacium manifestum nemo non in- telligit. Quis enim, non dico Catholicus, sed sanae mentis homo, unquam diceret, Libra¬ riorum vitia suscipienda pro Spiritus sancti verbis? Deinde nonne Concilium eodem loco jubet, ut sacra Biblia quam emendatissime fieri poterit imprimantur? Secundum est ejusdem, in indice librorum prohibitorum a Paulo IV. edito damnari om¬ nes editiones Bibliorum, etiam veteris In¬ terpretis, in quibus vel manifestissima quae¬ dam vulgatae editionis errata correcta sunt. Hoc etiam crassissimum mendacium est: non enim damnantur in eo indice nisi edi¬ tiones quaedam ab haereticis, vel suspectis impressoribus factae : et omnes aliae permit¬ tuntur. Tertium ejusdem Kemnitii mendacium est, Concilium Tridentinum sess XXI. c. 2. ut probet Ecclesiam habere auctoritatem dis¬ pensandi in Sacramentorum substantialibus contra institutionem Christi, abuti aequivo- catione veteris versionis, ubi I. Corinth. IV. ministri Christi vocantur dispensatores mys- CAPUT XI. 141 teriorum Christi. Quo loco exclamat Kemni- tius : « Bone Deus, quanta est Antichristi impudentia, in tanta luce cognitionis lingua¬ rum, de tam gravi materia tam pueriliter ludere ! cum Paulus otxovdfxovs vocet ministros Christi. » Haec ille. At nobis merito licet exclamare: Bone Deus, quanta est hominis haeretici impu¬ dentia, ut crassissima mendacia pro veritate obtrudere non vereatur ! Nam Concilium ibidem diserte testatur, Ecclesiam non posse mutare substantialia Sacramentorum, sed tantum statuere modum et ordinem, quo Sacramenta administrari debeant. Deinde , Concilium non abutitur voce dispensatoris , ut Kemnitius somniat ; non enim dicit, Ec¬ clesiam posse dispensare in Sacramentis, quomodo dispensat in votis et legibus, sed posse dispensare Sacramenta, id est, admi¬ nistrare, porrigere, tradere Fidelibus : et instar fidelis ac prudentis oeconomi in dis¬ pensandis bonis domini sui et familia alenda, modo nihil fiat contra leges et mandata Prin¬ cipis . Postremum Kemnitii mendacium est, Con¬ cilium Tridentinum ideo voluisse vulgatam editionem esse authenticam, quia toto trans¬ formata est ad dogmata Pontificia. Quod mendacium non solum est hominis impu¬ dentis, sed etiam imprudentis, siquidem contra suum auctorem maxime pugnat. Si enim Pontificia dogmata habentur. in edi¬ tione vulgata, sequitur Pontificia dogmata esse antiquissima, et ipsorum dogmata con¬ traria plane esse recentia : nam editionem vulgatam etiam ipsi fatentur esse vetustis¬ simam. Praeterea, si editio vulgata facta esset post Lutheri tempora, esset aliqua ratio sus¬ picandi, eam esse accomodatam de indus¬ tria ad Pontificia dogmata : at facta |est ante mille annos, et omnia quae illi repre¬ hendunt in vulgata editione. Sed adversarii quod ipsi faciunt, idem etiam ab aliis fieri credunt : et quia Martinus Lutherus Biblia pessima fide convertit, ut patet ex Joanne Cochlaeo in vita et actis Lutheri anni 1522. ubi legimus, innova translatione Testamenti novi per Lutherum facta, fuisse notata ad mille loca immutata, id est, addita, vel de¬ tracta, vel depravata : idcirco putant etiam Catholicos hoc facere, sed certe falluntur; Fides enim Catholica non eget praesidiis men¬ daciorum, ut illorum figmenta.