Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 14: The New Testament places the heretics call corrupt are defended
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).
Further, in the New Testament also Kemnitz and Calvin noted not a few places which they say were corrupted by the Latin interpreter.
The first place is Matthew 9: I came not to call the just, but sinners. A most beautiful sentence, says Kemnitz, is mutilated, for in the Latin is wanting To penance. I answer: in certain Latin codices that particle is found; then I say it is more likely that that particle is superfluous in the Greek, and was not in the emended Greek codices. For blessed Jerome in his Commentary does not read it, and yet Jerome diligently compared the Greek with the Latin, and corrected the Latin from the Greek. And that it is not necessary is clear. For to call sinners, not the just, plainly signifies to exhort to penance those who need it, not those who need it not, which the Lord a little before had illustrated by the example of a physician.
The second place is John 14: The Holy Ghost shall bring to your mind all things whatsoever I shall have said to you. This place Kemnitz will have to be depraved, for proving that whatever is defined in Councils is to be received as oracles of the Holy Ghost; for in the Greek it is not I shall have said, but I said, [eipon hymin]. I answer: Saint Augustine and other ancients read as we read, and the sense is the same with the Greek. For we do not understand the Lord to have said, The Holy Ghost shall bring to your mind all things which I shall then have said to you, but which I now say, that is, those things which you now hear from me and understand not, the Holy Ghost shall then recall to your memory and explain. Nor do the Catholics place in this word the foundation of the authority of Councils, but we have other supports, of which afterward.
The third is Romans 1: Who was predestinated the Son of God. This place Calvin reprehends as ill rendered: both because in the Greek it is [horisthentos], that is, of one declared or manifested; and because those things are predestinated which are not, whereas Christ was always the Son of God — which argument Origen also uses on this place. I answer: our interpreter rendered most excellently; for although that Greek word [horizein] signifies to bound, and among profane authors is often taken for to declare, yet in Scripture it is otherwise taken. For, as Dionysius teaches book 5 On the divine names chapter 5, this word is proper to Theology, that is, it has in Scripture a peculiar signification; for everywhere it signifies to appoint, decree, define, but never to declare, as is plain Acts 2 and 17, Romans 8, Ephesians 1, and elsewhere. For when it is said Acts 2, Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have slain, there is this word [hōrismenē boulē]; and yet it is certain it does not signify a declaration, but a divine ordination. Likewise Romans 8, Whom he predestinated, them he also called, in the Greek is [proōrisen], which word not even the adversaries themselves will have to signify he declared.
And because the ordination and definition of God cannot be temporal but eternal, therefore our interpreter, seeing the Apostle speak of an eternal destination, preferred to translate predestinated rather than destined. And so all the Latins read, even the most ancient, as Irenaeus book 3 against the Valentinians chapter 32, Hilary book 7 On the Trinity, Ambrose, Sedulius, and others on this place, Augustine book On predestination chapter 15 and on John tractate 105; Tertullian in the book against Praxeas reads defined, which is the same with ours. Add the Sixth Council of Toledo chapter 1, which both reads and expounds predestinated. Nor does that little reasoning of Calvin effect anything; for we do not say that it was predestinated that the Word of God everlasting should begin to be the Son of God, but that the Word of God should be made man, and therefore that he who was made to God of the seed of David (as Paul speaks) should be the Son of God, which Augustine and the Council of Toledo beautifully explain.
The fourth place is Romans 1, at the end of the chapter, where we have: Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. This place not only Kemnitz, but also Valla, Erasmus, Jacobus Faber, and others will have to be corrupt. First, because the Greek text has it thus: [Greek]. And so in our Latin codex there are added, first, that did not understand, and then that who, when it is said who do them and who consent. Secondly, because Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact expound it as it is had in the Greek. Thirdly, because what is had in our text seems false, or at least little likely. For it is said: Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death, etc. For if they did not understand this, how did they know the justice of God? For what is the justice of God, but that he who does ill be punished?
I answer: our reading is altogether better; for according to the Greek the sense is that it is worse to consent to one doing ill than to do the ill; according to the Latin the sense is the contrary, that it is worse to do ill than to consent to those doing ill. But certainly, absolutely, it is worse to do ill than to consent to one doing ill. For who would deny that it is worse to kill a man than only to consent that he be killed, that is, to permit it when you could hinder? For here the Apostle speaks not of command or incitement to evil, but of simple consent.
Therefore to the first I say: we can gather nothing certain in this part from the Greek source, for the reading is various in the Greek. For Origen reads otherwise than Chrysostom, as is plain from their Commentaries, and Oecumenius notes that some read as we now read. Titelmann too, in his first conference on the epistle to the Romans, asserts that he read in an ancient Greek manuscript codex those words [ou synēkan], that is, they did not understand. To the second we oppose authors to authors; for they read as we have it and expound it: Cyprian book 1 epistle 4, Ambrose, Sedulius, Haymo, Anselm, and other Latins on this place, Hesychius book 6 on Leviticus expounding chapter 20, and Pope Symmachus in his Apology against the Emperor Anastasius. To the third I say: that which is had in the Greek seems rather false; for that which is said in the Latin, Having known the justice of God, does not fight with that which follows, they did not understand. For when he says having known, he speaks of theoretical knowledge; when he says they did not understand, he speaks of practical. And so the sense is: Although they had known the truth, yet, blinded by their depraved affections, they could not seriously persuade themselves that they must so act. It could also be said that that they did not understand is referred not to that that they who do such things, etc., but to that but they also that consent to them that do them. For the sense is: These pagan Philosophers, although they had known that there is one God, and therefore that it was evil to worship Jupiter and Mars and the other false deities, did not understand that not only was this an evil which the crowds did, but that it was also an evil to consent to such, and not to admonish and rebuke them — which the Philosophers themselves did.
The fifth place is Romans 4, where it is said that Abraham was not justified by works. For Kemnitz complains that we added of the Law, that we might expound that place of the works of that law which prescribes ceremonies. I answer: it is a mere calumny. For the Latin codices, either all or almost all, have not that of the Law. Nor do we understand that place of the works of the old Law, but of works done by one's own powers. Add that Ambrose both has of the Law in the text, and in his Commentary expounds it of the old Law. Therefore the Papists did not corrupt that place, as Kemnitz falsely says. But of this afterward.
The sixth is Romans 11, where we read: If by grace, it is not now of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. Kemnitz calumniously says we took away a whole sentence, namely: But if of works, it is not now grace, otherwise work is no more work. I answer: that sentence is indeed in the Greek codices, and is explained by Theophylact, yet is acknowledged by no others; for neither Origen, nor Chrysostom, nor Ambrose, nor any other expounders of this place mentioned it; nor even Augustine, who most frequently treats this place, and especially book 2 On the good of perseverance chapter 18. Nay even Erasmus, in his Annotations on this place, rejects this addition as superfluous. Which certainly ought to be enough for Kemnitz, who on the same page refers us to Erasmus, that from him we may learn the errors of the Vulgate edition.
The seventh place is Ephesians 5: This is a great sacrament. For Kemnitz teaches that Sacrament is ill translated, since it is in Greek [mystērion], and says that this was done by us that we might thence prove Matrimony to be a Sacrament. I answer: Mystery to the Greeks and Sacrament to the Latins are the same; for the Greeks, when they treat of the Sacraments, always call them [mystēria]. And the holy Fathers explaining this place of the Apostle — Ambrose, Jerome, and other Latins — always use this word.
The eighth place is Ephesians 6: Take the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand perfect in all things. Kemnitz will have this place depraved, because in the Greek it is [hapanta katergasamenoi], and so Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others expound. I answer: the sense is the same, but that perfect ought to be joined with the word all, not with the word stand. For the sense of the Apostle is that we be armed on every side with spiritual arms, that so armed we may in the battle-line against the Devil not fall but stand. He says therefore, Take the armour of God, in Greek [panoplian], that is, all the arms — helmet, shield, sword, breastplate, etc. — that perfect in all things, that is, on every side fortified and armed, that is, furnished and perfected with all virtues, being set, you may stand against the Devil; or (and it is the same) that, all things being perfected, that is, when you have procured and put on all the arms, you may then be able to stand, etc.
The ninth is Hebrews 9: To exhaust the sins of many. Kemnitz complains that the Greek words are ill rendered, for [anenenkein] is not to exhaust, but to take away. I answer: here too the sense is the same. Besides, the Interpreter seems to have translated most properly; for [anapherein] is properly to bear up, to carry out, to lead out; as therefore, when water or filth is drawn out of some bilge, the filth is said to be exhausted, so also the sins which Christ carried up and led out from the depth of our breast are rightly said by him to be exhausted.
The tenth is Hebrews 13: By such sacrifices God is well merited (promeretur). Here Kemnitz will have the word of merit set down, which is not had in the Greek. I answer: the Greek word [euaresteitai ho Theos] properly signifies God is delighted, or, as Erasmus translates, it pleases God. But in Latin, that he well merits of someone who does a thing pleasing to him, no one is who knows not. So then our Interpreter said, By such sacrifices God is well merited, that is, by these sacrifices a thing pleasing is done to God, and he who offers them well merits of God. For the Interpreter took merit in a passive signification.
The eleventh is James 5: And the Lord shall raise him up. Kemnitz says the Greek word [egerei] is not well rendered, and that the place was studiously depraved, that from it we might confirm the effects of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, whereas the Greek word sounds nothing such. I answer: Kemnitz knows not what he says; for the Greek word shows better the effects of Extreme Unction which the Catholics acknowledge in that Sacrament than the Latin word. For the Catholics attribute three effects to this Sacrament. One indeed chief, but common to the other Sacraments [the remission of sins]. Another, that it raise up and cheer a man in that article of death, oppressed with sadness and pains and languishing. The third, that sometimes it heal even bodily. These three effects, beginning from the less chief, James expressly sets down in these words: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. The second effect therefore of this Sacrament — that it cheer, raise up, and rouse a man in the article of death depressed by sadness, pains, and temptations, and languishing — the word [egeirei], namely I rouse, I raise up, etc., most properly expresses.
The twelfth is 1 John 5: These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, who believe in the name of the Son of God. Kemnitz says this sentence is mutilated, for in the Greek it is thus: “These things I write to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe in the name of the Son of God.” I answer: the Latin codex is not mutilated, but the Greek redundant, as Erasmus also suspects on this place, to whose judgment nevertheless Kemnitz is wont to attribute very much. For when it has been said, These things I write to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, to what end is added that you may believe in the name of the Son of God? For what need was there to admonish them to do what they had already done? Add that St. Bede too reads as we have it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Defenduntur loca , quee haeretici aiunt esse cor¬ rupta in editione Latina Testamenti novi. Porro in Testamento novo non pauca etiam loca Kemnitius et Calvinus annotarunt, quae ab interprete Latino corrupta esse dicunt. Primus locus est Matthaei IV. Non veni vo¬ care justos sed peccatores (2). Mutilata est, in¬ quit Kemnitius, pulcherrima' sententia, nam deest in Latino Ad poenitentiam. Respondeo : in quibusdam Latinis inveniri illam particu¬ lam: deinde dico verisimilius esse, illamparti- culam in Graeco esse superfluam, et in emen¬ datis codicibus Graecis non fuisse. Nam B. Hie¬ ronymus in Comm. eam non legit et tamen Hieronymus diligenter contulit Graecum cum Latino, et ex Graeco Latinum correxit. Quod (1) Psal. CXXXI, 15. - (2) Matth. IX, 13. CAPUT XIV. 151 autem non sit necessaria , perspicuum est. Nam vocare peccatores , non justos, aperte significat, hortari aci poenitentiam eos qui egent, non qui non egent, quod Dominus paulo ante exemplo medici illustraverat. Secundus locus est Joannis XIV. Spiritus sanctus suggeret vobis omnia quaecumque dixero vobis. (1) Hunc locum vult Kemnitius esse depravatum, ad probandum, quoecumque in Conciliis definiuntur accipienda esse pro ora¬ culis Spiritus sancti : nam in Graeco non est Dixero , sed Dixi , ebrov uplv. Respondeo : Sanctum Augustinum et alios Veteres sic le¬ gere ut nos legimus, et sensum esse eumclem cum Graeco. Non enim intclligimus Domi¬ num dixisse : Spiritus sanctus suggeret vobis omnia quce tunc dixero vobis ; sed equae nunc dixero , id est, ea quce nunc a me auditis, et non intelligitis , tunc Spiritus sanctus in memoriam vobis revocabit , et explicabit. Neque in hoc verbo ponunt Catholici fundamentum aucto¬ ritatis Conciliorum , sed alia praesidia habe¬ mus, de quibus postea. Tertius est Romnn. T. Qui praedestinatus est Filius Dei. (2) Hunc locum reprehendit Calvinus tanquam male redditum : tum quia in Graeco est bpibivrog, idest declarati sive ma¬ nifestati : tum quia illa praedestinatur quae non sunt , Christus autem semper fuit Filius Dei : quo argumento utitur etiam Origenes hoc loco. Respondeo : Interpretem nostrum optime reddidisse : nam etsi verbum illud Graecum oot£stv significet finire , et apud profanos auc¬ tores accipiatur saepe pro declarare ; tamen in Scriptura aliter accipitur. Ut enim docet Dionysius lib. V.divin. nom. cap. 5. hoc ver¬ bum est proprium Theologiae , id est , habet in Scriptura peculiarem significationem : nam ubique significat statuere , decernere, de¬ finire, nunquam autem declarare , ut patet Act. II, 4. 17. Roman. VIII. Ephes. I. et alibi. Nam cum dicitur Act. II. Hunc definito consilio, et praescientia D ei traditum interemis¬ tis , habetur haec vox wp lo-phy |3 ouL? ; et ta¬ men certum est non significare declaratio¬ nem, sed divinam ordinationem. Similiter Rom. VIII. Quos praedestinavit , hos vocavit , in Graeco est ■Kpowpmz, quam vocem ne ipsi quidem adversarii significare volunt decla¬ ravit. Et quoniam ordinatio, et definitio Dei non potest esse temporalis sed aeterna ; ideo in¬ terpres noster videns Apostolum loqui de ae¬ terna destinatione, maluit vertere praedesti¬ natum i, quam destinatum. Et sic legerunt om¬ nes Latini tetiam antiquissimi , ut Ireneeus lib. III. contra Valent, cap. 32. Hilarius lib. VII. De Trinit. Ambrosius , Sedulius , et alii in hunc locum, Augustinus lib. De praedest. car. 15. et in Jo. tract. 105. Tertullianus, lib. Cont. Praxeam legit definitus , quod est idem cum nostro. Adde Concilium Toleta¬ num VI. cap. I. quod et legit, et exponit prae¬ destinatus. Neque ratiuncula illa Calvini ali¬ quid efficit : non enim id praedestinatum esse dicimus, ut Verbum Dei sempiternum Filius Dei esse inciperet, sed ut Verbum Dei fieret homo, et proinde ut ille qui factus est Deo ex semine David, ut Paulus loquitur, sit Filius Dei, quod pulchre explicant Augustinus et Concilium Toletanum. Quartus locus est Roman. I. in fine capi¬ tis, ubi habemus : Qui cum justitiam Dei co¬ gnovissent , non intellexerunt , quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte , non solum qui ea fa¬ ciunt , sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus (3). Hunc locum non solum Kemnitius, sed etiam Valla, Erasmus, Jacobus Faber, et alii cor¬ ruptum esse volunt. Primo, quoniam Graecus textus ita habet : otzusg zo dixxiM[/.cc r ou 6iov imyjovTig ori zx zoixxizv. npxtjdovzsg xiioi Qxvxzov staiv ou povov aura notoxicnv, xXXx xxi auveuSozoucri toi? TcpxtTrroven. Itaque in nostro codice Latino sunt addita in primis illa non intellexerunt , et deinde illud qui , cum dicitur qui ea faciunt , et qui consentiunt . Secundo, quia Chrysosto- mus, QEcumenius, Theophylactus exponunt, ut habetur in Graeco. Tertio, quia quod ha¬ betur in nostro textu videtur falsum , aut certe parum verisimile. Dicitur enim : Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent , non intellexe¬ runt , quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte etc. Nam si hoc non intellexerunt , quomodo justitiam Dei cognoverunt? quce est enim ju¬ stitia Dei, nisi ut qui male agit puniatur. Respondeo : nostram lectionem omnino esse meliorem ; nam secundum Graecam sen¬ sus est, pejus esse consentire male agenti , quam malum agere : secundum Latinam sensus est contrarius, pejus esse male agere , quam con¬ sentire male agentibus. At certe absolute pejus est male agere, quam consentire male agenti. Quis enim neget , pejus esse occidere homi¬ num, quam tantum consentire ut occidatur, id est, permittere cum possis impedire? non (1) Joan. XIV, 26. — (2) Rom. 1,4. — (3) Ibid. 32. 152 LIBER II. / enim hic loquitur Apostolus de imperio, vel incitatione ad malum , sed de simplici con¬ sensu. Igitur ad primum dico : nihii nos posse certi colligere in hac parte ex Graeco fonte, nam varia est lectio in Gracis. Aliter enim legit Origenes quam Chrysostomus, ut patet ex eorum Comment., et QEcumenius anno¬ tat, aliquos legisse ut nos nunc legimus. Ti- telmanus quoque collat. I. in epist. ad Rom. asserit, se legisse in vetusto codice Graeco manuscripto, illa verba oO cruv?(x«v, id est, non intellexerunt. Ad secundum opponimus auctores aucto¬ ribus : nam legunt ut nos habemus et expo¬ nunt, Cyprianus lib. I. epist 4. Ambrosius, Sedulius, Ilayrno, Ansehnus, et alii Latini in hunc locum, Hesychius lib. VI. in Levit, ex¬ ponens cap. 20. et Symmachus Papa in Apo¬ loget. contra Anastasium Imperat. Ad tertium dico : id quod habetur in Grae¬ co potius videri falsum : nam quod dicitur in Latino Cum cognovissent justitiam Dei , non pugnat cum eo, quod sequitur non intellexe¬ runt. Nam cum dicit cum cognovissent , loqui¬ tur de theoretica cognitione : cum dicit non intellexerunt , loquitur de practica. Itaque sensus est, cum cognovissent veritatem , tamen propter affectus pravos exccecati , non potuerunt serio sibi persuadere sic esse agenclum. Posset etiam dici, illud non intellexerunt non referri ad illud quia qui talia agant etc. sed ad illud sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus. Est enim sensus, isti Philosophi ethnici cum cognovissent unum esse Deum, et proinde malum esse colere Jovem et Martem , et ccetera falsa numina , non intellexerunt , non solum hoc esse malum , quod turbae faciebant, sed etiam esse malum consen¬ tire talibus , ac non eos admonere , et increpare , quod ipsi Philosophi faciebant. Quintus locus est Rom. IV. ubi dicitur Abraham non esse justificatum ex operi¬ bus (1). Conqueritur enim Kemnitius nos ad¬ didisse Legis, ut possemus exponere locum illum de operibus legis illius, quae caeremo¬ nias praescribat. Respondeo : meram calum¬ niam esse. Nam codices Latini, vel omnes, vel fere omnes non habent illud Legis. Ne¬ que nos intelligimus locum illum de operi¬ bus Legis veteris, sed de operibus factis vi¬ ribus propriis. Adde, quod Ambrosius et in textu habet Legis , et in Comment, exponit de Lege veteri. Non igitur Papistae locum istum, ut Kemnitius mentitur, corruperunt. Sed de hoc postea. Sextus est Roman. XI. ubi legimus : Si gratia jam non ex operibus , alio quin gratia jam non est gratia (2). Calumniatur Kemni¬ tius nos detraxisse integram sententiam, ni¬ mirum : Si autem ex operibus , non amplius est gratia , alioqui opus jam non est opus. Respondeo : esse quidem in Graecis codi¬ cibus illam sententiam, et a Theophylacto explicari, tamen a nullis aliis agnosci : nam nec Origenes, nec Chrysostomus, nec Am¬ brosius, nec ulli alii explanatores hujus loci ejus meminerunt : sed nec Augustinus qui frequentissime hunc locum tractat, et prae¬ cipue lib. II. De bono persever. cap. 18. Imo et Erasmus X in Annotat, ad hunc lo¬ cum rejicit hanc additionem tanquam su¬ perfluam. Quod certe satis esse deberet Kemnitio, qui in eadem pagina remittit nos ad Erasmum, ut ab eo discamus errata vul¬ gatae editionis. Septimus locus est. Ephes.V. Sacramentum hoc magnumest (3). Kemnitius enim docet male versum esse Sacramentum , cum sit Graece, guor -hpio-j, atque ait, id a nobis factum esse, ut possemus inde probare Matrimonium esse Sacramentum. Respondeo : idem esse Mys¬ terium Graecis, et Latinis Sacramentum ; Graeci enim cum de Sacramentis agunt, sem- per gviyrepLot. vocant. Et hunc locum Apostoli explicantes sancti Patres, Ambrosius, Hie¬ ronymus, et alii Latini, semper utuntur hac voce. Octavus locus est Ephes. VI. Accipite ar¬ maturam Dei ut possitis resistere in die malo , et omnibus perfecti stare (4). Kemnitius vult, hunc locum esse depravatum, quia in Greco est omnibus perfectis xntxvrtx. x«T£/jya<7ag£vo£, et sic exponunt Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Ghry- sostomus, et alii. Respondeo : sensum esse eumdem, sed oportere illud perfecti conjun¬ gere cum voce omnibus non cum verbo stare. Siquidem sensus Apostoli est, ut armemur ex omni parte spiritualibus armis , ut sic ar¬ mati possimus in acie contra Diabolum , non cadere , sed stare. Dicit igitur, accipite arma¬ turam Dei , Graece 7ravo7r),t«v, id est omnia ar¬ ma , galeam, scutum, gladium, loricam etc. ut in omnibus perfecti , id est, ab omni parte muniti et armati , id est, prcediti et perfecti om¬ nibus virtutibus , positis stare contra Diabolum, sive, et est idem, ut omnibus perfectis , id est, ' (1) Rom. IV, 1. et seq. — (2) Ib. XI, 6. — (3) Eph. V, 32. — (4) Eph. VI, 11. CAPUT XY. 153 cum omnia arma comparaveritis , et indueritis, tunc possitis stare, etc. Nonus est Heb. IX. Ad multorum exhau¬ rienda peccata (1). Conqueritur Kemnitius, male esse reddita Graeca verba, nam avaveyxetv non est exhaurire , sed auferre. Respondeo : et hoc loco eumdem sensum esse. Praeterea videtur Interpres propriissime vertisse : nam trjxcpipu est proprie sursum ferre , efferre , edu - cere : sicut ergo cum aqua, vel sordes edu¬ cuntur ex aliqua sentina, dicuntur sordes ex¬ hauriri, ita etiam peccata, quae Christus extulit, et eduxit ex profundo pectoris nos¬ tri, recte dicuntur ab illo esse exhausta. Decimus estHebr. XIII. Talibus hostiis pro¬ meretur Deus (2). Hic vult Kemnitius esse positum nomen meriti, quod in Graeco non habetur. Respondeo : verbum Graecum svKpztTTsiTxi 6 0eo?, significare proprie, delecta¬ tur Deus , sive, utErasmus vertit, placet Deo. Latine autem recte dici bene mereri de ali¬ quo eum qui facit rem illi gratam, nemo est qui nesciat. Sic ergo dixit noster Interpres, talibus hostiis promeretur Deus , id est, his hostiis res grata fit Deo , et bene meretur de Deo , qui illas offert.. Accepit enim Interpres mereri in passiva significatione. Undecimus est Jacobi Y. Et alleviabit eum Dominus. Kemnitius dicit, non bene redditum verbum Graecum Iqipzi , et studiose locum esse depravatum, ut ex eo confirmaremus effectus Sacramenti Extremae unctionis, cum nihil tale sonet verbum Graecum. Respondeo : nescire Kemnitium quid lo¬ quatur : nam verbum Graecum melius osten¬ dit effectus Extremae unctionis, quos Catho¬ lici in eo Sacramento agnoscuut, quam ver¬ bum latinum. Catholici enim tres effectus attribuunt huic Sacramento. Unum praeci¬ puum quidem, sed communem aliis Sacra¬ mentis, ut hominem in illo articulo mortis, mcestitia et doloribus oppressum, torpen¬ tem erigat, et exhilaret. Tertium ut interdum etiam corporaliter sanet. Hos tres effectus , incipiendo a minus praecipuis, diserte ponit Jacobus his verbis : Infirmatur quis in vobis , inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae , et orent super eum , ungentes eum oleo in nomine Domini , et oratio Fidei salvabit infirmum, et alleviabit eum Dominus , etc. si in peccatis sit , remittentur ei. (3). Effectum igitur hujus Sacramenti secundum, ut ho¬ minem in articulo mortis mcestitia, dolori¬ bus, tentationibus depressum, ac torpentem exhilaret, erigat, excitet, propriissime ex¬ primit verbum zyztpa nimirum excito, erigo etc. Duodecimus est I. Joannis V. Hcec scribo vobis , ut sciatis, quoniamvitamhabetis aeternam, qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei. (4). Kemni¬ tius dicit, sententiam hanc esse mutilatam, nam in Graeco sic habetur : « Haec scribo vobis qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei, ut sciatis quoniam vitam aeternam habetis, et ut credatis in nomine Filii Dei. » Respondeo: non esse latinum codicem mutilum, sed Graecum redundantem, ut etiam suspicatur Erasmus in hunc locum, cujus tamen judi¬ cio plurimum tribuere solet Kemnitius. Nam cum dictum sit Hcec scribo vobis qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei ; quorsum additur ut cre¬ datis in nomine Filii Dei ? quid enim erat opus monere ut facerent, quod jam fecerant ? Adde quod etiam S. Beda legit, ut nos ha¬ bemus.