should be yielded to your counsels, to your diligence and industry. Are we to fear that in any part you might transgress the most narrow rule of equity? That you might do something unworthy of yourself, your ancestors, and your royal lineage, or alien to your own character? Or that you might deviate from the most honorable ways of life? Whence, then, this fear we have of you, or what is it that we ought not to expect from you, who have surpassed not only the praises and splendor of the ancients of a former age, but also the intellects and strengths of those who praise them? Wherefore, leaving these things—which I myself would vainly attempt to speak of, and which you would receive with unwilling or rather stopped ears—I pray to God, the best and greatest, that He may keep you safe for us, nay rather, for our country and for our common studies, for a very long time. Given at Louvain, in the theological college, in the year of the Virgin’s delivery 1545, on the day before the Kalends of April.
TO THE CANDID READER
You must be cautioned, candid Reader, at the beginning of this work, regarding the same order which we observed in the previous volume concerning the notation of the numbers of the chapters, both according to the Greeks—which this author followed here—and according to the Latins, which we always follow whenever we cite anything or note anything else, since we make no mention of the Greek chapters. Therefore, the number placed at the very beginning of each page face is that of the Latins: the one that is written above the verses of the page in capital letters is that of the Greeks. Again, where some passage of the Scriptures has been cited in the context or alluded to in any way, and yet the Latin chapter number has not been added in the opposite margin, let recourse be had to the same passage that was cited a little earlier; for we do not wish to repeat the same chapter of the same volume in vain. Furthermore, when the consecutive sayings of various chapters of the same volume are cited, having placed the name of the volume only once, we have added the numbers of the chapters together in the order in which they are cited. Furthermore, I beg that the same indulgence be granted to me here as I requested in the case of Euthymius, because I have not avoided certain words from which some in this more polished age of ours recoil—namely, *Savior*, *to save*, *compassion*, *dispensation*, and the like—lest, if we had substituted more precise terms which were not so familiar to students of the Holy Scriptures, we might seem to be delaying the reader in any way. To these points, since the Greek exemplar listed the arguments of the chapters at the beginning of each book or epistle, we have preferred to place each before its respective chapter, so that you would not have to keep returning to the beginning of the book in order to recognize the argument of a chapter.
Wherefore, we have also at times been forced to divide parts of the text differently than they were in the Greek exemplar, since there the text was continuous and only the number of the new chapter was noted in the margin. Sometimes also, so that the text might not seem too mutilated or too minutely cut, we have joined more periods that were divided in the Greek exemplar, especially in the Epistle to the Romans and in the Apocalypse, which books differed most in this from the others: where, however, we have joined such divided sentences, we have again repaired or repeated them, either in whole or in part, for the explanation of each. Sometimes, indeed, we have made this union because the parts of such various periods were being explained out of their order, a thing so frequent that we have not been able to provide a remedy for this evil everywhere: and therefore we admonish you here that if you ever require an explanation of a sentence, you should also read the explanation of the preceding clause. For more often, when an author—and especially Photius—is cited, he does not declare only that part of the text which is proposed, but also those things which follow. Also, do not think that it was done rashly by us that we have occasionally translated the text of Paul, Luke, or John in a sufficiently new way: for we were forced to do this so that we might have regard for the scholia; otherwise, if we had followed the other interpreters, the scholia in such places would have served no purpose.
I would also like to warn you of this: as often as any passage from the Old Testament is cited in these, it is referred to according to the Septuagint version, inasmuch as they wrote in Greek, and these Greek collectors were only that: who also not rarely cite the sense more than the words: or, as seems more likely to me, they cite from memory, which, as it is fallible, is wont to deceive even the most learned at times. Finally, also note how much these commentaries serve our times, which in very many places indicate in brief the words of Paul that withstand various heresies and transfix them. Accept, therefore, candid reader, and enjoy under happy auspices the prize which we have first brought from the libraries of the Greeks for your use: although a part of this—to confess the truth—namely, that on the Epistle to the Romans, had been snatched away some years ago, interpreted by Johannes Lonicer, but it was very mutilated, as one that did not have even a third part of those things which we now give to you on that Epistle: and it was, I know not by whose fault, rather unhappily rendered into Latin: for I would not wish to accuse the interpreter rashly: although he himself in his dedicatory Epistle shows well enough how little he values what he translates, and that he would have preferred to be engaged in another subject. "I would have been engaged," he says, "with greater pleasure in this, if he had remained firmly and constantly in the scope of Scripture, in faith, in the merits of Christ, in his blood and death, and even in justification;" and after a few words: "Sometimes, indeed, this good man, while he does not attain the mind of Paul, nor answer in all things to the analogy of the age, attributes more than is just to works, so that he appears to be a Greek theologian—whose commentaries, however, since they teach Christ and are written to the glory of Christ, are not to be immediately despised by us. Moreover, it should rather be a pleasure to a Christian to see and recognize by what gift the ancients preached Christ." Although, however, not a few are repeating
A things that would sooner have the effect of making those who are about to read this interpreter of divine Paul reject rather than read him: yet their calumny can in no way be approved by me. For why do we not rather obey the command of the divine Apostle, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. V, 21)?
So far Lonicerus, regarding the one he had undertaken to translate. Truly, we shall compare B some passages in the first chapters which were common to them and to us in the Greek copy, just as is clear from his very translation, so that the reader may be able to judge both regarding these and regarding other innumerable passages where you do not sufficiently agree: and we shall place the Greek first, then our translation, and thirdly the words of Lonicerus.
First, upon those words of the first chapter, *To the obedience of faith*, where the interpreter says: Καὶ γὰρ οὐ δεῖ πολυπραγμονεῖν γέννησιν καὶ οὐσίαν Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ μόνον ὑπακούειν, which we have rendered thus: "For one ought not to curiously scrutinize the generation and substance of God, but only to obey," but he himself has it thus: "For it is not necessary for him who wishes to know the generation and essence of the Son of God to be occupied with various things, but only to obey the word."
In the same chapter, upon that, *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made:* Greek: τὰ ἀόρατα γάρ, φησίν, οἷον ἄγγελοι καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι ἀσώματοι οὐσίαι. Ποῖα ταῦτα : Τὰ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου εἰς γένεσιν παραχθέντα, our translation: "For the invisible things, he says, such as the angels and other incorporeal substances. What are these? Those which from the creation of the world have been brought into generation." Lonicerus: "For the invisible things, he says. C Of what sort are these? Those which, from the foundation of the world, have been brought to the generation of things." And immediately afterward where the Greek has, καὶ εἰς γένεσιν παραχθέντα, our translation: "And those which have been produced into existence;" Lonicerus: "Which have been produced via generation."
At the end of the chapter, upon those words, *Not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them:* where the Greek refers to Isidore, how he read them differently and contended that the Greek codices were depraved, and finally adds: Ἐγὼ δ’ οὔτε ἠμαρτῆσθαι ἐν τούτῳ φήσας τὰ ἀποστολικὰ βιβλία, οὔτε καταδραμεῖν τῶν μὴ νενοηκότων φράσας, τοῖς ἐντευξαμένοις ἐπιτρέψω τὴν ψῆφον. Φημὶ τοίνυν, ὅτι ἐπειδὴ τοῦ πλημμελεῖν τὸ ἐπαινεῖν τοὺς πλημμελοῦντας πολλῷ ἐργαλεώτερόν ἐστι καὶ μεῖζον εἰς κολάσεως λόγον, εἰκότως εἴρηται, Οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσι τοῖς πράττουσιν, our translation: "I, however, neither asserting that the apostolic codices are depraved in this, nor wishing to contend against those who have not understood it, will leave the decision to those who have read. I say, therefore, that since to praise those who do wrong is much more D grievous and carries greater weight for condemnation than to do wrong, it is rightly said, Not only do they themselves do them, but also have pleasure in those who do them." Lonicerus: "I, however, judging that the apostolic books have not erred, nor agreeing with those who have not grasped the mind of Paul, will leave this for the readers to judge. I think, therefore, that since to commend those who are sinning while they are sinning is much more troublesome and greater than to sin, it is rightly said by this reasoning of castigation, Not only do they do them, but they also have pleasure in those who act."
And although he says in the margin that he faithfully rendered what the Greek copy had, it is sufficiently clear from his very translation that he read the Greek in the same way as we did; but, since he had understood it otherwise, he changed some things and added others.
Likewise, upon that of the seventh chapter, *For that which I do I allow not, this is, in my flesh, no good thing,* Greek: Τὸ αὐτεξούσιον θέλει δεῖξαι, καὶ ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος Κύριος τῆς ἐπ’ ἄμφω τοῦ τε ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ ῥοπῆς. Φησὶν οὖν· Οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν· οὐκ ἀποκεκληρωμένον καὶ ἀνάγκῃ τινὶ παραμένον μοι ἔχω τὸ πράττειν τὰ ἀγαθά, ὥστε καὶ πρὸς βίαν ἀφέλκειν με τῶν κακῶν· τοῦτο γὰρ οἴκησις, ἡ εἰς ἀεὶ διαμονή, καὶ οἷον ἐγκαθίδρυσις. Our translation: "He wishes to show the freedom of the will, and that man is master of the power toward both, the good and the evil. He says, therefore: No good thing dwells in me: I do not have the doing of good things granted to me by lot or remaining with me by any necessity, so that it might even draw me away by force from evils. For that is called an habitation, a perpetual staying, and a kind of resident dwelling." Lonicerus: "He wishes to show freedom, namely that man is not the master of the movement toward good and evil. He says therefore, No good thing dwells in me: it is not certain, nor does it necessarily remain with me so that I can pursue good things: on the contrary, my nature is so corrupt that it drags me by a certain force toward evil. For that is a kind of habitation, a perpetual enduring, and a kind of presence and residence." From the deduction of these, it sufficiently appears that the negative adverb *non* was not added by the printer's fault at the beginning of this clause, and also from the fact that he noted in the margin: "Against free will." But since he did not sufficiently grasp the Greek, he added *non* and further down, "on the contrary, my nature is so corrupt, because he thought it was required due to the following words ὥστε καὶ πρὸς βίαν ἀφέλκειν με τῶν κακῶν, which, having wrongly understood, he translated, 'or by a certain force drags me toward evil.'" Others might say these things are of a perverse mind rather than of ignorance: both because of those things related above from his dedicatory Epistle, and because of other things of this sort: as that he left out some things regarding those words of Paul in the second chapter, *To them who by patient continuance in well doing,* etc., where the Greek has: Οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἡ πίστις ἀρκεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργων χρεία. ὑπομονὴν δὲ εἰπὼν, γενναίως ἔχειν διδάσκει πρὸς τοὺς πειρασμούς. This is: "For not only is faith sufficient, but there is also a need for works. But having said patience, he teaches us to behave ourselves bravely against temptations." He, however, having left out the previous words about faith and works, begins his translation from the following ones, in this way: "By saying patience, he teaches that they should behave themselves bravely against temptations." And to me he will indeed easily persuade that those prior words were missing in his copy, as he possessed scarcely a third part of those which we translate from ours: but I fear he cannot persuade others of this, because in the preface he said that this good man does not follow the mind of Paul, nor does he respond in all things to the analogy of faith, to attribute more than is just to works. I, however, am rather inclined in mind to believe that these things happened to him because, occupied with other things, he was not called to ponder these more exactly: nor had he dedicated so much study to the holy Scriptures and the matter