[89]

Bede in the Renaissance: The Case

o f
More and Erasmus*
by Istvn Bejczy
It is
generally agreed
that Renaissance humanists did not look back to the
IMiddle
Ages
with much affection. The Middle
Ages
were rather a
period
which
they
tried to overcome. Most humanists
objected
to medieval intellec-
tual life because of its lack of
literary
refinement,
its
quarrelsome
character,
and its
neglect
of the sources of Christendom. It is to the humanists that we
owe not
only
the
concept
of the Middle
Ages,
but also the characterization
of the medieval
period
as the Dark
Ages.
1
The term "Dark
Ages"
is still in use
today
even
among professional
histo-
rians as a name for the
early
medieval
periodz-a period
which is dark in the
sense that we know
relatively
little about it. For the
humanists, however,
the
darkest centuries of the Middle
Ages
were not the earlier but the later
ones,
especially
from the twelfth
century
onward,
when universities were founded
in
Europe
and when Scholasticism became the standard of intellectual dis-
course. The earlier
part
of the Middle
Ages
had had a less disastrous effect on
intellectual
life,
so the humanists
assumed,
and a small number of
early
me-
dieval authors were even considered worth serious
study.
St. Bede the Venerable
(673/4-735)
was one of the
happy
few. Bede's
works,
which were
widely
diffused
during
the Middle
Ages
in
England
as well
as on the
Continent,
remained influential in
sixteenth-century Europe.
Al-
though
the relative esteem for Bede
by
such different men as Flavio Biondo
and
Philipp
Melanchthon has been
noticed,
3 there is no
study
on the
reception
of Bede in the Renaissance. In this article I want to make a first
beginning by
90
investigating
the
appraisal
of Bede
by
Thomas More and Desiderius Erasmus.
I
hope
to be able to show that both humanists looked
quite favorably upon
Bede,
but that the differences between the attitudes of both men are
perhaps
even more
interesting.4
4
Bede,
whom Dante
placed
in Paradise
(Paradiso 9.131),
found a wide au-
dience
during
the Middle
Ages.
From
every century
until the
sixteenth,
a con-
siderable number of Bede
manuscripts
has
survived,
with a clear
peak
in the
twelfth
century.
The Ecclesiastical
History of
the
English People, nowadays by
far Bede's best-known
work,
was
copied
almost
exclusively by
British scribes.
Bede's biblical
commentaries,
on the other
hand,
are
mainly
extant in French
and German
manuscripts.
5 these commentaries were also
excerpted
on a
large
scale in the two most
important
medieval
compilations
of biblical
scholarship,
the Glossa ordinaria of the twelfth
century,
and the Catena aurea
composed by
Thomas
Aquinas
in the thirteenth
century.
It is therefore safe to state that
Bede as an
exegete
had a universal
reputation,
whereas his fame as a historian
was limited to his own
country.6
6
Neither More nor Erasmus had a
particular
interest in the
early history
of
Britain,
so it should not
surprise
us that in the works of neither of them do
we find
any explicit
reference to Bede's Ecclesiastical
History.
With More and
Erasmus,
Bede
appears
almost
exclusively
as a biblical scholar. 7 In the case of
More,
with whom we will start our
investigation, explicit
mentions of Bede
91
are few.8
Moreover,
More does not even
appear
to have been
directly
familiar
with Bede's works. His
quotations
can all be traced to the Glossa ordinaria or
the Catena
aurea,
if their source can be traced at all. For on the two occasions
when More cites Bede in full in his
works,
the reference is
spurious.
The first
example
is from The Answer to a Poisoned Book
(1533).
More
appeals
to Bede
as an arbiter in his conflict on the Eucharist with an
anonymous English
Zwinglian (whom
scholars now
presume
to be
George Joye9).
Bede is intro-
duced as "a better than we both" and as
"ye holy cunnyng
doctour saint
Bede,
whose wordes I trust
euery wyse
man
wyll byleue
a
lyttel
better than
eyther
maister Maskers or
my. Thereupon
More cites a
passage
from Bede in
English
translation,
in order to
slay
his
opponent
and to
prove
his own
right
Un-
fortunately
for
More,
the
passage
cited can be found in the Catena
aurea,
but
not in Bede's
genuine writings.
The same
thing happens
in A Treatise
upon
the
Passion,
written one
year
later
(1534). Again
Bede is
quoted by
More with
regard
to the
Eucharist,
this time in Latin as well as in
English,
from a work
called De misteriis.
Bede, however,
did not write a work called De misteriis. In
reality
the
passage
in
question
stems from
Pope
Innocent 111. 11
Both
spurious
Bede
quotations prove, however,
that More in his later
years
looked
upon
Bede as a
champion
of
orthodoxy,
whose statements had
enough
authority
to settle
disputes
on essential tenets of the Christian faith. More's
other mentions of Bede confirm this view. Bede is
invariably
referred to as a
man of
distinguished learning
and as a
saint,
whose
opinions
command the
utmost
respects. 12
To a certain
extent,
More's deferential treatment of Bede
92
may
have been elicited
by
the Reformation. In order to condemn Protestant-
ism as a
dangerous
new
phenomenon,
Catholics like More affirmed that
they
were
continuing
an
uninterrupted religious
tradition that had started in the
first
days
of Christendom. To
More,
Bede was an
indispensable
link in this tra-
dition. In The
Supplication of
Souls
( 1529)
More included Bede
among
the
Greek and Latin saints
who, through
all
centuries,
had stressed the need to
pray
for the souls in
Purgatory; consequently,
the
English
Lutherans who
ques-
tioned
Purgatory's
existence stood alone.'3
Likewise,
in The
Confutation of
Tyndale's
Answer
(1532/3)
More named
"saynt
Bede" as one of the saints "of
euery age synnys
the
apostles days
/ which were all lefte
by god
for seed in the
knowen
catholyke chyrch"
who
upheld
the orthodox faith and whose works
spoke against
Martin Luther and William
Tyndale. 14 Finally,
in The Answer
to a Poisoned Book More
argued
that his views were sustained
by
a tradition
of 1500
years, consisting
not
only
of common believers but also of Greek and
Latin
saints,
of whom Bede was one. 15
The rise of
Protestantism, however,
cannot be the
only
reason for More's
veneration of Bede. The first time More mentioned Bede in his
writings
was
in
1515,
in his letter to the
University
of Oxford. "All the ancient doctors of
the Latin
church,"
More
stated,
"Jerome, Augustine,
Bede,
and
many
others
besides,
made a strenuous effort to learn the Greek
language." 16
Without hes-
itation Bede is mentioned in one breath with the
greatest
authorities of the
patristic age,
as
England's
own church father so to
speak, although
More did
not
explicitly
claim Bede as a national hero. After the
spread
of the Refor-
mation,
More referred all the more
eagerly
to Bede as a church
father,
espe-
cially
in The Answer to a Poisoned Book. In
it,
More affirmed four times that
his views were sustained
by
the
fathers, among
whom he mentioned Bede in
every instance,
while other Latin authors of the Middle
Ages
are absent from
his list. 17
Referring
to these
authors,
More
argued
that if "suche
good godly
93
men,
& such
holy
doctours &
sayntes
were
papystes,"
then the name of
papist
was
nothing
to be ashamed of. 18 Bede's
authority
as
England's
church
father,
then,
offered More a welcome additional
argument
in his
polemics
with En-
glish
Protestants,
but we should bear in mind that More
already recognized
Bede's
patristic authority
before the world had heard of Luther. In
fact,
More
was
continuing
a tradition from the Middle
Ages:
Bede's
liturgical
commem-
oration in medieval
England suggests
that from the
early days
he was
regarded
as a father
by
his
countrymen. 19
Also outside
England
Bede's
authority
was
occasionally
invoked in Refor-
mation
controversies, by
Catholics and Protestants alike. Whereas
arguments
from the Scholastic tradition were of little account with the
Reformers,
both
parties
tried to
fortify
their
positions by claiming
that the church
fathers,
with
whom
they
sometimes ranked
Bede,
stood on their sidle. 20 A
good
illustration
is offered
by
the
Leipzig disputation
which set
Johannes
Eck
against
Luther
and Karlstadt
(1519).
As Eck
indicated,
he
deliberately
refrained from
quoting
against
Luther authors who had lived
during
the last three hundred
years,
as
he knew that his
opponent
held these authors in
contempt.
Instead,
Eck
ap-
pealed
to the
authority
of the
fathers,
with Bede
appearing
as his most recent
examples. 2
In his
reply
Luther
expressly recognized
Bede's
patristic authority,
but maintained that the
English
monk
actually supported
his own case.22
94
Karlstadt likewise
acknowledged
Bede as a church
father, including
him as
the
only
author now considered medieval
among
the
patristic
authors to whose
authority
he was
willing
to submit. z3
If we turn to the
reception
of Bede
by Erasmus,
we can see some
parallels
with More but also some
important
differences. Erasmus was more reluctant
to
accept
Bede as a first-rate author. Bede
only gradually gained
Erasmus' re-
spect,
without ever
becoming
a favorite.
Nevertheless,
Erasmus used his works
in a most
extensive
way, especially
in the
1520s,
although by
no means un-
critically.
As in the case of
More,
Erasmus' references to Bede are few in his
early
writ-
ings.
Some
telling examples
can be found in Antibarbari. In this work Erasmus
did not rank Bede with the church
fathers,
but
gave qualified praise
to him
as a
representative
of the centuries that followed the
patristic period,
when
learning
was
relegated
to the
monks,
who
initially managed
their business not
too
badly.
In the
manuscript
version of
Antibarbari, dating
from
1500/01,
Er-
asmus described Bede's
style
as "even-toned and
dull"; only
in the 1520 edition
he added: "but
learned,
considering
his
century.
"24
Moreover,
he called Bede
in 1500 as well as in 1520
"upright
in his life and no mean
teacher;
and he
was so far from
despising
the
disciplines
of the schools that he was
willing
to
write about rules of
grammar
and
prosody.
"25
Bede's
merits, then,
were
only
relative,
and
prior
to 1516 Erasmus did not take much interest in his work.26
The
year 1516, however, brought
the first editions of Erasmus' New Tes-
tament and of the
Jerome
edition which he had
prepared
with the Amerbach
brothers. For both editorial
projects
Bede had served as a source to Erasmus.
With
regard
to the
Jerome
edition Erasmus even stated that he listed Bede
among
the
truly learned,
and that his
writings
had
helped
him to solve some
problems
of
interpretation. 27
This is not to
say
that Erasmus considered Bede
95
the
equal
of
Jerome
or of other church fathers.
Although
in later
writings
Er-
asmus
incidentally put
Bede on a
par
with authors from the
patristic age, 28
there can be little doubt that the
English monk,
in Erasmus'
eyes,
remained
first of all an
early
medieval author with relative merits and relative
defects,
a man "not
completely
unlearned, 1129
"not to be
despised,"3
"who lacked nei-
ther
learning
nor
industry by
the standards of his time. "31 What Erasmus
really
thought
of Bede and of some other authors
comparable
to
him,
he
clearly
ex-
pressed
in his 1533 edition of what he
thought
to be the Psalm commentaries
of
Haymo
of Halberstadt
(in reality composed by
an
anonymous
author of
the twelfth
century32).
There had been an
age,
Erasmus
stated,
when learned
monks made efforts to
produce
summaries of ancient
knowledge.
The
writings
of the
fathers,
which were often too subtle for the learned and too tedious for
the
people,
were condensed
by
those monks in brief tracts that were
easy
to
understand. The best
examples
of such monks had been
Bede, Haymo,
Anselm
of
Canterbury,
and Claudius of
Turin,
all
living
between the end of the sev-
enth and the
beginning
of the twelfth centuries. The work of these monks
had been useful to the
church, especially
if one took into account in what un-
cultivated times and
regions they
had been
living.
The
brevity
and
clarity
of
their work contrasted
favorably
with the Scholastic subtleties of the
religious
of Erasmus' own
day.33
From this
view,
sustained in some other
writings
as
well, 34
it is clear that
Erasmus did not share the
high opinion
of Bede voiced
by
Thomas More. Bede
was to Erasmus an author of the
early
Middle
Ages,
who had fewer
merits
than
the fathers before
him,
but fewer defects than the Scholastics after him. In
96
addition,
Erasmus denied that Bede or other
early
medieval authors had made
any original
contributions to
scholarship. They
had
merely
summarized what
the fathers had
already expressed. 35
In the case of
Bede,
this
judgment
is cer-
tainly unjustified,
also in the field of biblical studies: as Erasmus
knew,
Bede's
commentaries on the Catholic
Epistles
had no
counterpart
in the
writings
of
the
patristic age.
Erasmus'
qualified
esteem for Bede did not
prevent
him from a
respectful
use of his
work,
a use that became
particularly
extensive in the 1520s.
Again,
the Reformation offers at least a
partial explanation.
Not that
Erasmus,
like
More,
appealed
to Bede
principally
in order to
put
the Protestants to silence.
With Erasmus we do not find more than a handful of Bede
quotations against
Luther;36
the
authority
of those he considered
genuine patristic
writers defi-
nitely
carried more
weight
with him.
However,
we can find about two dozen
quotations
from Bede in Erasmus' defenses
against
his Catholic
accusers,
side
by side,
in most
cases,
with
arguments
taken from Scholastic authorities like
Thomas
Aquinas. 37
It was thus not so much as a doctor of the church that Bede
was
employed by
Erasmus in his
controversies,
but as a
representative
of
post-
patristic leaming,
whom Erasmus could
conveniently
cite to show that he
kept
pace
with the medieval traditions of the church.
97
But Erasmus did not
only
use Bede for
polemical
ends. He also took a schol-
arly
interest in Bede's biblical commentaries on behalf of his own New Tes-
tament edition. In the first and second
editions,
of 1516 and
1519,
Erasmus'
use of Bede was still
modest,
but this
changed
in the later editions of
1522,
1527,
and
1535,
when Bede became one of the most
frequently
cited authors. 38
Bede's influence was
particularly strong
in the annotations
on the Catholic
Epistles,
doubtless because Bede's commentaries were the earliest ones that
Erasmus could consult. From the 1522 edition
on,
Erasmus went so far in his
preface
as to include Bede as the
only non-patristic figure among
the
"fully
and
universally approved"
authors
against
whose work he had checked his emen-
dations.39 Meanwhile Erasmus did not
always agree
with Bede in his annota-
tions,
but often
enough
took a different
stand, indicating
where Bede had
gone
astray.
Moreover,
he
occasionally
belittled Bede's
scholarly merits, pointing,
among
other
things,
to his obscure
expressions4
or to his deficient
(though
not
absent) knowledge
of Greek.41 On the other
hand,
he saved him from the
sarcasm with which he treated such late medieval
exegetes
as Nicholas of
Lyra
and
Hugh
of St. Cher.
Erasmus'
increasing
use of Bede in his New Testament was to a lesser extent
the result of his conflicts with Catholic critics. Some
passages
from
polemical
works in which Bede was mentioned were inserted
by
Erasmus in his anno-
tations to later editions of the New Testament.42 Some other mentions of
Bede in the annotations to the New Testament could be seen as
anticipations
98
of future criticism
by
Catholic assailants.43 But this would
only
hold true for
the instances in which Erasmus
agreed
with Bede. In the
majority
of cases we
should not
suppose
that Erasmus
quoted
Bede for
strategic
reasons,
but because
Bede's
commentary
was
interesting enough
for him to
mention,
even if he
could not
always agree
with it.44
Why, then,
do we observe such a
significant
increase in Erasmus' use of Bede
during
the 1520s? I think that we can adduce two causes.
First,
a
very practical
one. In
1521,
Bede's commentaries to the New Testament were
published
in
a handsome edition
by
the Paris
printers Josse
Bade and
Jean
Petit.45 Before
then,
Erasmus knew Bede
only
from the Glossa
ordinaria,
the Catena aurea and
one or two
manuscripts. 46
From 1521
on,
all works of Bede relevant to Erasmus'
biblical
scholarship
stood
directly
at his
disposal (although many
Bede
quo-
tations added for the first time in the 1522 edition of the New Testament were
still drawn from the Glossa
ordinaria). Erasmus, then,
knew Bede's works in-
comparably
better than More
did;
if Erasmus took a more critical stand to
Bede,
his
judgment
was much better founded.
A second cause seems to be that
during
the 1520s Erasmus came to recon-
sider his indebtedness to medieval
scholarship
in
general.
His choice
against
Protestantism
implied
a choice in favor of the Catholic
tradition, including
the Middle
Agues. 47
As a
result,
Erasmus' treatment of medieval authors became
more intensive
and more
circumspect, especially
in later editions of his New
99
Testament. His
growing
concern with Bede's biblical commentaries fits in this
development.
As for Erasmus'
becoming
more
circumspect,
we
may point
to
the fact that in the New Testament editions from 1522 on he introduced a
standard
explanation
for certain failures of Bede and of other medieval exe-
getes, supposing
that not the
exegetes
themselves but their
copiers
were re-
sponsible
for the failures in
question.48
In conclusion we can
say
that More's and Erasmus'
appreciation
of Bede
diverge
on
many points, despite
some
apparent
similarities. For
More,
Bede
stood
beyond
criticism as a
champion
of
orthodoxy
and as
England's
own
church father. More's veneration of Bede as a
patristic authority
seems to con-
tinue an
English
tradition. Before but
especially
after the Reformation More
occasionally
referred to Bede as an arbiter
(with
or without other church fa-
thers)
in
polemical writings against English opponents.
As the
principal light
of British ecclesiastical
history,
Bede offered a
particularly
welcome counter-
poise
to the Lutheran
challenge. Nevertheless,
More
barely
knew Bede's work.
He
mostly,
if not
always, quoted
him at second
hand;
some crucial citations
are even
spurious.
It seems safe to state that he made a more felicitous use of
Bede's
reputation
than of his
scholarship.
'
For
Erasmus, by
contrast,
Bede was an
early
medieval author of modest mer-
its. As
learning
had been
past
its
prime
in Bede's
age,
his work had to be used
with
caution, although
it was not
entirely
without
value, especially
if com-
pared
to the
products
of Scholasticism. Bede was one of the most
deserving
early
medieval scholars who strove to save
patristic learning
from
oblivion,
al-
though
he was
certainly
no church father himself. Erasmus' reserved esteem
for Bede
might
well be
typical
of humanism on the Continent.
However,
Er-
asmus
gradually
became one of the most
diligent
students of Bede
during
the
Renaissance,
especially
in the 1520s. In
comparison
to
More,
his use of Bede
was much more
apposite
from a
scholarly point
of
view,
but much more critical
as well. He knew Bede's work not
only
from
secondary
sources but also
directly,
from
manuscripts
and
(after 1521)
from his
printed
Bible commentaries. He
displayed
a keen
scholarly
interest in Bede's
writings, notably
on behalf of his
biblical studies. In a
polemical
context he used Bede
against
Catholic rather
100
than Protestant
adversaries,
not as a
patristic authority
but as a
representative
of the medieval tradition. It seems evident that Erasmus was a better student
and a fairer
judge
of Bede than
More-except perhaps
if one measures
by
standards of
heavenly justice:
for
More,
Bede was as much a saint as a
scholar;
for
Erasmus,
only
the scholar existed.49
Katholieke Universiteit
Nijmegen,
The Netherlands
Appendix
Listed are
explicit
Bede
quotations
in Erasmus' Annotationes in Novum Tes-
tamentum,
indexed
according
to Erasmus' Annotations on the New
Testament,
ed. Anne Reeve and M. A.
Screech,
3 vols.
(London: Duckworth,
Leiden:
Brill, 1986-1993) ( = R).
The
year numbers
refer to the edition
(1516, 1519,
1522, 1527,
or
1535)
when the reference to Bede was first inserted.
Matthew
R 25 on 5:3 Beati
pauperes spiritu
1527
z
Mark
R 113 on 1:2 In Esaia
propheta
1535
R 133 on 8:31 Post tres dies 1519
R 135 on 8:38
Qui
enim me
confessus
1535
R
142
on 14:3 Nardi
spicati
1527
R 148 on 16:14
Qui
viderant eum resurrexisse 1535
Luke
R 150 on 1:2
Qui
ab initio
ipsi
viderunt 1522
R 153 on 1:9 Sorte exiit 1527
R 158 on 1:49
Et sanctum nomen eius 1527
R 168 on 2:38
Redemptionem
Israel 1527
R 170 on 3:1 Procurante Pontio 1535 5
101
R 171 on 3:13
Quam quod
constitutum est vobis
faciatis
1527
R 177 on 6:1 In sabbato
secundoprimo
1527
R 179 on 6:23 Secundum haec enim
faciebant prophetis patres
eorum 1527
R 187 on 10:1 Et alios
septuaginta
duos 1527
R 191 on 11:41
Quod superest
1535
R 200 on 16:21 Et nemo illi dabat 1535
R 201 on 16:22 Et
sepultus
est in
inferno
1527
R 208 on 21:38 Et omnis
populus
manicabat 1527
R 209 on 22:31 Ait autem dominus Simoni 1527
R 209 on 22:36 Sed nunc
qui
habet sacculum 1527
John
R 219 on 1:1 Erat verbum 1522
Acts
R 273 on 1 :2
Praecipiens apostolis per spiritum
sanctum
1527
R 276-7 on 1:20 Fiat commemoratio 1527
R 277 on 1:23
Qui cognominatus
est Iustus 1527
R 276 on
1:14
Cum
fratribus
eius 1527
R 280 on 2:11 Iudaei
quoque
1527
R 282 on 2:24 Solutis doloribus 1527
R 291 on 7:6 Annis
quadringentis
1527
R 302 on 13:6 Barieu 1522
R
304
on 14:6 Et universam in circuitu
regionem
1522
R 306 on 15:24
Quibus
non mandavimus 1527
R 309 on 17:6 Et
quosdam fratres
1522
R 311 on 17:26
Fecitque
ex uno omne hominum
genus
1527
R 313 on
17:34 In
quibus
est
Dionysius
1527
R 314
on 18:27 Contulit multum his
qui
crediderunt 1527
R 322 on 22:28 Multa summa 1522
R 323 on 23:3 Percutiat te
deus,
paries
1522
R 325 on
24:6-7
Quem
et
apprehensum
... ad te venire 1522
R 326 on
24:14
Secundum sectam
quam
dicunt haeresim 1522
R 328 on 25:23 Cum multa ambitione 1522
R 328 on 26:2 Aestimo me beatum 1527
R 330 on 27:7 Gnidum 1519
R 332 on 27:30 Commisissent
scapham
1535
R 332 on 27:40 Levantes artemonem 1522
R 333 on 28:11 Cui erat
insigne
castrorum 1522
102
Romans
R 413 on 12:11 Domino servientes 1522
I Corinthians
R 442 on 2:7 In
mysterio quae
abscondita 1519
R
487 on 10:6 In
figura facta
sunt nostri 1519
R
492
on
11:42
Quod pro
vobis tradetur 1527
R 521 on 16:8
Usque
ad
pentecosten
1522
II
Timothy
R 687 on 2:15 Recte tractantem 1522
James
R 738 on 1:18 Voluntarie enim etc. 1522
R 740 on 2:13
Superexaltat
autem misericordia iu. 1522
R
740
on 3:3 Si autem
frenos
1522
R
741
on 3:5 Et
magna
exultat 1522
R
741 on 3:5 Ecce
quantus ignis
1522 .
R 741 on 3:15 Desursum descendens 1527
R 741 on 3:15 Animalis diabolica 1522
R
742
on
3:17 Bonis consentiens 1527
R
742
on
4:2
Occiditis et
zelatis 1527
R 742 on 4:4 Inimica est deo 1527
R
742
on
4:5 Ad invidiam
spiritus concupiscit
1522
R
743 on 5:6 Non restitit 1522
R
744 on 5:13 Orat
aequo
animo et
psallat
1522
R
744 on 5:16 Peccata vestra 1522
R 744 on 5:20 Et
operit
1522
1 Peter
R
745
on 1:1 Advenis
dispersionis ponti
etc. 1522
R
745
on 1 :2 Secundum
praescientiam
1522
R
745
on 1:7 In revelatione Iesu Christi 1522
R
746
on 1:12 In
quem
desiderant 1522
R
747
on 1:17 Et si
patrem
vocatis 1522
R
747
on 2:2 Rationabiles sine dolo lac 1522
R
748
on 2:5 Domus
spirituales
1522
R
748 on 2:7 Vobis
igitur
credentibus honor 1522
R
749 on 2:8 In
quo
1522
J
103
R 750 on 2:18 Sed etiam discolis 1522
R 750 on 2:25 Et
episcopum
animarum 1522 .
R 751 on 3:8 In
fide
autem 1522
R 752 on 3:18
Mortificatus quidem
came 1522
R 752 on 3:19 In carcere erant
spiritu
1522
R 754 on 4:12 Nolite
peregrinari
1522
R 754 on
4:15
Nemo autem vestrum
pati
1522
R 754 on
4:18
Et si iustus
quidem
vix salvabitur 1522
R 756 on 5:13 In
Babylone
collecta 1522
R 757 on 5:14 Gratia vobis omnibus 1522
II Peter
R 757 on 1:2 Et
pax impleatur
1522
R 757 on 1:3
Quomodo
omnia etc. 1522
R 758 on 1:3
Propria gloria
et virtute 1527
R 758 on 1:5 In
fide
vestra virtutem 1527
R 758 on 1:7 Amorem
fraternitatis
1522
R 758 on 1:12
Propter quod incipiam
1522
R 759 on 1:16 Non enim indoctas
fabulas
1522
R 760 on 2:3 Non cessat 1522
R 760 on
2:4
Si enim deus
angelis peccantibus
non
pepercit
1522
R 760 on 2:4 Sed rudentibus 1522
R 760 on 2:8
Aspectu
enim et auditu
1527
R 761 on 2:13 Diei delicias 1522
R 762 on 3:1
In quibus
1527
R 763 on 3:5 Coeli erant
prius
1527
.
I
John
R
764 on 1:4 Ut
gaudeatis
1527 .
R 768 on
4:13
Quoniam ipse prior
1522
R 768-9 on 5:7-8 Tres sunt
qui
testimonium dant in coelo 1522
R 771 on 5:16 Petat et dabitur ei vita
peccanti
non ad mortem 1527
R 771-2 on 5:16 Non
pro
illo 1527 .