Compiled from S. Laurentii a Brundusio Opera Omnia, Vols. I–III (Mariale; Lutheranismi Hypotyposis; Explanatio Geneseos), Patavii: Ex Officina Typographica Seminarii, 1928–1935. All Latin quotations are transcribed directly from the printed critical text; minor OCR artefacts silently corrected. English translations of Latin passages are provided throughout; Vol. III passages are already in modern English translation.
Preface: The Shape of the Corpus
Lawrence of Brindisi (1559–1619), Doctor of the Church and Apostolic Preacher, did not produce a single adversus Judaeos treatise. His anti-Jewish passages are distributed across three distinct genres — Marian sermons, anti-Lutheran polemic, and a Genesis commentary composed explicitly for the conversion of Jews — and operate in five principal registers:
- Deicide — direct attribution of Christ’s death to the Jews as a people, with explicit characterisation of their role as murderous, treacherous, and satanically instigated.
- Synagogue of Satan — the application of Apoc. 2:9 and 3:9 to the Jewish community after the Passion, presenting the Jews as having forfeited the status of the people of God and become the Synagogue of Satan at the moment of the Condemnation.
- Supersessionism — the Old Covenant as abrogated, Jewish sacrifice as rejected by God, the Church as definitively greater than the Synagogue, and the Jews as divinely reprobated and scattered as punishment.
- Children of the Devil — the systematic application of John 8:44 to the Jewish people, connecting their murderous hostility to Christ to Lucifer’s primordial rebellion.
- Philippic comparison — the Jews deployed as a standard of wickedness, blindness, or hostility against which heretics, iconoclasts, and other adversaries are measured, always to the detriment of both parties.
Thirty-six verified passages are presented below, ordered thematically within their source volume. Each entry includes the Latin text (or English, for Vol. III), a translation, the precise source citation, and an analytical note.
I. “Cognitionem Mysteriorum Ecclesiae Christi et Synagogae Satanae” — Mary’s Knowledge of the Two Assemblies
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Tertius, In Visionem S. Ioannis Evangelistae (Patavii, 1928), p. 28.
Latin
“cognitionem mysteriorum omnium Ecclesiae Christi et synagogae satanae, gloriae paradisi et poenarum inferni.”
Translation
“[She has] perfect knowledge of all the mysteries of the Church of Christ and of the Synagogue of Satan, of the glory of paradise and of the punishments of hell.”
Note
This is the first instance of synagoga satanae in the Mariale. By placing the Church and the Synagogue of Satan as the two poles of a single comprehensive knowledge, Lawrence assigns them structural symmetry: the Synagogue of Satan is not a peripheral or metaphorical concept but an institution as real and theologically significant as the Church itself. The pairing with paradise and hell suggests that membership in each assembly carries eschatological consequences.
II. “Iudaei, Gentium Errore Decepti et a Satana Alucinati” — Jews Who Sacrificed to the Queen of Heaven
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Quartus (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“legimus quod etiam Iudaei, gentium errore decepti et a satana alucinati, reginae coeli sacrificabant, eamque divinis honoribus impia religione colebant. Quod peccatum erat maximum, sicut Iob ait: Si vidi solem cum fulgeret, et lunam incedentem clare, et laetatum est, idest, deceptum, in abscondito cor meum, et osculatus sum manum meam ore meo; quae est iniquitas maxima et negatio contra Deum.”
Translation
“We read that even the Jews, deceived by the error of the gentiles and deluded by Satan, sacrificed to the queen of heaven and worshipped her with divine honours in impious religion. That sin was very great, as Job says: If I beheld the sun when it shined, and the moon walking in brightness, and my heart was secretly enticed — that is, deceived — and I kissed my hand with my mouth; which is a very great iniquity and a denial against God.”
Note
The passage occurs in a Marian sermon in which Lawrence contrasts true Catholic veneration of Mary with idolatrous counterfeits. The Jews are here positioned as the historical exemplars of precisely this idolatrous inversion — they worshipped a false queen of heaven, being simultaneously deceived by gentile error and actively deluded by Satan (a satana alucinati). The double causality is significant: Jewish sin is framed as both intellectually defective and demonically induced.
III. “Electi a Reprobis Internoscuntur…Ecclesia Christi a Synagoga Satanae” — Marian Devotion as the Mark Distinguishing the Church from the Synagogue of Satan
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Quintus (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“audeo dicere quod ex pia devotione et cultu in Virginem vel maxime Electi a reprobis internoscuntur, filii Dei a filiis diaboli, Ecclesia Christi a synagoga satanae.”
Translation
“I dare to say that from pious devotion and veneration of the Virgin especially the Elect are distinguished from the reprobate, the sons of God from the sons of the devil, the Church of Christ from the Synagogue of Satan.”
Note
Lawrence presents Marian devotion as a theological litmus test of absolute soteriological significance. The three parallel antitheses — Elect/reprobate, sons of God/sons of the devil, Church of Christ/Synagogue of Satan — form a single tripartite structure in which the last pair identifies the institutional embodiment of reprobation. Those who reject Marian devotion are thereby classified with the sons of the devil and the Synagogue of Satan, making refusal of Marian cult a marker of damnation as well as of belonging to the Jewish assembly.
IV. “Non Carnalibus Sacrificiis, ut Iudaei” — Jewish Worship as Carnal and Superseded
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Quintus (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“non carnalibus sacrificiis, ut Iudaei, nec impia superstitione falsaque religione, ut idololatrae gentes.”
Translation
“…not with carnal sacrifices, as the Jews do, nor with impious superstition and false religion, as the idolatrous gentiles.”
Note
The pairing of Jews and idolatrous gentiles as the two negative poles against which true Christian worship is defined is a classic supersessionist structure. Jewish carnality (carnalia sacrificia) and gentile superstition are treated as equivalent failures, differing in kind but not in theological consequence. The present tense (ut Iudaei) applies this judgment to contemporary Jews, not merely to the historical Israel of the Old Testament.
V. “Iudaeorum Scandalum ac Gentium Stultitia” — Christ as Scandal to the Jews
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Quintus, citing 1 Cor. 1:23 (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“formam servi indueret, et Iudaeorum scandalum ac gentium stultitia fieret.”
Translation
“He took on the form of a servant, and became a scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the gentiles.”
Note
A direct citation and application of Paul’s formula in 1 Cor. 1:23. Lawrence deploys it not merely as scriptural quotation but as a theological characterisation of the permanent Jewish response to Christ: the Incarnation itself, specifically Christ’s lowly form, is what constitutes the scandalum — the stumbling-block — for the Jews. Their rejection of Christ is thus presented as structurally inevitable given their inability to recognise divinity in humility.
VI. “Quaerebant Eum Iudaei Interficere” — The Jews Seek to Kill Christ: Mary’s Sorrows
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Sextus, De Virginis Deiparae Doloribus, Sabbato post Dominicam Passionis (Patavii, 1928), p. 66.
Latin
“concives sui, audita in synagoga praedicatione, nec ferre valentes acrem vitiorum reprehensionem, repleti ira eiecerunt eum extra civitatem, ut e monte illum praecipitio perderent? Quod fugiens mortalem Iudaeorum persecutionem ambulabat in Galileam: Quia quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere? Quod multis eum iniuriis et maledictis proscindebant, inhonor-abant, contemnebant, multas calumnias inurebant Unigenito Filio Dei, vero Messiae? Quod eum saepe lapidibus impetere voluere? Quod Iudaeorum proceres edictum mortis contra vitae Auctorem per summum scelus promulgarunt?”
Translation
“Could she not know that her fellow citizens, having heard His preaching in the Synagogue and unable to bear the sharp rebuke of their vices, filled with anger cast Him out of the city to hurl Him off a cliff? That fleeing the deadly persecution of the Jews He walked into Galilee — because the Jews were seeking to kill Him? That with many insults and curses they reviled Him, dishonoured, despised, and heaped many slanders upon the Only-Begotten Son of God, the true Messiah? That they often wanted to attack Him with stones? That the leaders of the Jews by the greatest crime proclaimed a decree of death against the Author of life?”
Note
This is the richest single passage in Sermo Sextus. Lawrence enumerates the Jewish offences against Christ in ascending order of gravity: attempted murder at Nazareth, the general homicidal pursuit (quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, citing John 7:1), slanders and blasphemies, stoning attempts, and finally the formal capital sentence of the Sanhedrin (edictum mortis). The framing device — Mary’s progressive anguish at each stage — makes the catalog emotionally coercive as well as theologically pointed. The phrase per summum scelus (through the greatest crime) is Lawrence’s own editorial characterisation of the death sentence, not merely a scriptural citation.
VII. “Captum a Iudaeis…Crucem Sibi Baiulantem” — The Passion Sequence
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Sextus, De Virginis Deiparae Doloribus (Patavii, 1928), p. 67.
Latin
“cum captum a Iudaeis novit, proditore Juda; cum, post dira flagella, damnatum intellexit ad infamem ac turpissimam mortem latronum; cum eum spinis coronatum, crucem sibi baiulantem vidit cum latronibus duci ad Calvariae locum, ut crucifigeretur; cum tandem clavis in cruce confixum pendentem in aéra vidit.”
Translation
“When she knew He had been seized by the Jews, with Judas as betrayer; when she understood He had been condemned, after dreadful scourgings, to the infamous and most vile death of robbers; when she saw Him crowned with thorns, carrying His cross, led with robbers to the place of Calvary to be crucified; when at last she saw Him hanging in the air, fastened to the cross with nails.”
Note
The Passion narrative is here structured as a series of blows landing on Mary’s consciousness. Lawrence names the Jews explicitly as the captors (captum a Iudaeis), with Judas identified as their instrument rather than as the primary agent. The condemnation, the scourging, the crowning with thorns, and the crucifixion are presented as a single unbroken sequence of Jewish action, framed through the eyes of the Virgin as witness and co-sufferer.
VIII. “Crudelissime a Iudaeis Occisum” — The Deicide: Mary Witnesses the Slaying of Her Son
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Sextus, De Virginis Deiparae Doloribus (Patavii, 1928), p. 68.
Latin
“videns unicum et dilectissimum Filium suum in oculis suis crudelissime a Iudaeis occisum.”
Translation
“…seeing her only and most beloved Son most cruelly slain before her very eyes by the Jews.”
Note
This is the most concentrated deicide statement in the Mariale — eight Latin words that assign the killing of Christ directly and without qualification to the Jews (a Iudaeis), modified by the superlative adverb crudelissime (most cruelly) and the phrase in oculis suis (before her very eyes), which implicates Mary as the eyewitness of Jewish guilt. There is no mediation through Roman authority, no dispersal of responsibility; the Jews are named as the killers of the Son of God.
IX. “Cum Ethnicis et Iudaeis Contemnunt” — Heretics Who Despise Mary Join the Jews
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Nonus, In Salutationem Angelicam (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“honorem dicatos cum ethnicis et Iudaeis contemnunt, ac impiae superstitionis, imo idololatriae Virginis cultores accusant et damnant.”
Translation
“[They] despise those devoted to her honour along with the pagans and Jews, and accuse and condemn the venerators of the Virgin of impious superstition — indeed of idolatry.”
Note
Lawrence here aligns Protestant opponents of Marian devotion with both pagans and Jews in a single dismissive bracket. The structure is polemically symmetrical: those who despise Mary’s cult join a company that includes the enemies of Christ from both before and after the Incarnation. The charge of idolatry — conventionally levelled against Catholics by Protestants — is inverted and attributed to those who reject the cult of the Virgin.
X. “Templum Dei Ecclesia Maius Synagoga” — The Church as Greater than the Synagogue
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, sermon Templum Dei (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“Templum Dei Ecclesia maius synagoga, templum Dei Christus maius Adamo, templum Dei Maria maius Eva.”
Translation
“The Church as temple of God is greater than the Synagogue; Christ as temple of God is greater than Adam; Mary as temple of God is greater than Eve.”
Note
A triadic supersessionist formula of elegant compression. The three pairings — Church/Synagogue, Christ/Adam, Mary/Eve — establish a complete typological hierarchy in which every element of the Old Testament economy is exceeded by its New Testament counterpart. The Synagogue‘s inferiority is not merely institutional but ontological: it was always a type, pointing toward the Church that would supersede it.
XI. “Nunquam Dominum Gloriae Crucifixissent…Auctorem Vitae Interfecistis” — Paul and Peter on the Deicide
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, Sermo Nonus, citing 1 Cor. 2:8 and Acts 3:15 (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“Si… cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent; et Petrus: Auctorem… vitae interfecistis.”
Translation
“If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; and Peter: You killed the Author of life.”
Note
Lawrence cites the two most direct apostolic deicide charges in close succession: Paul’s indirect formulation (1 Cor. 2:8 — had they known, they would not have crucified) and Peter’s direct indictment (Acts 3:15 — you killed the Author of life). The juxtaposition reinforces both the fact and the guilt of Jewish responsibility while introducing the Pauline mitigating note of invincible ignorance — a pairing that permits Lawrence to hold both the deicide charge and the theoretical possibility of repentance.
XII. “Nomine Christianus, Sed Mente Iudaeus” — Constantine Copronymus: Christian in Name, Jewish in Mind
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, later Marian sermon (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“nomine christianus, sed mente iudaeus, fide ethnicus, legem sanxivit ne quis Deiparam Virginem tanquam Dei Matrem veneraretur.”
Translation
“Christian in name, but Jewish in mind, pagan in faith, he enacted a law that no one should venerate the God-bearing Virgin as the Mother of God.”
Note
The formula nomine christianus, sed mente iudaeus is a rhetorical weapon of long patristic pedigree, applied here to the iconoclast emperor Constantine V (Copronymus). To be mente iudaeus (Jewish in mind) is presented as the worst possible characterisation of a heretic — worse even than pagan (fide ethnicus), which is added as a third category in descending order of opprobrium. The passage illustrates the structural mobility of anti-Jewish rhetoric in Lawrence: Jewishness is detachable from any actual Jewish person and applicable as a label of maximum theological contempt.
XIII. “Abominari Se Dicit Deus Omnia Iudaeorum Sacrificia” — God Abhors Jewish Sacrifices: Hands Full of Blood
Source: Mariale, Vol. I, sermon on the Purification, citing Isaiah 1:15 (Patavii, 1928).
Latin
“hinc per Isaiam abominari se dicit Deus omnia Iudaeorum sacrificia, quoniam manus eorum sanguine plenae erant.”
Translation
“Hence through Isaiah God says He abhors all the sacrifices of the Jews, because their hands were full of blood.”
Note
The citation conflates Isaiah 1:11–15 (God’s rejection of sacrifice) with the blood-guilt motif. The manus sanguine plenae (hands full of blood) is applied specifically to all Jewish sacrifices (omnia…sacrificia), not merely those of a corrupt period. The generalisation transforms what was in Isaiah a conditional prophetic rebuke into a permanent characterisation of Jewish worship as inherently contaminated by the blood of the prophets — and, implicitly, of Christ.
XIV. “Vos Ex Patre Diabolo Estis” — Christ Addresses the Impious Jews as Children of the Devil
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Sectio Prima, Dissertatio Tertia (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Sicut impios Iudaeos allocutus ait: Vos ex patre diabolo estis, et voluntatem patris vestri vultis facere.”
Translation
“As He addressed the impious Jews He said: You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.”
Note
Lawrence cites John 8:44 as Christ’s own direct characterisation of the Jews in the Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, applying the verse to impii Iudaei (impious Jews) as a class rather than to any specific interlocutors. This passage also appears in his Explanatio Geneseos (see Passage XXXIV below), where it is given a cosmological expansion linking Jewish murderous intent to Lucifer’s primordial rebellion. The repetition across two separate works confirms that Lawrence regarded John 8:44 as a permanent apostolic verdict on the Jewish people.
XV. “Iudaeos Diaboli Filios Appellavit…Progenies Viperarum” — Jews as Sons of the Devil; Brood of Vipers
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Sectio Prima, Dissertatio Tertia (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“et Iudaeos diaboli filios appellavit. S. Ioannes Baptista, videns de haeresi Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum venientes ad se, pro concione graviter increpavit, dicens: Progenies viperarum, quis ostendit vobis fugere a ventura ira? Christus ipse Pharisaeos et Sadducaeos haereticos gravissime arguit.”
Translation
“And He called the Jews sons of the devil. St. John the Baptist, seeing those coming to him from the heresy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, gravely rebuked them publicly, saying: Brood of vipers, who showed you how to flee from the coming wrath? Christ Himself most gravely accused the Pharisees and Sadducees as heretics.”
Note
Lawrence compounds the devil’s filiation with the brood-of-vipers image, sourcing both to the highest authorities: Christ and John the Baptist. The characterisation of the Pharisees and Sadducees as practitioners of haeresis is significant — it juridically assimilates Jewish religious leadership to the category of heretics, who in Lawrence’s polemic are the primary target of Vol. II. Jews and heretics thus share not just a rhetorical bracket but a formal theological category.
XVI. “Detestabiliores Iudaeis, Qui Carnem Christi Crucifixerunt” — Heretics More Detestable than Jews Who Crucified Christ
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Dissertatio Tertia, citing St. Ambrose, De Fide (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“S. Ambrosius, De Fide, haereticos ait esse detestabiliores Iudaeis, qui carnem Christi crucifixerunt.”
Translation
“St. Ambrose, in De Fide, says that heretics are more detestable than the Jews, who crucified the flesh of Christ.”
Note
This citation from Ambrose serves a dual function. It establishes the deicide as the worst thing the Jews did — and then surpasses it by placing heretics below the Jews on the scale of theological monstrousness. The Jews, who crucified Christ’s flesh, are thereby confirmed as maximally wicked; heretics, who corrupt His doctrine, are worse still. The structure requires Jewish guilt to be irreducibly real and severe for the a fortiori argument to function.
XVII. “Iudaeorum Mores…Quasi Sodoma Fuissemus” — The Utterly Corrupt Morals of the Jews Under Jeremiah
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Sectio Quinta, Dissertatio Tertia (Patavii, 1931), citing Isa. 1:9–10.
Latin
“Nec minus corrupti, si non multo corruptiores, erant Iudaeorum mores sub Ieremia propheta.”
[In context, Lawrence cites Isaiah’s rebuke of Israel:]
“Nisi Dominus… reliquisset nobis semen, quasi Sodoma fuissemus, et quasi Gomorrha similes essemus. Audite verbum Domini, principes Sodomorum; percipite auribus legem Dei nostri, populus Gomorrhae.”
Translation
“The morals of the Jews under the prophet Jeremiah were no less corrupt — indeed, perhaps far more corrupt.”
“Unless the Lord had left us a seed, we would have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.”
Note
Lawrence applies Isaiah’s Sodom-and-Gomorrah address to the Israel of Jeremiah’s day as evidence of the depth of Jewish moral corruption, before deploying the same logic against the post-Gregorian Catholic Church as corrupted by abuse. The passage reveals the structural versatility of anti-Jewish rhetoric: the Jews serve as the historical baseline of extreme wickedness from which all subsequent moral collapses are measured.
XVIII. “Haeresis Pharisaeorum…Nisi Circumcidamini, Non Potestis Salvari” — The Heresy of the Pharisees Demanding Circumcision
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Sectio Prima, Dissertatio Tertia (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“iugulata fuit haeresis Pharisaeorum, qui evertentes animas, turbaverunt Ecclesiam, dicentes: Quia nisi circumcidamini secundum morem Moysi, non potestis salvari, docentesque quod oportet circumcidi christianos et servare legem Moysi.”
Translation
“The heresy of the Pharisees was cut down, who, overturning souls, disturbed the Church, saying: Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved — and teaching that Christians ought to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.”
Note
Lawrence frames the Judaising party at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) as a formally constituted heresy (haeresis Pharisaeorum), condemned by the apostolic church. This allows him to present Jewish-Christian conflict as having been resolved in the Church’s favour from the very first council of Christianity. The supersessionist implication is total: Jewish practice, far from being a legitimate alternative, was from the beginning of the Christian era a declared heresy to be “cut down” (iugulata).
XIX. “Dicunt Se Iudaeos Esse, cum Sint Synagoga Satanae…Sine Deo Vero” — Jews: Without Christ, Without the True God
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Dissertatio Tertia, Sectio Prima (Patavii, 1931), citing Hos. 3:4 and 2 Chron. 15:3.
Latin
“Dicunt se Iudaeos esse, cum sint synagoga satanae; et cum sine Christo sint, non modo, sicut apud Oseam legimus, sunt sine rege, sine principe, sine sacrificiis, sed, sicut in 2 Paralipomenon traditur, sine Deo vero, sine sacerdote doctore et sine lege, cum tamen de lege maxime glorientur. Sed plane sicut Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, qui verus Deus est, non habentes, revera Deum verum Iudaei non habent, cum non sit nisi unus verus Deus.”
Translation
“They say they are Jews, while they are the Synagogue of Satan; and since they are without Christ, not only, as we read in Hosea, are they without king, without prince, without sacrifices, but, as is handed down in 2 Chronicles, without the true God, without a priestly teacher, and without the law — and yet they boast exceedingly of the law. But just as, not having our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true God, the Jews truly do not have the true God, since there is only one true God.”
Note
This passage is the most theologically dense of all the adversus Judaeos material in the corpus. Lawrence deploys two Old Testament texts (Hosea, 2 Chronicles) to show that scripture itself prophesied Jewish deprivation, and then advances a Christological argument: since Christ is the true God and the Jews reject Christ, they cannot by definition worship the true God. Jewish monotheism is thus rendered theologically vacuous — their God is not God. The passage is directed in context at Protestant heretics, whom Lawrence treats as structurally analogous to Jews, but the application to actual Jews is explicit and sustained throughout.
XX. “Divinitus Reprobati et per Orbem Dispersi Hominumque Opprobrium Facti” — The Jews as Divinely Reprobated and the Reproach of Mankind
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Dissertatio Tertia, Sectio Tertia (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Nam Iudaei, licet divinitus reprobati et per orbem dispersi hominumque opprobrium facti, semper tamen habuerunt habentque suas synagogas, exercent suas ceremonias, et habent religionis suae publicum exercitium.”
Translation
“For the Jews, although divinely reprobated and dispersed throughout the world and made the reproach of mankind, have always had and still have their Synagogues, exercise their ceremonies, and maintain public practice of their religion.”
Note
The three-part characterisation — divinitus reprobati (divinely reprobated), per orbem dispersi (scattered throughout the world), hominumque opprobrium (the reproach of mankind) — is a compact statement of the full adversus Judaeos theology of punishment. Jewish dispersion is not a historical accident but a divine judgment, and their continued existence as a visible people is itself a sign of divine wrath. Lawrence cites this ironically to embarrass Protestant congregations, who lack even the institutional coherence of the reprobated Jewish remnant.
XXI. “Desieruntque Iudaei Esse Iudaei…Factique Fuere Synagoga Satanae” — The Transformation of the Jewish People into the Synagogue of Satan at the Passion
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Dissertatio Tertia, Sectio Tertia (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“mox atque Caiphas summus pontifex Iudaeorum et princeps sacerdotum, cum universa synagoga Christum damnavit, reumque mortis pronunciavit, desiit esse pontifex, caput synagogae Dei, factusque fuit caput synagogae satanae, desieruntque Iudaei esse Iudaei, hoc est, populus Dei, factique fuere synagoga satanae.”
Translation
“As soon as Caiaphas, the high priest of the Jews and chief of the priests, together with the entire Synagogue, condemned Christ and pronounced Him guilty of death, he ceased to be the high priest, the head of the Synagogue of God, and became the head of the Synagogue of Satan; and the Jews ceased to be Jews, that is, the people of God, and became the Synagogue of Satan.”
Note
This is the single most developed supersessionist passage in the entire corpus and one of the most precise formulations of the synagoga satanae theology anywhere in early-modern Catholic literature. Lawrence supplies an exact legal moment — the Sanhedrin’s vote — as the precise instant at which the transformation occurs. The formula desieruntque Iudaei esse Iudaei (the Jews ceased to be Jews) is particularly striking: Jewish identity itself is declared forfeit from that moment, and all subsequent Jewish self-identification as God’s people is by definition false. Caiaphas’s transition from head of the Synagogue of God to head of the Synagogue of Satan mirrors and produces the corporate transition of the whole people.
XXII. “Apostoli in Perfidos Iudaeos” — The Apostolic Precedent: Against the Perfidious Jews
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Patriarchae et Prophetae adversus impios daemonum cultores, Apostoli in perfidos Iudaeos, Martyres in immanes tyrannos et Doctores sancti in perniciosos et pestilentes haereticos.”
Translation
“The Patriarchs and Prophets against the impious worshippers of demons; the Apostles against the treacherous/perfidious Jews; the Martyrs against savage tyrants; and the holy Doctors against pernicious and pestilent heretics.”
Note
Lawrence constructs a four-part history of the Church’s defenders in which the Apostles are defined by their opposition to the Jews. The epithet perfidos carries the full weight of the classical patristic formula perfidis Iudaeis, which Lawrence employs here as a historiographical category: the Jewish community of the apostolic period is the institutional enemy that gave the Apostles their defining adversarial role. The fourfold schema places Jewish perfidy as the first and foundational opposition that the Church had to overcome.
XXIII. “Qui et Dominum Occiderunt…Pervenit Ira Dei Super Illos Usque in Finem” — First Thessalonians 2:14–16 Cited in Full
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Primum, citing 1 Thess. 2:14–16 (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Imitatores facti estis, fratres, ecclesiarum Dei, quae sunt in Iudaea, in Christo Iesu, quia eadem passi estis et vos a contribulibus vestris, sicut et ipsi a Iudaeis, qui et Dominum occiderunt…, et Prophetas et nos persecuti sunt, et Deo non placent, et omnibus hominibus adversantur, prohibentes nos loqui gentibus ut salvae fiant, ut impleant peccata sua semper; pervenit enim ira Dei super illos usque in finem.”
Translation
“You became imitators, brothers, of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, as they have from the Jews, who killed the Lord as well…, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end.”
Note
Lawrence deploys the most concentrated anti-Jewish passage in the Pauline epistles as his authority for the description that follows (Passage XXIV). The full citation of 1 Thess. 2:14–16 provides apostolic warrant for each element of his characterisation of the Jews: they killed the Lord, they killed the Prophets, they persecute Christians, they are hostile to all men, and the wrath of God is upon them usque in finem — to the end, permanently. The phrase ut impleant peccata sua semper (to fill up their sins always) is read by Lawrence as a permanent condition, not a historical observation.
XXIV. “Iudaeos Apertos, Acerrimos, Infensissimos…Inimicos Christi” — The Jews as Capital Enemies of Christ
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Primum (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Licet sciret Iudaeos apertos, acerrimos, infensissimos implacabili odio inimicos Christi hostilissimosque christianae Ecclesiae persecutores.”
Translation
“Although he [Paul] knew the Jews to be open, most bitter, most hostile enemies of Christ with implacable hatred, and the most savage persecutors of the Christian Church.”
Note
The accumulation of superlatives — acerrimos (most bitter), infensissimos (most hostile), hostilissimos (most savage), modified by implacabili odio (implacable hatred) — makes this the most rhetorically intensified characterisation of the Jews in the entire corpus. Lawrence’s stated purpose is to contrast Paul’s restraint (who held this opinion of the Jews yet never cursed them) with Luther’s verbal incontinence against Catholics; but the characterisation is offered as Paul’s accurate factual assessment, not as an exaggeration. The implacabilis odium is not a passion that might be overcome: it is structural, permanent, and defines the Jewish relation to Christ.
XXV. “Iudaeos, Capitales Inimicos…Christi Ipsius” — The Jews as Capital Enemies of Christ Himself
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Primum (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Ita Iudaeos, capitales inimicos et suos, et Ecclesiae, et Christi ipsius, Paulus non odio et maledictis, sed eximia prosequebatur caritate; nec in scriptis suis vel unicum unquam adversus principes Iudaeorum summumve synagogae pontificem reperitur amarius verbum; quos tamen probe noverat acerrimos infensissimosque summa impietate Christi inimicos, ac proinde ipsius summi Dei.”
Translation
“Thus Paul pursued the Jews — the capital enemies both of himself, and of the Church, and of Christ Himself — not with hatred and curses, but with outstanding charity; nor in all his writings is there ever found a single bitter word against the leaders of the Jews or against the high priest of the Synagogue; though he well knew them to be the bitterest and most hostile enemies of Christ with the greatest impiety, and therefore of God Most High Himself.”
Note
The phrase capitales inimicos…Christi ipsius (capital enemies of Christ Himself) escalates the hostility identified in Passage XXIV: not merely enemies of the Church but of Christ personally, and therefore of God. The argument is again contrastive — Paul’s charity despite this knowledge — but the characterisation of the Jews is presented as established fact requiring no further demonstration. The escalation to inimicos…ipsius summi Dei (enemies of God Most High) places Jewish hostility in a category that transcends any merely political or doctrinal disagreement.
XXVI. “Sacrilegi et Impii et Cruenti Esse Coepissent” — The Jews After the Crucifixion: Sacrilegious, Impious, and Bloodthirsty
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Dissertatio Tertia, citing Cyprianus (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Paulus, quamvis sciret quod, Domino iam crucifixo, sacrilegi et impii et cruenti esse coepissent, nec iam quicquam de sacerdotali honore et auctoritate retinerent; tamen ipsum quamvis inane nomen et umbram quandam sacerdotis cogitans, expavit.”
Translation
“Paul, although he knew that, the Lord having now been crucified, they had become sacrilegious and impious and bloodthirsty, and retained nothing of priestly honour and authority; yet, still considering the now-empty name and mere shadow of a priest, he recoiled.”
Note
The three-part characterisation of the post-Crucifixion Jewish priesthood — sacrilegi (sacrilegious), impii (impious), cruenti (bloodthirsty) — marks the moment of the Passion as the point at which even the last vestiges of Jewish institutional legitimacy were extinguished. Their priesthood is now only a nomen inane (empty name) and a umbra sacerdotis (shadow of a priest). This passage is theologically continuous with Passage XXI (the transformation at the Condemnation): the Jewish religious order lost all reality at the moment of the Crucifixion.
XXVII. “Horrendas Apud Iudaeos Excitavit Persecutiones…Primo per Iudaeos” — The Devil Persecutes Christ and the Church First Through the Jews
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum (Patavii, 1931), citing Luke 22:53.
Latin
“Ita in Christum horrendas apud Iudaeos excitavit persecutiones; ipse enim immisit in cor ut traderet eum Iudas; et Dominus Iudaeis dixit: Haec est hora vestra et potestas tenebrarum. Ita semper immani odio et summa crudelitate persecutus semper fuit Ecclesiam Christi, primo quidem per Iudaeos, postea vero per Gentiles.”
Translation
“Thus he stirred up terrible persecutions against Christ through the Jews; for he himself put it into the heart of Judas to betray Him; and the Lord said to the Jews: This is your hour and the power of darkness. Thus he always persecuted the Church of Christ with savage hatred and the greatest cruelty — first through the Jews, then through the Gentiles.”
Note
Lawrence explicitly identifies the Jews as Satan’s primary historical instrument, with the Gentiles as secondary. Christ’s own words to the Jews — Haec est hora vestra et potestas tenebrarum (This is your hour and the power of darkness, Luke 22:53) — are cited as evidence that Christ recognised the Jews as belonging to the power of darkness at the Passion. The temporal sequence primo per Iudaeos, postea per Gentiles establishes a salvation-historical priority of Jewish persecution: the Church’s ordeal began with the Jews.
XXVIII. “Occidетis et Crucifigetis…in Synagogis Vestris” — Christ’s Indictment: You Will Kill and Crucify in Your Synagogues
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Sextum, citing Matt. 23:34 (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“et ex illis occidетis et crucifigetis, et ex eis lapidabitis in synagogis vestris.”
Translation
“And of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your Synagogues.”
Note
Lawrence cites Christ’s direct address from Matthew 23:34 — the prophetic indictment of the Pharisees — as an authoritative statement about what the Jews will do. The future tense of Christ’s words is applied to the historical persecution of the apostles and, by extension, to the continuing Jewish hostility to Christianity. The phrase in synagogis vestris (in your Synagogues) implicates the Jewish house of worship itself as the institutional site of anti-Christian violence.
XXIX. “Spiritu Blasphemiae Apprime Refertos” — The Scribes and Pharisees Filled with Blasphemy
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Quinto (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“et in Evangelio Scribas et Pharisaeos spiritu blasphemiae apprime refertos.”
Translation
“And in the Gospel, the Scribes and Pharisees are found to be foremost filled with the spirit of blasphemy.”
Note
The ascription of a spiritus blasphemiae (spirit of blasphemy) to the Scribes and Pharisees as their defining characteristic connects them to the pneumatological framework of the entire anti-heretical polemic: just as Lawrence elsewhere diagnoses heretics by the spirit that drives them, here the Jewish religious leadership is diagnosed as pneumatically constituted by blasphemy. The superlative apprime (foremost, above all) positions them as the primary historical exemplars of this spirit.
XXX. “Sicut Iudaei Christianam Fidem…Perfidi Illi Dicunt Christum Non Esse Verum Messiam” — The Perfidious Jews Deny Christ as Messiah
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Dissertatio Tertia, Sectio Secunda (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“sicut Iudaei christianam fidem; dicunt non esse veram Ecclesiam, sed sicut perfidi illi dicunt Christum non esse verum Messiam.”
Translation
“Just as the Jews deny the Christian faith; they say it is not the true Church — just as those perfidious ones say Christ is not the true Messiah.”
Note
The application of perfidi to the Jews is the standard patristic formula (perfidis Iudaeis), here used as the analogy by which Protestant rejection of Rome is characterised. The structural identification is total: as the Jews deny Christ, so the heretics deny the Church; as the Jews are perfidi, so the heretics are treacherous. The adjective perfidi carries its full juridical-theological weight, denoting not merely error but deliberate betrayal of a known obligation.
XXXI. “Cum Iudaeis Impie Abominati” — Iconoclasts Who Join the Jews in Persecuting Sacred Images
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Nec longe abfuit a Luthero spiritus Iconomachorum, qui cultum et venerationem sanctarum imaginum in Ecclesia Dei cum Iudaeis impie abominati et persecuti fuerunt.”
Translation
“Not far from Luther was the spirit of the Iconoclasts, who, together with the Jews, impiously abominated and persecuted the veneration of holy images in the Church of God.”
Note
Lawrence brackets the Byzantine iconoclasts with the Jews as joint persecutors of Christian sacred art. The co-agency cum Iudaeis (together with the Jews) draws a direct line between historical Jewish hostility to Christian devotion and the iconoclast movement, presenting the latter as a continuation of the former under different auspices. This is consistent with the broader polemical strategy of Passage IX: every movement that attacks Catholic devotional practice is classified as, in some sense, Jewish.
XXXII. “Sicut de Turcis et Iudaeis Verissimum Est” — Jews and Turks: Those Who Truly Pray Without Christ as Mediator
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Primum, responding to Luther’s Commentary on Galatians (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Papa, Turca, Iudaei et omnes iustitiarii, removentes ab oculis Christum mediatorem, de solo Deo loquuntur, et coram Deo orant, vivunt et agunt omnia absque isto mediatore. Quod quidem sicut de Turcis et Iudaeis verissimum est, ita de christianis Catholicis ipsissima falsitas est.”
Translation
“The Pope, the Turk, the Jews, and all the self-righteous, removing Christ the mediator from their eyes, speak of God alone, and pray before God, live and do all things without this mediator. This is indeed most true of the Turks and Jews, but an absolute falsehood as applied to Catholic Christians.”
Note
Lawrence quotes Luther’s polemical claim and concedes it as verissimum (most true) in respect of Turks and Jews, while refuting it as ipsissima falsitas (absolute falsehood) as applied to Catholics. The concession is theologically significant: Lawrence formally affirms that Jews and Turks do not pray through Christ and therefore do not address the true God. The Jewish and Islamic failure to acknowledge Christ as mediator is treated as a matter of fact requiring no argument.
XXXIII. “More Iudaico Flagellatus Fuit” — Paul Scourged Five Times in the Jewish Manner
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Primum, citing 2 Cor. 11:24 (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Saulus, licet a Iudaeis gravissimas persecutiones iniustissime passus in odium christiani nominis, a quibus etiam quinquies quadragenas una minus accepit, hoc est, more iudaico flagellatus fuit, nunquam tamen acerbe eos taxavit, aut maligne traduxit.”
Translation
“Saul, although he unjustly suffered the gravest persecutions from the Jews out of hatred for the Christian name — by whom he also received five times thirty-nine lashes, that is, was scourged in the Jewish manner — never bitterly rebuked them, nor maliciously attacked them.”
Note
The phrase more iudaico (in the Jewish manner) functions as an ethnic and cultural marker of the punishment, not merely a legal specification. Lawrence is establishing the motive (in odium christiani nominis — out of hatred for the Christian name) and the method (more iudaico — in characteristically Jewish fashion) of Jewish persecution of Paul, then contrasting this with Paul’s charitable restraint. The contrast between Jewish hatred and Christian charity is the governing structure of the passage.
XXXIV. “Iudaeis Occiderunt Omnes Prophetas, et Post Ipsos Christum” — The Jews Killed All the Prophets and Then Christ
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“non contentus Lutherus dixisse quod Iudaei occiderunt omnes Prophetas, et post ipsos Christum ipsis promissum.”
Translation
“Luther was not content with having said that the Jews killed all the Prophets, and after them Christ Himself, promised to them.”
Note
Lawrence cites this as Luther’s own formulation — not to refute it, but to note that Luther went beyond it to make still more scandalous claims about Catholics. The implication is that the proposition Iudaei occiderunt omnes Prophetas et Christum is a factual statement Lawrence accepts and regards as adequate characterisation; what he objects to is Luther’s uncharitable extension of the argument. The acceptance of this formulation as a baseline is itself significant.
XXXV. “Quaenam Haec Est Nova Novi Prophetae Lingua?” — Luther’s Obscene Mockery of the Jews, Cited to Condemn Luther
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Sectio Quinta, Dissertatio Octava, citing Luther’s Adversus Iudaeos, t. 8, f. 99 (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“In libro enim, quem Adversus Iudaeos scripsit, novus Lucianus, ita loquitur: «Putasne quod vile quid Iudaeus sit? Deus in coelo et omnes Angeli necesse est ut rideant et choros ducant, cum Iudaeum aliquem audiunt crepitum ventris emittere». Et non longe post: «Nonne dixi tibi superius, quod nobilis res Iudaeus est, ut, cum crepitum ventris emittit, Deus tripudiet et omnes Angeli?» Quaenam, quaeso, haec nova vel prophetae vel apostoli lingua?”
Translation
“For in the book which he, a new Lucian, wrote Against the Jews, he speaks thus: ‘Do you think a Jew is a vile thing? God in heaven and all the Angels must needs laugh and lead dances when they hear some Jew breaking wind.’ And not long after: ‘Did I not tell you above what a noble thing a Jew is, that when he breaks wind, God dances and all the Angels?’ What new language, I ask, is this — of a prophet or of an apostle?”
Note
Lawrence cites this passage from Luther’s Adversus Iudaeos to demonstrate Luther’s irreverence toward God, not to endorse the mockery of Jews. His objection is framed in terms of prophetic and apostolic decorum: do the prophets and apostles speak of God in this way? The rhetorical question implies that scurrilous anti-Jewish writing of this kind dishonours God rather than serving religion. This is the only passage in the corpus where Lawrence criticises treatment of the Jews as insufficiently dignified — not out of sympathy for the Jews, but out of regard for the honour of God.
XXXVI. “Odioque Maiore in Christum et Christianam Pietatem Accenderet” — Luther’s Writing Against the Jews Inflames Rather than Converts
Source: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis, Vol. II, Additamentum Vigesimum Quinto (Patavii, 1931).
Latin
“Nam et in Iudaeos scripsit, non quidem ut rationibus argumentisque vel ad Christi fidem pertraheret, et, si non persuaderet, saltem convinceret, et christiana caritate salutem eorum curare se ostenderet; sed ad hoc scripsisse visus est, ut maledictis et conviciis contumeliosissimis in eos iactis animos eorum magis magisque exacerbaret, odioque maiore in Christum et christianam pietatem accenderet.”
Translation
“For he also wrote against the Jews — not in order to draw them to the faith of Christ by reasons and arguments, or, if he could not persuade, at least to convince them, showing by Christian charity that he cared for their salvation; but he appears to have written for the purpose of inflaming their spirits more and more by hurling the most insulting abuse and invective at them, and of kindling greater hatred in them against Christ and Christian piety.”
Note
The final adversus Judaeos passage to note is, paradoxically, a criticism of anti-Jewish writing — directed at Luther. Lawrence sets out what he regards as the legitimate purpose of writing against the Jews: conversion by argument, charitable concern for their salvation. Luther failed on both counts, producing invective that exacerbated Jewish hatred of Christ. This passage establishes Lawrence’s normative framework: the Jews are to be opposed theologically, but the goal must always remain their conversion, and abuse serves only to harden them. It is a measure of the distance between Lawrence and Luther, not of any sympathy toward the Jews themselves.
Analytical Summary
By rhetorical register
Deicide (Passages VI, VII, VIII, XI, XXIII, XXVII, XXXIV): The most concentrated statements of Jewish responsibility for the death of Christ are found in Sermo Sextus of the Mariale (Passages VI–VIII), which approach the subject through the lens of Mary’s co-suffering. The most apostolically grounded are the citations of 1 Thess. 2:14–16 (Passage XXIII) and Acts 3:15 / 1 Cor. 2:8 (Passage XI). The Explanatio Geneseos supplies additional deicide material through Genesis 3:15 (see Vol. III passages below).
Synagogue of Satan (Passages I, III, XIX, XX, XXI): The most developed theology of the synagoga satanae is in Passage XXI — the Caiaphas passage — which supplies a precise jurisprudential moment for the transformation. Passages I and III establish the category in the Mariale. Passage XIX grounds it in Old Testament prophetic testimony (Hosea, 2 Chronicles).
Supersessionism (Passages IV, X, XIII, XVIII, XX): Passage X (Templum Dei Ecclesia maius synagoga) is the most compressed formulation. Passage XVIII (condemnation of the Pharisaic heresy) is the most explicitly ecclesiological. Passage XIII (God’s abhorrence of Jewish sacrifices) is the most scriptural.
Children of the Devil (Passages XIV, XV, XXIX): Passages XIV and XV apply John 8:44 to the Jewish people as a class, compounded with John the Baptist’s progenies viperarum. Passage XXIX extends this through the diagnosis of a spiritus blasphemiae governing Scribes and Pharisees. The Explanatio Geneseos develops this register most fully, connecting Jewish murderous intent directly to Lucifer’s primordial rebellion.
Philippic comparison (Passages II, V, IX, XII, XVI, XVII, XXXI): These passages use the Jews as an inverted or escalating comparator. In Passages IX and XII, heretics and iconoclasts are classified as Jewish in spirit. In Passage XVI (Ambrose), heretics surpass the Jews in detestability. In Passage XVII, Jewish moral corruption under Jeremiah serves as the baseline for assessing Catholic corruption. In Passage XXXI, iconoclasts share Jewish impiety as co-persecutors of sacred images.
Most theologically precise (Passages XIX, XXI): Passage XIX (Jews without the true God) and Passage XXI (the Caiaphas transformation) represent the highest theological density in the corpus. Both supply formal arguments rather than rhetorical assertions.
Most rhetorically intensified (Passage XXIV): The fivefold superlative characterisation of the Jews as open, most bitter, most hostile, implacably hating, most savagely persecuting is the peak of rhetorical accumulation in the entire corpus.
Most structurally significant (Passage XXII): The historiographical schema — Apostles defined by their opposition to the Jews — places Jewish perfidy as the original and constitutive adversarial condition of the Christian mission.
Most normatively revealing (Passage XXXVI): Lawrence’s criticism of Luther’s anti-Jewish invective as counterproductive establishes his operative principle: the Jews are theological enemies to be opposed and converted, not abused. This distinguishes his adversus Judaeos posture from Luther’s while leaving all the substantive theological accusations intact.
Vol. III — Explanatio Geneseos: Supplementary Passages
The Explanatio Geneseos — composed explicitly for the conversion of Jews — supplies four additional adversus Judaeos passages not easily numbered in the thematic sequence above.
On constraining Jewish Sabbatarianism: “we will constrain the Jews, who boast about the rest of the Sabbath, that already at the beginning the Sabbath was dissolved, while God works on the Sabbath, completing His works on it.” (Ch. 2 Commentary)
On the wickedness and hardness of heart of the Jews: “these were permitted by Moses at times due to the wickedness and hardness of heart of the Jews.” (On divorce, Ch. 2)
On the utterly corrupt morals of the Jews, rebuked through the tropological sense of Scripture: “The Lord used the tropological sense when, narrating the history of the Ninevites and the arrival of the queen of the South to Solomon, He rebuked the utterly corrupt morals of the Jews.” (Ch. 3)
On Satan delivering Christ to the Jews through Pilate, citing Gen. 3:15: “he could crush his heel, that is, his flesh, in his passion with the cross and scourges, or rather bite it than crush it; for it is written: ‘You shall not break a bone of him’; but he bit him whom, after he was scourged, he delivered through his member Pilate to the Jews to be crucified.” (Commentary on Gen. 3:15)
On John 8:44 in the context of Lucifer’s rebellion: “Hence, the Lord said, speaking to the Jews: ‘You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth. You seek to kill me.'” (Commentary on Gen. 3)
On Acts 7:52 — the Jews who betrayed and murdered the Just One: “Christ is also antonomastically called ‘the Just,’ as in: ‘They killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, whom you now have betrayed and murdered.'” (Rhetorical Figures section)
Sources. All Latin quotations transcribed from the digitised text of: – S. Laurentii a Brundusio Opera Omnia, Vol. I: Mariale (Patavii, 1928) – S. Laurentii a Brundusio Opera Omnia, Vol. II: Lutheranismi Hypotyposis (Patavii, 1931) – S. Laurentii a Brundusio Opera Omnia, Vol. III: Explanatio Geneseos (Patavii, 1935)
OCR artefacts (e.g. ludaei for Iudaei) silently corrected where unambiguous. All translations produced directly from the Latin text without secondary intermediary.