Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 15: On the vernacular editions
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There is a controversy between Catholics and heretics whether it be needful, or at least expedient, that the use of the divine Scriptures be common in the vernacular tongue, and the proper tongue of each region. And indeed the heretics of this time agree in this, that the Scriptures ought to be permitted to all, nay even delivered to them, in their own tongue, and that when they are publicly read or sung, and in the sacred offices, this too be done in the proper and mother tongue. So Brentius teaches in the Wittenberg Confession, chapter On the canonical hours; Calvin book 3 of the Institutes chapter 20 section 33; Kemnitz in his Examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent; which same all the others in fact teach, while everywhere they translate the Scriptures into the German, French, and English tongue, and in those tongues publicly read and sing the Scriptures.
And the Catholic Church of Christ does not indeed altogether prohibit vernacular translations, as Kemnitz impudently lies; for in the Index of prohibited books published by Pius IV, rule 4, we see the reading of such books conceded to those who can use them profitably and with fruit, that is, to those who have obtained the faculty from the ordinary. Yet it is forbidden that such reading be granted everywhere to all without distinction, and that in the public and common use of the Church the Scriptures be read or sung in vernacular tongues, as is established in the Council of Trent session 22 chapter 8 and canon 9; but that we be content with those three tongues which the Lord honored by the title of his cross, John 19, and which by the consent of all excel all others in antiquity, amplitude, and gravity, and finally in which the divine books themselves were first written by their authors, that is, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Of which St. Hilary thus speaks in his preface on the Psalms: “In these three tongues especially is the mystery of the will of God and the expectation of the blessed kingdom preached, from which was that of Pilate, that in these three tongues he wrote the Lord Jesus Christ to be King of the Jews.”
On this argument, so far as I know, two authors have written: Cardinal Hosius of Ermland in his Dialogue On reading the sacred writings in the vernacular, and James Ledesma, a Presbyter of our Society, in the book which he wrote on this same argument. From whom we shall pluck some things, and bring into this our disputation, that it may be the fuller.
In the first place, then, we can prove the custom of the Catholic Church from the use of the Church of the Old Testament, which was from the time of Esdras down to Christ. For from the times of Esdras the Hebrew tongue ceased to be vernacular among the people of God; since in those seventy years in which the Hebrews were among the Chaldees in Babylon, they forgot their own tongue and learned the Chaldaic, and thenceforth the Chaldaic, or Syriac, was their mother tongue. Wherefore in the 2nd of Esdras chapter 8 we have that when the book of the Law of the Lord was read to the whole people, Nehemias, Esdras, and the Levites interpreted, because otherwise the people understood nothing. And so therefore, as is there said, there was great joy in the people, because they had understood the words of the Law, Esdras interpreting.
Besides, this is most openly gathered from the words of Christ and the Evangelists; for Mark 5, Talitha cumi, that is, Damsel, arise, is Syriac. For “damsel” in Hebrew is not said Talitha, but [Hebrew]. So Abba, Mark 14, for [Hebrew] is said in Hebrew. And Matthew 27, Haceldama is Syriac; in Hebrew it is said [Hebrew]. In the same place Golgotha is Syriac; in Hebrew it is said [Hebrew]. And in all the Evangelists we have Pascha, which is neither Greek nor Hebrew; in Hebrew it is said [pesach]. See more in Jerome in the book On Hebrew names. And so it cannot be doubted that at that time the vernacular tongue was not Hebrew, and yet they publicly read or sang the Scriptures in the temple or synagogues only in Hebrew. For from the 2nd of Esdras chapter 8 it is gathered well enough that the Scripture was then read in Hebrew, not in Syriac, for the people understood it not without an interpreter. To this also pertains what is said John 7: This multitude that knoweth not the Law.
Finally, to this day in the synagogues the Jews read the Scriptures in Hebrew, whereas to no nation at this time is the Hebrew tongue vernacular. Nor does it contradict this that there exists a Chaldaic paraphrase of the Scriptures; for that was made, either wholly or for the greater part, after the coming of Christ, and besides, the Hebrews never so received it as to read it publicly for Scripture — which is what we treat of.
It is proved secondly from the use of the Apostles. For the Apostles preached the Gospel through the whole world, and established Churches, as is plain from Paul to the Romans 10 and to the Colossians 1, and from the Gospel of Mark last chapter; likewise from Irenaeus book 1 chapter 3, who, being very near the Apostolic times, yet says that in his time there were Churches already founded in the East, in Libya, in Egypt, in the Spains, in Germany, and in the middle regions, that is, Italy and Gaul; and yet they did not write the Gospels or Epistles in the tongues of those nations to whom they preached, but only in Hebrew or Greek, and (as some will have it) in Latin. For there are those who think that the Gospel of Mark (as we have also admonished above) was written in Latin at Rome by Mark himself, and afterward translated by the same into the Greek tongue; of which see Damasus in the life of blessed Peter, Adrian Finus book 4 of the Scourge against the Jews chapter 80 and book 8 chapter 62, and Peter Antony Beuther, annotation 9 on sacred Scripture.
That they wrote in no other tongues, although they were not ignorant of them, since they had the gift of tongues, can be shown many ways. First, because there exists no trace of any Apostolic writing except in Greek; nor does any of the ancients report that they wrote save in Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin. Besides, Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek, whereas to the Romans not Greek but Latin was vernacular; likewise Peter and James wrote in Greek to the Jews dispersed through the world, to whom nevertheless neither Greek was the mother tongue, nor Hebrew, but the tongue of that region in which they dwelt, as is plain from that of Acts 2: Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how have we heard them speaking in our own tongues? For so they are called by the Jews who had come together from various regions to the city of Jerusalem; for thus Luke says Acts 2: Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Likewise John wrote his first epistle in Greek to the Parthians, as blessed Hyginus testifies in epistle 1, and Augustine book 2 of the Questions on the Gospels question 39, and Pope John II in the epistle to Valerius; whereas to the Parthians Greek was not the mother tongue.
It is proved thirdly from the use of the universal Church. For, as Augustine teaches epistle 118, to dispute against that which the universal Church does is of the most insolent madness; but the universal Church has always used only these tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in the common and public use of the Scriptures, although these have long since ceased to be vernacular.
That it is so is demonstrated. First from this, that blessed Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 11 says that for the understanding of the Scriptures the knowledge only of three tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, is necessary, because in those tongues the divine Scripture was read; nor does any ancient author mention any other translation; and yet then without doubt there were many other vernacular tongues. Therefore at least for the first 400 years, in which the Church most flourished, the Scriptures were not read in the vernacular tongue. Then, according to the rule of Augustine book 4 against the Donatists chapter 24, and of Leo sermon 2 On the fast of Pentecost, that which is kept in the universal Church, if its beginning cannot be assigned, is rightly believed to descend from Apostolic tradition and to have been always so; but we now see, in Italy, Germany, Gaul, Spain, Greece, wherever there are Catholics, that only the Greek and Latin tongue is in use in the public reading of the Scriptures, nor can the beginning of this thing be assigned; for who can say when this use began?
Besides, in the whole East, in the time of blessed Jerome, there was in public use only the Greek edition of the Seventy Interpreters emended by Origen, Lucian, or Hesychius. For, as we learn from Jerome himself in his preface on Paralipomenon, from Constantinople to Antioch the Greek edition of Lucian was in public use; from Antioch to Egypt, that is, through all Syria, the edition of Origen was in public use; through all Egypt they used the edition of Hesychius; and yet the Greek tongue was not vernacular from Constantinople to Antioch, and much less in Syria and Egypt. For Galatia is between Constantinople and Syria; yet the proper tongue of the Galatians in the time of blessed Jerome was not Greek, but a certain other very like the tongue of the Treveri, as Jerome himself testifies in his preface to book 2 on the epistle to the Galatians.
Besides, Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, Phrygia, and Pamphylia are situated between Constantinople and Antioch, and yet had not the same vernacular tongue, but a diverse one, so that they understood not one another, as is plain from Acts 2; and yet all these used one and the same edition of the Scriptures, namely St. Lucian's. And that in Syria at the same time the vernacular tongue was not Greek, but another far diverse, blessed Jerome testifies in the life of Hilarion, where he says that Hilarion questioned a certain possessed man first in Syriac, then in Greek, that the Greeks who were present might understand. St. Ephrem too wrote many things in the Syriac speech, that is, his own vernacular, as St. Jerome relates in his Catalogue of Writers.
And that Egypt too had its own tongue, Athanasius is witness in the life of blessed Antony, where he says that he disputed through an interpreter with certain Greek Philosophers. Blessed Jerome too, book On Illustrious Men, in Antony, says that he wrote some epistles in Egyptian, which were afterward turned into the Greek tongue.
In Africa it is certain that, as long as there were Christians there, only the Latin tongue was always in the public use of the Scriptures; for there is no mention in any author of any Punic translation. And blessed Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 13 says that in his time the Psalms were wont to be sung in the Church in Latin. Likewise blessed Cyprian in his sermon On the Lord's Prayer testifies that in his time that preface Lift up your hearts was wont to be said in the Mass. Augustine On the good of perseverance chapter 13 says that in the Mass, after that We have them to the Lord, there was presently subjoined by the priest Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, and answered It is meet and just. From which it is manifestly gathered that in Africa the Mass was wont to be said in Latin, as also the Lesson or Epistle and the Gospel, which are among the chief parts of the Mass.
But that at that time the Latin tongue was not vernacular to all in Africa, the same Augustine is witness; for in his unfinished exposition of the epistle to the Romans, about the middle, he says that this word Salus is also Punic, but in Punic signifies three; and in the same place he affirms that some knew Latin and Punic, some Punic only, and that such were almost all the country folk. Likewise sermon 35 On the words of the Lord he says that the Punic tongue is akin to the Hebrew, and that what the Romans call gain is by the Carthaginians called mammon. Blessed Jerome too, in his preface to book 2 on the epistle to the Galatians, says that the tongue of the Africans is the tongue of Phoenicia somewhat changed; and Phoenicia is a part of Syria.
That in Spain only the Latin tongue was always in the public use of the Scriptures is plain from Isidore in his two books On the divine offices; likewise from the Fourth Council of Toledo chapter 2, celebrated 900 years ago, where it was established that in all Spain the same order should be kept in singing the Psalms, in the Masses, in the Lessons, and other Ecclesiastical offices; and then in chapters 12, 13, 14, and 15 it is shown plainly enough that all those things were then wont to be read in Latin, which manner has been kept down to this time. Nor is there any memory or trace of a change, and yet for many ages now the Latin tongue has ceased to be vernacular in Spain. For 1100 years ago it was separated from the Roman Empire, and subjected partly to the Goths, partly to the Moors, who without doubt brought in a new tongue. For that the Goths, whom others call Getae, had their own tongue, Jerome teaches at the beginning of the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela. Nay even before the Goths had corrupted the tongue of the Spaniards, that there was in the Spains a proper tongue, blessed Jerome intimates in his preface to book 2 on the epistle to the Galatians, where he says that in the Balearic islands a tongue akin to Greek was then vernacular.
In England Bede testifies book 1 of the history of his nation chapter 1 that in his time there were four vernacular tongues, according to the diversity of the regions of that same island; yet that Latin was common to all on account of the Scriptures, because forsooth all used the Latin edition of the Scriptures, although some had their own mother tongues. That the same was afterward kept is plain from Thomas Waldensis volume 3 On the sacraments, titles 3 and 4.
That in Gaul too there was use of the Latin tongue in the public reading of the Scriptures, when to the Gauls the Latin tongue was not vernacular, is gathered from Albinus Alcuin, the teacher of Charlemagne, in his book On the divine offices, and also from Amalarius of Trier, who flourished about the year 840 and wrote most accurately On the Ecclesiastical Offices, where he also shows that not only in all Gaul, but also in all the rest of the West, the divine offices were celebrated in the same manner. And that then in Gaul the mother tongue was not Latin is gathered from this, that 200 years before the age of Amalarius the Franks had occupied Gaul, who, coming from Franconia, a region of Germany, settled in the Gauls with a huge multitude. Now that the Franks had their own tongue, Jerome writes in the life of Hilarion, where, speaking of a certain man possessed by a demon: “You would see,” he says, “from a barbarous mouth, and one that knew only the Frankish and Latin tongue, Syriac words resound purely.” Nay even before the Franks occupied the Gauls, that the tongue of the Gauls was diverse from the Latin, blessed Jerome indicates in his preface to book 2 on the epistle to the Galatians.
Now that in Germany at the same time there was use of the Latin tongue alone in the public reading of the Scriptures is openly gathered from Rabanus, Bishop of Mainz, who lived 700 years ago. For he, book 2 On the instruction of the clergy, explaining the order of the divine offices which was then kept in Germany, manifestly signifies that only in Latin were the divine Scriptures wont to be publicly read; and that not only in Germany, but also in the rest of the West the same was kept, he indicates in the same book chapter 9, when he thus says: “This is the Catholic order of the divine celebrations, which is kept unchangeably by the universal Church, etc.” The same can be understood from Rupert of Deutz, who flourished in Germany 400 years ago, and book 1 On the divine offices shows most openly that in Germany, as in the rest of the Church, the divine Scriptures were wont to be read in the Church only in Latin. And that to the Germans the Latin tongue was never vernacular is most certain, both from Jerome in the epistle to Sunnia and Fretela and in the life of Hilarion, and also because the German tongue has no affinity with the Latin, such that it could be said to have arisen little by little from the corruption of the Latin tongue, as the Italian, Spanish, and French arose.
In Bohemia and the neighboring regions, to which also the Latin tongue was never vernacular, 500 years ago the divine Scriptures were read in the Churches in Latin. For there is extant an epistle of Gregory VII, in book 7 of his epistles written by hand, to the Duke of the Bohemians, in which he says that for just causes he was unwilling to permit them to celebrate the divine offices in the Slavonic tongue, as they had requested.
Finally in Italy, without any controversy, the divine Scriptures were always read in the Church in Latin. For the Roman order of the divine offices is now the same, as to substance, that it was from the beginning of the Church. For Isidore book 1 On the Ecclesiastical offices chapter 15 affirms that from blessed Peter began this order of the divine offices which the Roman Church uses; which nevertheless Gelasius I afterward increased and reduced to a better form, as is plain from the Decree distinction 45 canon Sancta Romana. And afterward again Gregory I, as is plain from the book of Sacraments published by him. Then also Gregory VII restored that order, somewhat depraved by the negligence of the times, to its pristine form, as is plain from the canon In die, On consecration, distinction 5; which same thing in our days Pope Pius V did. And so from the comparison of these places we understand that at this time the Roman Church celebrates the divine offices not only in the same tongue, but also in the same order and number of lessons and Psalms, in which it celebrated a thousand years ago in the time of Gelasius.
And that the use of the Latin tongue among the people has long since ceased in Italy ought not to be doubted, since Radevicus, who flourished in the year 1170, book 2 On the deeds of Frederick chapter 70, writes that in the election of Pope Victor the people acclaimed in these words: “Papa Vittore Santo Pietro l'elegge.” Blessed Thomas too, who flourished 300 years ago, in his Commentary on chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians testifies that in his time there was one tongue in Italy which the people used, and another in which the Scriptures were read in the Church. We have therefore that in the universal Church of Christ this has always been kept, that the sacred Scriptures were publicly read only in the Greek and Latin tongue, although these were not the mother and vernacular tongues. By which argument I certainly do not see what more efficacious we could desire to repress the audacity of the Innovators of this time.
But let there come a fourth argument, drawn from reason itself. For it altogether befits the preservation of the unity of the Church that the public use of the Scriptures be in some most common tongue; for unless there be a public use of the Scriptures in a common tongue, there will be taken away, first, the communication of the Churches; for no one, neither learned nor unlearned, will frequent the Churches save in his own country; and besides, no general Councils will be able to be held, for not all the Fathers who come to a Council have the gift of tongues. And this is the reason a priori why the Apostles wrote almost everything in Greek, because then the Greek tongue was the most common of all, as Cicero testifies in his oration for the poet Archias: “Greek,” he says, “is read in almost all nations; Latin is confined within its own borders, narrow indeed.” And then afterward the Scriptures were turned into the Latin tongue, because a little later, the Roman Empire growing, the Greek tongue ceased to be common in the West, and the Latin began to be common, at least among the learned in all Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and other regions. Since therefore even now there is none common to the whole West but Latin, certainly in it the divine Scriptures are to be read.
Fifthly, if there were any reason why the Scriptures ought to be read in the vernacular tongue in the assembly of the Faithful, it would certainly be this chief one, that all might understand; but certainly the people would not understand the Prophets, and Psalms, and other things which are read in the Churches, even if they were read in the mother tongue; for we who know Latin do not therefore straightway understand the Scriptures, unless we read or hear expositors; how then would unskilled men understand? especially since the Scriptures are the more obscure the more they are translated into foreign tongues. And what of this, that the people would not only not take fruit from the Scriptures, but even take harm? For it would most easily receive occasion of erring, both in the doctrine of Faith and in the precepts of life and morals; for from Scripture not understood have arisen all heresies, as Hilary shows at the end of the book On the synods, which Luther too acknowledged, who called Scripture the book of heretics; and the same is proved by experience.
For Cassian relates, Conference 10 chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, that the most absurd errors of the Anthropomorphites arose from mere unskillfulness; and Aeneas Sylvius, in his book On the origin of the Bohemians, relates the most gross errors of the Thaborites, Orebites, and others, who read the Scriptures in the mother tongue and understood them not. Which same happened to David George, the most pestilent of all heretics, who knew no tongue but his own mother tongue, that is, of the Batavians; and yet from the Scriptures he had gathered that he was the Son of God and the Messiah, as is plain from the book or epistle which the Baslers published concerning his errors.
Besides, if the rude people heard read in their vernacular tongue out of the Canticle of Canticles, Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth, and His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me; and that of Osee, Go, and make thee children of fornications; and also the adultery of David, the incest of Thamar, the lies of Judith, and how Joseph made his brethren drunk; Sara, Lia, and Rachel gave their handmaids to their husbands as concubines, and many other deeds of those who are recorded in the Scriptures with great praise — either it would be provoked to imitate such things, or would despise the holy Patriarchs (as of old the Manichees), or would think there are lies in the Scriptures. And when it saw so many apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, and could not solve them, there would be danger lest at length it believed nothing. I have heard from a man worthy of credit that, when in England there was read in a church in the vernacular tongue by a Calvinist Minister the 25th chapter of Ecclesiasticus, where many things are said of the malice of women, a certain woman rose up and said: “Is this the word of God? Nay rather it is the word of the Devil.”
Sixthly, if it were needful to read the sacred Scriptures publicly in the vernacular tongue, it would be needful also in every age to change the translations. For the vernacular tongues are for the greatest part changed in every age, as Horace in the Art of Poetry, and experience itself, teach. But so many changes of translations would not be made without the gravest danger and inconvenience. For fit interpreters are not always found; and so many errors would be committed which could not afterward easily be taken away, since neither Pontiffs nor Councils can judge of so many tongues.
Seventhly, the majesty of the divine offices seems altogether to require a tongue more grave and venerable than those which we commonly use, if this can conveniently be done; especially since in the sacred mysteries there are many things which ought to be secret, as the ancients also teach: Dionysius chapters 1 and last On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Origen homily 5 on Numbers, Basil On the Holy Ghost chapter 27, Chrysostom homily 24 on Matthew, and Gregory book 4 of the Dialogues chapter 56. Nor is the answer of Kemnitz to the purpose, who tries to show that the Latin tongue is in no way holier and more venerable than the rest. For we do not say that it is holier, nor even graver, if we regard the words; but we say that it is by this very thing graver and more to be reverenced, that it is not vernacular.
To all these let there be added the testimonies of the gravest and most learned Fathers, Basil the Greek and Jerome the Latin, who indeed did not judge it expedient that all men without distinction should handle the Scriptures, even though this could not at that time be easily hindered, since the Greek and Latin tongues were still vernacular to certain peoples. Theodoret relates book 4 of the History chapter 17 that, when the Emperor's chief cook had brought forth I know not what out of the Scriptures, he heard him reprehended by the great Basil: “It is thine to think of broths, not to boil down divine doctrines.” What, I pray, would St. Basil now say, if he saw apothecaries, cobblers, and other artisans handling the sacred oracles even from the pulpits among the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists? Jerome in the epistle to Paulinus On the study of the Scriptures: “What belongs to physicians,” he says, “physicians promise; smiths handle the smith's craft. The art of the Scriptures alone is that which all everywhere claim for themselves. We write, learned and unlearned alike, poems everywhere; this the prating old woman, this the doting old man, this the wordy sophist, this all presume upon, tear in pieces, teach before they learn.” Which complaint of Jerome now most of all has place in all Germany and Gaul. For all the artisans, not only men but even women, have the Scriptures in their hands, and from the reading of them add to their unskillfulness indocility and arrogance. For because they can recite the words of the Apostle, and allege books and chapters, they think they know all things, and in no way suffer themselves to be taught. See John Cochlaeus in the book On the life and acts of Luther, year 1522.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
caput xv. De editionibus vulgaribus. Controversia est inter Catholicos et haere¬ ticos, an oporteat, vel certe expediat divi¬ narum Scripturarum usum communem esse in lingua vulgari, et propria uniuscujusque regionis. Et quidem haeretici hujus temporis in eo conveniunt, ut oporteat Scripturas omnibus permittere, imo et tradere in sua lingua, et cum publice leguntur, vel canun¬ tur, et in sacris officiis, id quoque fieri lin¬ gua propria et materna. Ita Brentius docet in Confess. Wittemberg, cap. de hor. Ca¬ non. Calvinus lib. III. Instit. cap. 20. §. 33. Kemnitius in exam. IV. sess. Concil. Tri- dent. quod idem alii omnes reipsa docent, dum passim vertunt Scripturas in linguam Germanicam, Gallicam, Anglicam, et iisdem linguis publice Scripturas legunt et canunt. Et Catholica Christi Ecclesia non quidem prohibet omnino vulgares translationes, ut Kemnitius impudenter mentitur, nam in In¬ dice librorum prohibitorum a Pio IV. edito Reg. 4. -Videmus concedi lectionem ejusmodi librorum iis, qui utiliter, et cum fructu ea uti possunt, id est, iis, qui facultatem ab (1) Hebr. IX, 28. — (2) Ib. XIII, 16. — (3) Jacob. V, 14. — (4) I. Joan. V, 13. 154 L1BEE II. ordinario obtinuerint : prohibetur tamen ne passim omnibus sine discrimine concedatur ejusmodi lectio, et ne in publico et communi usu Ecclesiae Scripturae legantur vel canan¬ tur vulgaribus linguis, ut in Goncil. Trident. sess. XXII. cap. 8 et can. 9. statuitur: sed' contenti simus illis tribus linguis, quas Do¬ minus titulo crucis suae honoravit Jo. XIX. et quae omnium consensu, antiquitate, am¬ plitudine, et gravitate omnibus aliis prae¬ stant ; ac demum quibus ipsi libri divini ab auctoribus suis initio scripti fuerunt, hoc est, Hebraea, Graeca, et Latina. De quibus ita loquitur S. Hilarius praefat. in Psal. : « His maxime tribus linguis Sacramentum voluntatis Dei, et beati regni expectatio prae¬ dicatur, ex quo illud Pilati fuit, ut his tribus linguis Regem Judaeorum Dominum Jesum Christum esse praescriberet. » Scripserunt de hoc argumento, quod ego quidem sciam, auctores duo, Hosius Cardi¬ nalis Yarmiensis in Dialogo de sacro verna¬ cule legendo, et Jacobus Ledesma nostrae Societatis Presbyter, in libro quem scripsit de hoc eodem argumento. Ex quibus nos aliqua decerpemus, et in hanc nostram disputationem, quo ea sit plenior, infere¬ mus. Principio igitur Ecclesiae Catholicae con¬ suetudinem comprobare possumus ex uki Ecclesiae veteris Testamenti, qui fuit a tem¬ pore Esdrae usque ad Christum. Nam a tem¬ poribus Esdrae desiit in populo Dei lingua Hebraica esse vulgaris; siquidem in illis LXX. annis, quibus Hebraei fuerunt inter Chaldaeos in Babylone, obliti sunt linguam propriam et Chaldaicam didicerunt, et deinceps Chal¬ daica, seu Syriaca fuit illis materna, quo¬ circa lib. Esdrae II. cap. 8. habemus, quod cum legeretur liber Legis Domini universo populo, Nehemias, et Esdras, et Levitae in¬ terpretabantur, quia alioqui nihil populus intelligebat. Itaque propterea, ut ibidem di¬ citur, facta est laetitia magna in populo, quia intellexerant verba legis, Esdra interpre¬ tante. Praeterea id apertissime colligitur ex ver¬ bis Christi et Evangelistarum : nam Marci IV. Talitha cumi , id est, Puella surge Syrum est. Nam puella Hebraice non dicitar Ta¬ litha, sed mbt aut rnjm sic Abba Mare. XIY. nam at* dicitur Hebraice et Matth. XXVII. Hacheldema Syrum est, Hebraice dicitur DVnur. Ibibem Golgotha Syrum est, He¬ braice dicitur, 'rb^bs et apud omnes Evan- gelistas habemus Pascha, quod non est Grae¬ cum, nec Hebramm, Hebraice dicitur 'nnb. Yide plura apud Hieronymum in lib. de nom. Hebr. Itaque dubium esse non potest, quin eo tempore lingua vulgaris non esset Hebraica, et tamen Hebraice solum Scriptu¬ ras in templo aut synagogis publice lege¬ bant, aut canebant. Nam ex lib. II. Esdrae c. 8. satis colligitur, tunc lectam fuisse Scrip¬ turam Hebraice non Svriace, nam non in- telligebat populus sine interprete. Huc etiam pertinet quod Jo. VII. dicitur : Turba heee quee non novit Legem. (1). Denique usque ad hanc diem in synagogis Judaei Scripturas Hebraice legunt, cum ta¬ men nulli nationi hoc tempore lingua He¬ braica sit vulgaris. Neque his repugnat, quod exstet paraphrasis Chaldaica Scriptu¬ rarum; nam illa vel tota, vel majori ex parte facta est post Christi adventum, et praeterea eam numquam Hebraei ita receperunt, ut publice eam pro Scriptura legerent : de quo nos agimus. Probatur secundo ex usu Apostolorum : nam Apostoli per totum orbem terrarum Evangelium praedicarunt, et Ecclesias con¬ stituerunt, ut patet ex Paulo ad Roman. X. et ad Coloss. L et ex Marci Evangelio cap. ult. Item ex Iranaeo lib. I. cap. 3, qui cum fuerit vicinissimus Apostolicis temporibus, tamen dicit, suo tempore fuisse Ecclesias jam fundatas in Oriente, inLybia, in iEgyp- to, in Hispaniis, in Germania, et in mediis regionibus, id est, Italia et Gallia : et tamen non scripserunt Evangelia aut Epistolas lin¬ guis earum gentium quibus praedicabant, sed tantum Hebraice, aut Graece, et ut qui¬ dam volunt Latine. Sunt enim qui existi¬ ment, Marci Evangelium, ut etiam supra monuimus, Latine scriptum Romae ab ipso Marco, et postea ab eodem in Graecaim lin¬ guam translatum ; de quo vide Damasum in vita Beati Petri, Adrianum Finum, lih. IY. Flagel. cont. Jud. cap. 80. et lib. VIII. cap. 62. et Petrum Antonium Beurter, An- not. 9. ad sacr. Script. Quod autem non scriperint ullis aliis lin¬ guis, etsi eas non ignorarent, cum haberent donum linguarum, potest mullis modis os¬ tendi. Primo, quia nullum exstat vestigium ullius scripti Apostolici nisi Graece : nec ul- (1) Joan. VII, 49. CAPUT XV. 155 Ius Veterum tradit, scripsisse nisi Hebraice, aut Graece, aut Latine. Praeterea Paulus Romanis Graece scripsit, cum tamen Roma¬ nis non Graeca, sed Latina esset vulgaris : item Petrus, et Jacobus scripserunt Graece Judaeis per orbem terrarum dispersis, qui¬ bus tamen non Graeca erat materna, nec Hebraea, sed lingua ejus regionis, in qua ha¬ bitabant, ut patet ex illo Actor. II. Nonne isti qui loquuntur Galilcei sunt ? et ecce nos audi¬ vimus loqucntes nostris linguis etc (1). Ita enim dicuntur a Judaeis, qui ex variis regio¬ nibus convenerant ad urbem Hierosolyma : sic enim Lucas ait Actor. II. Erant autem in Hierusalem Judaei , viri religiosi ex omni natione , quae subi cado est (2). Item Joannes Graece scripsit primam epistolam Parthis, ut B. Higinus testatur in epist. I. et V. Au¬ gustinus lib. II. quaest. Evangel. quaest. 39. et Joannes II. Papa in epist. ad Valerium, cum tamen Parthis Graeca non esset ma¬ terna. Probatur tertio ex usu universalis Eccle¬ siae : nam, ut Augustinus docet epist. 118. contra id, quod universa Ecclesia facit, dis¬ putare, insolentissimae insaniae est : uni¬ versa porro Ecclesia semper his tantum lin¬ guis, Hebraea, Graeca, et Latina usa est in communi et publico usu Scripturarum, cum tamen jamdudum desierint esse vulgares. Id ita esse, demonstratur. Primum ex eo, quod B. Augustinus, lib. II, doct. Christ. cap. 11 dicit, ad intelligentiam Scriptura¬ rum esse necessariam cognitionem tantum trium linguarum, Hebraicae, Graecae, et La¬ tinae, quia in illis linguis Scriptura divina legeretur, nec ullus antiquus auctor memi¬ nit alicujus alterius translationis: et tamen tunc sine dubio multae aliae erant linguae vulgares. Igitur saltem primis 400. annis, quibus Ecclesia maxime floruit, non lege¬ bantur Scripturae lingua vulgari. Deinde juxta regulam Augustini lib. IV, cont. Do¬ nat. cap. 24. et Leonis serm. 2. de Jejun. Pentec. id quod in universa Ecclesia serva¬ tur, si non possit assignari ejus initium, de Apostolica traditione deseendere, et sic sem¬ per fuisse merito creditur : at nos videmus nunc, in Italia, Germania, Gallia, Hispania, Graecia, ubicumque Catholici sunt, tantum Graecae etLatinae linguae esse usum in publica Scripturarum lectione, nec potest hujus rei assignari principium; quis enim dicat quan¬ do coeperit iste usus? Ad haec, in toto Oriente, tempore B. Hie¬ ronymi , in publico usu erat tantum editio Graeca LXX Interpretum per Origenem, Lucianum , aut Hesychium emendata. Nam ut cx ipso Hieronymo discimus praefat, in Paralip. a Constantinopoli usque ad Antio¬ chiam in publico usu erat editio Graeca Lu- ciani, ab Antiochia usque ad iEgyptum, id est, perfotam Syriam , erat in publico usu editio Origenis ; per totam vEgyptum ute¬ bantur editione Hesychii ; et tamen lingua Graeca non erat vulgaris a Constantinopoli usque ad Antiochiam, et multo minus in Sy¬ ria et iEgypto. Nam Galatia est inter Con- stantinopolim et Syriam : tamen propria lingua Galatarum tempore B. Hieronymi non erat Graeca , sed alia quaedam simillima lin¬ guae Trevirensium , ut ipse Hieronymus tes¬ tatur praefat. lib. II. in epistolam ad Galat. Praeterea, Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia mi¬ nor, Phrygia, Pamphilia sunt inter Constan- tinopolim et Antiochiam sitae, et tamen non habebant eamdem vulgarem linguam sed di¬ versam, ut alii alios non intelligerent, ut pa¬ tet ex Act. II. et tamen isti omnes una et eadem editione Scripturarum utebantur; ni¬ mirum S. Luciani. In Syria autem eodem tempore linguam vulgarem non fuisse Grae¬ cam, sed aliam longe diversam, testatur B. Hieronymus in vit. Hilar., ubi dicit, Hilario- nem interrogasse quemdam obsessum primo Syriace, deinde Graece, ut intelligerint Graeci qui aderant. S. quoque Ephrem multa Syro sermone, id est, sibi vernaculo scripsit, ut S. Hieronymus in Catal. Script. refert. Quod autem ^Egyptus etiam propriam lin¬ guam haberet, testis est Alhanasius in vita B. Antonii, ubi dicit, eum per interpretem disputasse cum quibusdam Philosophis Grae¬ cis. B. Hieronymus quoque 1. de vir. illustr. in Antonio dicit , eum scripsisse vEgyptiace epistolas aliquot, quae postea in Graecam lin¬ guam versae sint. In Africa certum est, quousque ibi Chris¬ tiani fuerunt, semper in usu publico Scriptu¬ rarum fuisse solam Latinam linguam : nam nulla est mentio apud ullum auctorem ullius translationis Punicae. Et B. Augustinus 1. II. doct. Christ. cap. 13. dicit, tempore suo, Psalmos in Ecclesia Latine cantari consue- (2) Act. II, 7. — (3) Ib. 5. 156 LIBER II. visse. Item B. Cyprianus serm. de orat. Do- min. testatur suo tempore in Missa dici soli¬ tam praefationem illam Sursum corda. Au¬ gustinus Do bono persever. cap. 13. dicit, in Missa illud Habemus ad Dominum , mox subdi a sacerdote Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro , et responderi Dignum et justum est. Ex quibus manifeste colligitur, in Africa Missam Latine dici consuevisse, necnon Lec¬ tionem vel Epistolam, et Evangelium , quae ex praecipuis partibus sunt Missae. At eo tempore non fuisseLatinam linguam omnibus vulgarem in Africa, idem Augusti¬ nus testis est, nam in exposit. inchoat, epist. ad Roman. circa med. dicit, vocem hanc Salus, esse etiam Punicam , sed Punice sig¬ nificare tria , et ibidem affirmat , quos¬ dam Latine , et Punice , quosdam Puni¬ ce tantum scivisse , et tales fuisse pene omnes rusticos. Item serm. 35. de verb. Dom. dicit , Punicam linguam affinem esse Hebraicae, et quod Romani lucrum vocant, a Poenis vocari mammon. B. Hieronymus etiam praefat. lib. II. in epist. ad Galat di¬ cit, linguam Afrorum esse linguam Phoeniciae nonnihil immutatam : Phoenicia vero pars est Syriae. In Hispania fuisse semper in publico usu Scripturarum solam Latinam linguam, patet ex Isidoro in lib. duob. De div. Offic. : item ex Cone. Toletan. IY. c. II. ante annos 900. celebrato, ubi statutum est , ut in tota His¬ pania idem ordo servaretur in canendis Psalmis, in Missis, in Lectionibus , et aliis Ecclesiasticis officiis : et deinde cap. XII, XIII, XIY et XV. satis aperte ostenditur, tunc Latine consuevisse illa omnia legi, qui modus usque ad hoc tempus servatus est. Nec exstat ulla memoria, aut vestigium mutationis, et tamen a multis jam sseculis desiit in Hispania lingua Latina esse vulga¬ ris. Nam ante 1100. annos separata fuit a Romano Imperio, et subjecta partim Gothis, partirn Mauris, qui novam linguam sine du¬ bio invexerunt. Gothos enim, quos Gethas alii vocant, propriam linguam habuisse, do¬ cet Hieronymus init, epist. ad Suniam et Fretellam. Quin etiam antequam Gothi lin¬ guam Hispanorum corrupissent, fuisse in Hispaniis propriam linguam, insinuatB. Hie¬ ronymus prcefat. lib. II. in epist. ad Galat. ubi dicit, in insulis Balearibus linguam Gra3- ese affinem fuisse tunc vulgarem. In Anglia testatur Beda lib. I. hist. gentis suse c. l.suo tempore quatuor fuisse linguas vulgares, pro diversitate regionum ejusdem Insulse : tamen Latinam communem fuisse omnibus propter Scripturas, quia scilicet omnes utebantur editione Latina Scriptura¬ rum, etsi aliqui linguas maternas proprias haberent. Idem postea servatum patet ex Thoma Waldensi tom. III. de sacramenta lib. tit. 3. et 4. In Gallia fuisse etiam usum linguse Latinse in publica Scripturarum lectione, quando Gallis non erat vulgaris lingua Latina, colli¬ gitur ex Albino Alcuino prseceptore Caroli Magni in lib. De divin. Offic , necnon ex Amalario Trevirensi , qui circa annum 840. floruit, et accuratissime scripsit De Officiis Ecclesiasticis, ubi etiam ostendit, non solum in tota Gallia, sed etiam in toto reliquo Oc¬ cidente eodem modo celebrata fuisse divina officia. Tunc autem in Gallia maternam lin¬ guam non fuisse Latinam ex eo colligitur, quod 200. annis ante Amalarii aetatem occu¬ paverant Galliam Franci , qui ex Franconia Germaniae regione venientes , in Galliis cum ingen ti multitudine consederunt. Porro Fran¬ cos linguam propriam habuisse, scribit Hie¬ ronymus in vit. Hilarion , ubi de quodam obsesso a daemone loquens : « Videres , in¬ quit, de ore barbaro et qui Francam tan¬ tum, et Latinam linguam noverat , Syra ad purum verba resonare. » Imo etiam ante¬ quam Franci Gallias occuparent, fuisse lin¬ guam Gallorum diversam a Latina, indi¬ cat B. Hieronymus pixefat. lib. II. in epist. ad Galat. Jam in Germania eodem tempore solius Latinee linguse usum fuisse in publica Scrip¬ turarum lectione, aperte colligitur ex Raba- no Episcopo Moguntino, qui fuit ante annos 700. Is enim 1. II. De Instit. Gler. explicans ordinem divinorum officiorum, qui tunc in Germania servabatur, manifeste significat, solum Latine divinas Scripturas publice legi solitas, et non solum in Germania, sed etiam in reliquo Occidente idem servatum fuisse, indicat eodem lib. cap. IX. cum ita dicit ; « Iste est Catholicus ordo divinarum cele¬ brationum, qui ab universa Ecclesia incom- mutabiliter servatur etc. » Idem intelligi potest ex Ruperto Tuitiensi, qui ante annos 400. in Germania floruit , et lib. I. De divinis Offic. apertissime ostendit, in Germania, sicut in reliqua Ecclesia, non¬ nisi Latine divinas Scripturas in Ecclesia legi consuevisse. Germanis autem nunquam fuisse linguam Latinam vulgarem certissi- CAPUT XV. 457 mum est, tum ex Hieronymo in epist. ad S li¬ niam et Fretellam, et in vita Hilarionis, tum etiam quia lingua Germanica - non habet ul¬ lam cum Latina affinitatem, ut dici possit nata paulatim ex Latinae linguse corruptione, quomodo natee sunt Italica, Hispanica, atque Gallica. In Bohemia , et finitimis regionibus , qui¬ bus etiam nunquam fuit lingua Latina vul¬ garis ante annos 500, Latine divinae Scrip- tarae in Ecclesiis legebantur. Nam extat epis¬ tola Gregorii VII. lib. VII. epist. ejus manu scriptarum ad Ducem Bohemorum , in qui¬ bus dicit, se justis de causis non voluisse eis permittere ut divina officia lingua Slavonica celebrarent, ut ipsi postulaverant. Denique in Italia sine controversia ulla semper Latine Scripturae divinae in Ecclesia lectae sunt. Nam ordo Romanus divinorum officiorum idem est nunc quoad substantiam, qui fuit ab initio Ecclesiae. Isidorus enim 1. 1. De offic. Ecclesiast. cap. XV. affirmat, a B. Petro coepisse hunc ordinem divinorum offi¬ ciorum, quo utitur Ecclesia Romana : quem tamen postea auxit , et in meliorem formam redegit Gelasius I. ut patet ex Decreto dis¬ tinet. 45. can. Sancta Romana. Et postea rursum Gregorius I., ut patet ex libro Sacra¬ mentorum ad ipso edito. Deinde etiam Gre¬ gorius VII. eum ordinem , temporum negli- gentia nonnihil depravatum, in pristinam formam restituit, ut patet ex can. In die, de consecrat, distinet. 5. quod idem nostris die¬ bus fecit Pius V. Pontifex. Itaque ex collatione horum locorum intel- ligimus, hoc tempore Romanam Ecclesiam non solum eadem lingua , sed etiam eodem ordine , et numero lectionum et Psalmorum divina officia celebrare, quo ante annos mille tempore Gelasii celebrabat. Desiisse autem jamdudum in Italia lin¬ guae Latinae usum apud populum, dubium esse non debet, siquidem Radevicus, qui an¬ no 1170. florebat , lib. II. De reb. gestis Fri- derici cap. LXX. scribit, in electione Victo¬ ris Papae his vocibus populum acclamasse : « Papa Vittore Santo Pietro 1’ elegge. » Beatus etiam Thomas, qui ante annos 300. floruit in Gomment. cap. XIV. 1. ad Cor. testatur, suo tempore aliam fuisse in Italia linguam qua populus utebatur, et aliam qua Scripturae in Ecclesia legebantur. Habemus igitur in universa Christi Ecclesia id semper esse servatum, ut sacrae Scripturae Graeca tantum, et Latina lingua publice legerentur, tametsi eae linguae maternae , ac vulgares non essent. Quo argumento, certe non vi¬ deo quid efficacius desideremus ad repri¬ mendam audaciam hujus temporis Novato¬ rum . Sed accedat argumentum quartum ab ipsa ratione petitum. Nam convenit omnino ad Ecclesiae unitatem conservandam , ut publi¬ cus usus Scripturarum sit in aliqua lingua communissima : nisi enim sit Scripturarum publicus usus in lingua communi, tolletur in primis communicatio Ecclesiarum : nemo enim neque doctus, neque indoctus frequen¬ tabit Ecclesias nisi in sua patria : et praete¬ rea non poterunt fieri ulla generalia Conci¬ lia, neb enim Patres omnes, qui ad Concilium veniunt, habent donum linguarum , et haec est ratio a priori cur Apostoli omnia fere Graece scripserint , quia tunc lingua Graeca erat omnium communissima, ut M. Tullius testatur in Orat, pro Archia Poeta : « Grae¬ ca, inquit, leguntur in omnibus fere genti¬ bus, Latina suis finibus exiguis sane conti¬ nentur. » Deinde autem conversae sunt Scripturae in linguam Latinam, quia paulo post crescente Imperio Romano , desiit Graeca lingua esse communis in Occidente, et coepit Latina esse communis, saltem apud eruditos in tota Ita¬ lia, Gallia, Hispania, Africa , aliisque regio¬ nibus. Cum igitur etiam nunc nulla sit com¬ munis toti Occidenti nisi Latina , certe in ea Scripturae divinae legendae sunt. Quinto, si ulla ratio esset , cur Scripturae lingua vulgari in coetu Fidelium legi debe¬ rent, ea certe esset potissima , ut omnes in- telligerent : at certe populus non intelligeret Prophetas, et Psalmos, et alia quae in Eccle¬ siis leguntur, etiamsi lingua materna lege¬ rentur ; nos enim qui Latine scimus, non propterea continuo intelligimus Scripturas, nisi expositores legamus vel audiamus : quo¬ modo ergo intelligerent homines imperiti ? praesertim cum Scripturae eo sint obscurio¬ res, quo magis in peregrinas linguas trans¬ feruntur. Quid, quod pbpulus non solum non cape¬ ret fructum ex Scripturis, sed etiam caperet detrimentum ? acciperet enim facillime oc¬ casionem errandi, tum in doctrina Fidei, tum in praeceptis vitae ac morum : nam ex Scriptura non intellecta natae sunt omnes haereses, ut ostendit Hilarius in extr. lib. de 158 LIBER II. \ Synod. quod etiam Lutherus agnovit, qui Scripturam librum haereticorum vocavit; et experimento idem comprobatur. Refert enim Cassianus Collat. X. cap. 2, 3, 4 et 5. Anthropomorphitarum absurdissi¬ mos errores ex sola imperitia esse natos, et vEneas Sylvius in lib. De orig. Bohemor. re¬ fert errores crassissimos Thabori tarum, Ore- bitarum, et aliorum, qui Scripturas materna lingua legebant , et non intelligebant. Quod idem accidit Davidi Georgio omnium haere¬ ticorum pestilentissimo, qui nullam linguam noverat, nisi suam maternam, id est, Bata¬ vorum ; et tamen ex Scripturis collegerat, se esse Dei Filium et Messiam, ut patet ex libro sive epistola, quam de illius erroribus edide¬ runt Basileenses. Praeterea, si populus rudis audiret lingua sua vulgari legi ex Cant. Cantic. Osculetur me osculo oris sui. Et : Laeva ejus sub capite meo , et dextera illius amplexabitur me (1). Et illud Oseoe : Vade , et fac tibi filios forni¬ cationum (2) : necnon adulterium Davidis, incestum Thamar, mendacia Judith, et quem¬ admodum Joseph fratres suos inebriavit; Sara, Lia, et Rachel dederunt ancillas viris suis in concubinas, et multa alia eorum, qui in Scripturis magna cum laude commemo¬ rantur ; vel provocaretur ad hujusmodi imi¬ tanda, vel contemneret sanctos Patriarchas, ut olim Manichaei, vel putaret mendacia esse in Scripturis. Et cum tam multas apparentes contradictiones inScripturis esse videret, et solvere non posset, periculum esset, ne tan¬ dem nihil crederet. Audivi ab homine fide digno, cum in An- glia a Ministro Galvinista in templo legeretur lingua vulgari caput XXY Ecclesiastici, ubi multa dicuntur de malitia mulierum ; sur- rexisse feminam quamdam , atque dixisse : « Istudne est verbum Dei? imo potius ver¬ bum Diaboli est. » Sexto, si oporteret lingua vulgari Scriptu¬ ras sacras publice legere , oporteret etiam singulis aetatibus mutare translationes. Nam linguae vulgares singulis seculis magna ex parte mutantur, ut Horatius in art. Poet., et experientia ipsa docet. Tot vero transla¬ tionum mutationes, non sine gravissimo pe¬ riculo et incommodo fierent. Nam non sem- per inveniuntur idonei interpretes ; atque ita multi errores committerentur, qui non possent postea*facile tolli, cum neque Ponti¬ fices, neque Concilia de tot linguis judicare possint. Sep Limo , videtur omnino maj estas divinorum officiorum requirere linguam magis gravem et venerandam, quam sint illae quibus vulgo utimur, si id commode fieri possit. Praeser- tim cum in sacris mysteriis multa sint, quae secreta esse debent, ut etiam Yeteres docent. Dionysius c. I. et ult. Eccles. Hierarch. Ori- genes hom. 5. in Num. Basilius de Spir. sanet, cap. 27. Chrysostomus hom. 24. in Matth. et Gregorius lib. IY. Dialog. cap. 56. Neque ad rem est responsio Kemnitii , qui conatur ostendere , non esse ullo modo La¬ tinam linguam sanctiorem, et magis vene¬ randam , quam caeterae sint. Non enim dici¬ mus esse sanctiorem, nec etiam graviorem, si verba spectemus, sed dicimus hoc ipso esse graviorem et magis reverendam , quod non est vulgaris. His omnibus accedant doctorum gravissi¬ morum Patrum testimonia, Basilii Graeci, et Hieronymi Latini , qui quidem non judica¬ bant expedire, ut omnes homines sine dele¬ ctu Scripturas tractarent, etiamsi id non po- set eo tempore facile impediri, cumGrseca et Latina lingua quibusdam populis adhuc es¬ sent vulgares. R.efert Theod. lib. IV, hist.c. 17. cum Praefectus culinae Imperatoris nescio quid de Scripturis protulisset, eum a magno Basilio reprehensum audivisse : « Tuum est de pulmentis cogitare , non dogmata divina decoquere. » Quid, obsecro, nunc diceret S. Basilius, si pharmacopolas, sutores, caeteros- que opifices , etiam e pulpitis sacra eloquia tractare apud Lutheranos, Calvinistas, atque Anabaptistas videret? Hieronymus in epist. ad Paulinum de Stud. Scriptur. « Quod me¬ dicorum est, )) inquit, « promittunt medici, tractant fabrilia fabri. Sola Scripturarum ars est, quam sibi passim omnes vindicant. Scri¬ bimus indocti , doctique poemata passim, hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hanc sophista verbosus, hanc universi preesumunt, lacerant, docent, antequam discant. » Quae Hieronymi querimonia nunc maxime locum habet in tota Germania et Gallia. Om¬ nes enim opifices, non solum viri, sed etiam foeminae Scripturas habent in manibus, et ex earum lectione ad imperitiam suam ad¬ jungunt indocilitatem et arrogantiam. Quia enim possunt verba Apostoli recitare, et al¬ legare libros et capita, putant se omnia sci- (1) Cantic. I, 1. ; II, 6. — (2) Os. I, 2. CAPUT XYI. 159 re, nec ullo modo doceri se patiantur. Yide Jo. Cochlseum in lib. De vit. et act. Luth. anni 1522.