Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book II: On the Editions and Versions of Scripture
Chapter 16: The objections of the heretics are solved
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).
But let us see what they object on the contrary. In the first place, they bring forth the words of St. Paul from the first to the Corinthians chapter 14, where the Apostle teaches that the public lessons and prayers of the Church ought to be made in the vernacular tongue; for thus he says: For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air. And below: If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding. Else if thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that holdeth the place of the unlearned say Amen to thy blessing? because he knoweth not what thou sayest. For thou indeed givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I answer: in the first place it is certain that in a great part of this chapter the matter is not of the reading of the Scriptures, nor of the divine offices, but of spiritual exhortation, or conference. For as of old the Monks met together and conferred of spiritual things (whence come the Conferences of the Fathers in Cassian), so also in the primitive Church, as blessed Justin indicates at the end of the second Apology, the Christians met on the Lord's days, and first the Scriptures were read, then a sermon was made by the Bishop, then the mysteries were celebrated, lastly they mingled discourses among themselves of divine things.
Lest therefore the multitude should breed confusion, the Apostle had ordained that only two or three should speak in each conference, and the rest hear and judge, and if perchance, while one was speaking, something better were inspired to another, that the first should be silent and the second speak. And because among the Corinthians there were sometimes some who, to show off the gift of tongues, used a foreign tongue, the Apostle corrects them; for the exhortations ought to be understood by all.
That this is the true exposition of the greater part of this chapter can be understood, both from this, that the ancients so interpreted this place — Cyprian in the epistle to Pompey and in the epistle to Quirinus On the rebaptizing of heretics, whose exposition blessed Augustine praises book 2 On Baptism against the Donatists chapter 8, likewise Basil in his Shorter Rules explained, question 278, Ambrose, Sedulius, Haymo, Theodoret, and Oecumenius on this place — and also from the words of the Apostle. For that Let two or three prophets speak, and let the rest judge, and that If anything be revealed to another, let the first hold his peace, and that Let women keep silence in the Church, and many like things can be referred only to exhortation; for the reading of the Scriptures and the divine offices ought not to be judged by prophets; nor are they then inspired when they are read, but things long since inspired are recited; nor did women ever celebrate the divine mysteries in the Church. Of exhortation, therefore, are understood those words objected to us: If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air.
But there still remains a difficulty about those words: If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding; else if thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that holdeth the place of the unlearned say Amen to thy blessing? because he knoweth not what thou sayest. For in these words the matter seems to be not of exhortation, but of prayers and Psalms. Where by the way it is to be noted that Ambrose and Haymo read this place with a double interrogation: Who supplieth for the unlearned? how shall he answer Amen? yet the Greeks always read as our Vulgate reading has, He that holdeth the place of the unlearned, how shall he answer Amen? which Calvin, Beza, and our other adversaries also approve as the truer.
To remove this difficulty, then, some answer that in these words too the matter is of exhortation, not of prayers. So Basil, Theodoret, and Sedulius named a little before. But it seems difficult to defend this; for [proseuchomai] and [psallō] and [eucharistō], which words the Apostle uses, do not signify to exhort, but to pray, and to sing, and to give thanks. Wherefore Chrysostom and Theophylact, and also Ambrose and Haymo, understand this place of prayers.
Others therefore say that the Apostle indeed speaks of the divine offices, but does not require that the whole people understand, but only that some one understand who may answer in the person of the people; for this is signified by those words, He that holdeth the place of the unlearned, how shall he answer Amen? So Haymo, Primasius, Peter Lombard, blessed Thomas, and certain others of the Latins understood this place. But it does not seem an altogether solid solution; for those words of the Apostle [ho anaplērōn ton topon tou idiōtou] do not signify, according to the use of the Greek tongue, he who bears the person of the unlearned, but he who fills up the place of the unlearned, that is, who sits in the places of the unlearned, who occupies the place of the unlearned, who is one of the unlearned and himself unlearned, as Chrysostom and Theophylact expound this place; for not only profane authors, but even the sacred, do not use that noun [topos] for person, but the adverb [anti]; as is plain 1 Maccabees chapter 9, He rose up in the place of Judas, and chapter 11, That he might reign in the place of his father, and chapter 13, In the place of Jonathan his brother, and chapter 14, High Priest in his place; for it is always [anti].
Another is the opinion of others: that the Apostle, when he says he who fills up the place of the unlearned, understands him who is unlearned; yet calls unlearned not him who is really unlearned, but who is unlearned by office, that is, who answers for the unlearned; just as we sometimes call a man a man of the people who, though he be a patrician, yet follows the faction of the people. So this opinion will be the same with the former, but a little otherwise explained. So Sixtus wished to loose this knot, book 6 of the Holy Bibliotheca annotation 263, where he also admonishes that the words of Chrysostom homily 35 on the first to the Corinthians are not faithfully rendered. For the words of Chrysostom are [Greek]; but the interpreter translated, “He calls the promiscuous common people unlearned,” whereas he ought to have translated, “He calls the layman unlearned,” that is, a man appointed for the laity in the Church.
But neither does this explanation seem to square altogether with this place, since it can be objected that in the time of the Apostles the whole people was wont to answer in the divine offices, and there was no one appointed for the laity. For Justin toward the end of the second Apology for the Christians says in express words that the whole people in the Church was wont to answer Amen when the Priest ended the prayer or thanksgiving. That the same was afterward long kept both in the East and in the West is plain from the liturgy of Chrysostom, which is had at the end of his works, where it is most openly distinguished what the Priest, what the Deacon, and what the people sang in the divine offices. Likewise from Cyprian in his sermon On the Lord's Prayer, where he says the people answered, We have them to the Lord; and from Jerome in his preface to book 2 on the epistle to the Galatians, who writes that in the Churches of the city of Rome the people was heard, like a heavenly thunder, re-echoing Amen.
The true opinion therefore is that the Apostle in this place treats not of the divine offices, nor of the public reading of the Scriptures, but of spiritual canticles, which the Christians composed to praise God and to give him thanks, and at the same time for their own and others' consolation and edification. That the Apostle speaks not of the Scriptures or divine offices is proved from this, that the Scriptures without doubt were read in Greek, and the divine offices were done in Greek in Greece, as even the heretics admit; but the Apostle here speaks of prayer and thanksgiving made by the gift of tongues, in some tongue most foreign, which no one understood, as Arabic or Persian, as Chrysostom and all the others expound; nay even which he who spoke often did not understand, as those words indicate: If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit, that is, if I pray by the gift of tongues, in a tongue which I understand not, my spirit prayeth, that is, my affection prayeth, yet my understanding is without fruit, that is, my intellect is not instructed, because I understand not what I say. Likewise that: He that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no one heareth, that is, no one attendeth, because no one understandeth. He speaks not therefore of the divine offices, which, being done in Greek, were understood by many, but he speaks of prayer, or the praise of God, and thanksgiving, which some sometimes sang in a foreign tongue in those conferences.
Moreover, that the Christians were wont to compose and sing spiritual canticles in the Church at the time of the spiritual conferences is most certain. For this Eusebius teaches book 2 of the History chapter 17 out of Philo; likewise Dionysius chapter 3 On the divine names and the following chapter, where he brings forward many things from the canticles of Hierotheus. Tertullian too in the Apologeticum chapter 39, describing the Agape of the Christians, that is, the public supper which was held in the Church, says that those who could were wont to sing something to God from their own genius. Finally the Apostle himself, Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, exhorts that in Psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles they admonish themselves; which place Haymo understands of the canticles which they themselves composed. Since therefore those canticles are made for the consolation of the people, the Apostle will have them made in a tongue which is understood, that the unlearned, who know not how to compose such things, may at least be able to confirm them by saying Amen.
But you will object: as the Apostle wished those canticles to be made in the vernacular tongue, that the people might subjoin Amen, so also he ought to have wished the divine offices to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue, that the people might be able to answer Amen. I answer by denying the consequence, because the divine offices were done in the Greek tongue, which many of the people understood, though not all, and this was enough; for the Apostle did not wish that all should be able to answer. Besides, then, because the Christians were few, all together sang in the Church and answered in the divine offices; but afterward, the people growing, the offices were more divided, and it was left to the clergy alone to perform the common prayers and praises in the Church. Finally the chief end of those canticles was the instruction and consolation of the people; for they were made in the conferences in place of exhortation, and therefore it was just that they be understood by very many, and unless they had been made in a known tongue, or an interpretation had soon followed, their chief fruit would have perished. But of the divine offices the chief end is not the instruction or consolation of the people, but the worship of God; and the things which the people ought to know are explained to them by the pastors out of the divine offices.
The second objection. From prayer not understood no profit follows, Isaiah 29 and Matthew 15, This people honoureth me with their lips, etc.; and 1 Corinthians 14, If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit; therefore all prayers, both public and private, ought to be made in the vernacular tongue. Which objection is Calvin's, but has an easy solution. For in the first place it is false that from the public prayer of the Church no fruit is perceived by the people unless that prayer be understood by the people; for the prayer of the Church is not made to the people, but to God for the people. And so there is no need that the people understand, that it may profit them, but it is enough if God understand. Just as if one prayed to a King in Latin for some countryman, certainly the countryman could perceive fruit thence, although he understood not the prayer of his advocate.
Besides, the Church prays for the Faithful and for other sinners, who often not only understand not, but neither hear nor wish to be prayed for; and yet the Church prays not in vain: how much more, then, does it not pray in vain for the Faithful present and desiring to be prayed for in their necessities? Hence Leviticus 16 God commanded that, while the Priest, having entered the Sanctuary, prayed for himself and for the people, the people should remain outside, so that they not only understood not, but neither heard nor saw the Priest — which we read was also done in the time of Zacharias, Luke 1 — and yet who can doubt that that prayer profited the people? Hence too Origen homily 20 on Josue: “If you see,” he says, “sometime that a Scripture is read in your ears which you understand not, know that meanwhile you have received this first profit, that by the mere hearing, as by a certain incantation, the poison of the noxious powers which beset you is driven off.” And Chrysostom homily 3 on Lazarus: “What,” he says, “if we understand not the things contained in the sacred books? Even so, although you understand not the things hidden there, yet from the very reading much holiness is born.”
Nor can the people perceive fruit only from another's prayer, though they understand it not, but even from that which they themselves pour out to God for themselves; for, as St. Augustine teaches book 3 On Christian Doctrine chapter 9, the Jews not in vain worshipped God with various figures and ceremonies, whose meanings many of them understood less than our country folk understand the Latin words.
Besides, the same Augustine book 6 On Baptism chapter 25: “Many rush into prayers composed not only by unskilled babblers, but even by heretics, and through the simplicity of ignorance not able to discern them, use them, thinking that they are good; nor yet does that which is perverse in them evacuate the things which are there right, but is rather evacuated by them.” By which words St. Augustine teaches that even prayers in which something heretical is mixed are not without fruit, when they are simply said by one who knows not what he says and thinks he says well. For, as the same Augustine there says, generally the affection of the one praying overcomes the fault of the prayer. For God regards not so much what we say as what we desire to say; if therefore prayers not understood, and even bad, are not fruitless when they are said in good faith, how much more shall the best prayers instituted by the Church, even though they be not understood, profit?
Hence Origen homily 20 on Josue: “Although we understand not,” he says, “the things which we utter with our mouth, yet those powers which are present with us understand, and, as if invited by a certain song, are delighted to be present with us and to bring aid, etc.” Which thing he illustrates by two similitudes: “For if it is believed by the Gentiles that certain songs, which they call incantations, whispered by those whose art this is, with certain names invoked which not even they who invoke them know, can, by the mere sound of the voice, either lull serpents to sleep or even draw the hidden ones out of their caverns, how much more are we to believe that any naming whatsoever of holy Scripture, or of words, or of names, is to be reckoned stronger and more powerful than any whole incantation and song?” And below: “Physicians are wont sometimes to give some food, sometimes also to give drink, and yet in the eating of the food itself, or in the drinking, we perceive not that it is useful, etc. In this way, then, it is to be believed also of holy Scripture, that it is useful and profits the soul, even though our sense for the present grasp not the understanding.” So he.
Besides, if it were necessary to understand whatever we say when praying or praising God, surely few or none could sing the Psalms of David, and read the Prophets and Apostles in the divine offices. For how few there are who understand the sentences of all the Psalms, Prophets, and Apostles; how many things occur while we sing which we understand not! nor yet ought we to run from the Church to the commentaries; nor therefore do we sing in vain, provided we sing with devotion and reverence; for we know that whatever it be, it pertains to the praise of God. And what of this, that St. Antony was wont to say that that is the perfect prayer in which the mind is so absorbed in God that it understands not its own words?
Nor do those Scriptures contradict these: This people honoureth me with their lips, and If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit. For in the former the matter is not of prayer or reading, but of those who with the mouth profess piety and say they love God, and yet in deeds do the contrary, as Jerome expounds on chapter 29 of Isaiah, and Augustine book 22 against Faustus chapter 55. If, however, anyone will refer those words to prayer, he must say that those are reprehended who, praying in a tongue never so well known to them, attend not to what they say, but wander in mind to other business.
In the latter Scripture the prayer which is not understood is not reprehended, but the prayer which is understood is preferred to it. For the Apostle does not say that the prayer is without fruit, but the understanding. For he who prays in a tongue which he knows not, as when rude men recite the seven Psalms in Latin, profit indeed in affection and spirit, yet their understanding is without fruit, because it is not instructed. But that such prayer is not reprehended as bad and utterly fruitless, the Apostle declares by those words, For thou indeed givest thanks well. And the same Chrysostom openly confirms on this place. Add that, as we showed above, the Apostle speaks of a tongue which no one in the whole Church can understand. Wherefore these Apostolic words are brought in vain against the custom of the Catholic Church; for although in the common Latin prayers of the Church the understanding of the country folk remains without fruit, yet the affection of the country folk does not remain without fruit, nor the understanding of very many others who know Latin; and the fruit of understanding which the unlearned lack is compensated by the many advantages which arise thence, that the Scriptures are assiduously read in the public assembly in the most common idiom, that is, Latin.
The third objection, of Brentius: In the Decretals, chapter Quoniam in plerisque, title On the office of the ordinary judge, Innocent III commands that when in some city men of diverse tongues are mixed, the Bishop provide fit men who may celebrate the divine offices in the diverse tongues and administer the Sacraments to the men of diverse tongue. I answer: Innocent in that decree speaks only of the Greek and Latin tongue. For because in the time of Innocent Constantinople was taken by the Latins, and, the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople being Latins, there were very many Latins in Greece mixed with the Greeks, it was requested of the Pontiff in the general Lateran Council, to which Greeks and Latins had come together, that he permit two Bishops to be ordained in the same places. But the Pontiff with the Council answered that it was not fitting that there be two Bishops in one Church, yet that the Bishop ought to provide that there be fit ministers who might celebrate the sacred things in Greek for the Greeks and in Latin for the Latins. And this is the decree, chapter 9 of the Council, and thence was taken the chapter Quoniam in plerisque. That the decree therefore speaks not of vernacular tongues is plain, both from the history now recited, and also because the decree would have been most of all observed in Italy, where the Supreme Pontiff resides and has temporal dominion. But in Italy it was never observed; for St. Thomas, who flourished a little after the decree was made, composed the office of the feast of the Body of the Lord in Latin, which we retain even today, whereas he himself in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14 confesses that the vernacular tongue of the Italians in his time was not Latin.
The fourth objection, of the same Brentius: The end of the divine offices and public lessons is the instruction, consolation, and edification of the people; for Romans 15 it is said, That through patience and the consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope; and 1 Corinthians 14, I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue; and in the same place, When you come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath an apocalypse, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation: let all things be done to edification; but from an unknown and foreign tongue, what instruction, what edification, what consolation can be perceived? I answer: both the proposition and the assumption of this argument are false. For the chief end of the divine offices is not the instruction or consolation of the people, but the worship due to God from the Church. For it is the office of the clergy, in the name of the whole Christian people, perpetually to immolate to God the sacrifice of praise, as he himself requires Psalm 49, and after the manner of soldiers to keep watch, and by vigils and prayers to protect the whole camp of the Church. Isaiah 62: Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; all the day and all the night they shall never hold their peace. Then, those who are not most unskilled know Latin and are instructed while they hear the divine offices; but the rest would not be instructed even if the office were celebrated in the vernacular tongue, for instruction is not in words, but in sense. Wherefore the instruction of the people is served by the most frequent sermons which ought to be made in the several Churches.
Nor do those three Scripture testimonies in any way hurt our opinion. For we confess that the sacred Scriptures bring great consolation to the Faithful, as the Apostle admonishes Romans 15; but to the learned indeed while they are read, and to the unlearned while they are explained by the preachers. And rightly St. Paul had rather speak five words with his understanding for instruction than ten thousand words in a tongue, because better is an exhortation which is understood by all, though it be most brief, than one which is not understood, though it be most long. Finally, by those five words — psalm, doctrine, apocalypse, tongue, and interpretation — are understood not the divine Scriptures, but five freely-given gifts; for a little before in this same chapter the Apostle thus speaks of the same gifts: If I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine? And so by tongue he understands the gift of tongues; by doctrine the gift of teaching the things which pertain to good morals or even to Faith; by apocalypse the gift of revelation, for often God then revealed mysteries to those sitting in the Church; by interpretation the gift of expounding the Scriptures and translating from one tongue into another, which gift Paul very often calls also prophecy; by psalm the freely-given gift of singing, as Chrysostom rightly expounds, the gift of composing spiritual canticles and modestly singing them in the Church. The sense therefore is: since in your assemblies and conferences you can exercise all these gifts of tongues, of revelation, etc., see that nothing be done for ostentation, but all things for profit and edification.
The fifth objection, of Kemnitz: Christ preached in the vernacular tongue; the Apostles on the day of Pentecost spoke the wonderful works of God in various tongues, and afterward, dispersed through the world, preached everywhere in the tongues of those peoples to whom they preached; therefore we ought to have the divine Scriptures in various tongues, and those vernacular; for if the word of God is not defiled if it be uttered in the vernacular tongue, why shall it be defiled if it be written in the vernacular tongue? I answer: by this argument nothing is concluded; for if the consequence from preaching to Scripture is good, why did the Apostles write only in Greek, when they preached in so many tongues? Therefore the word of God is rightly preached in the vernacular tongue, because preaching contains an explanation which all may easily grasp; but when it is written, it is written bare, and is not grasped by all. And so, just as it is not lawful to argue thus — Mothers give infants bread cut into little pieces, or even chewed beforehand; therefore they could give it also whole and solid, for it is the same bread — so it is not lawful to argue: the word of God explained by a preacher is ministered to the people; therefore it ought also to be ministered without explanation and written in the vernacular tongue.
The sixth objection, of the same Kemnitz: Blessed Jerome testifies that he translated the Scriptures into the Slavonic tongue. Likewise, the Scriptures were of old turned into the Chaldaic tongue, which was then vernacular, and afterward into the Greek tongue, which was also then vernacular, and the Apostles used that translation. Afterward also they were turned into the Latin tongue, when that was vernacular; and Christ on the cross cited a Scripture in the Syriac speech, that is, the vernacular; therefore it is no crime to turn them into the vernacular tongues. I answer: in the first place we do not deny that the Scriptures can be turned into the vernacular tongues; but what we contend is that they ought not to be publicly read in the vernacular tongue, nor everywhere permitted to all to be read in the vernacular tongue. But whether Jerome translated the divine Letters into the Slavonic tongue I do not certainly know. For nowhere have I read this in Jerome, or in any of the ancients; yet if he did it, he did it not that the Scripture might be publicly read in Slavonic, but for the consolation of those men who could use it without danger, as also among us at this time it is conceded to certain particular men. Moreover, the Chaldaic edition is not so much a version as a paraphrase, and never had great authority among the Catholics.
But what is brought forward of the Greek translation makes for us; for the Scriptures were translated into the Greek tongue not because that tongue was vernacular to some, but because it was the most common. For certainly to Ptolemy the King of Egypt, who caused them to be translated, the Greek tongue was not vernacular. The same I say of the Latin, namely that the Scriptures were translated into the Latin tongue because it was common in all the West, although to some few it was still vernacular. To that of Christ: although Epiphanius, heresy 69, which is that of the Arians, thinks that Christ on the cross uttered that sentence partly in Hebrew, partly in Syriac, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? yet it is more probable that the whole was pronounced by Christ in Hebrew, as it is in Psalm 21 itself; for there was no cause why the Lord should begin the words of David in Hebrew and then change into the Syriac idiom. Wherefore blessed Jerome, in the book On Hebrew names, treating this place, does not say that they are Syriac words, which nevertheless he is always wont to note in those things which are Syriac; but he sets down the Hebrew words [Hebrew], and in Latin letters thus renders them: Eli, Eli, lamma azabthani, which it is certain are Hebrew. Erasmus too, to whom Kemnitz attributes much, in his annotation on this place teaches that Christ uttered those words in pure Hebrew. Add that in Syriac he would have said thus, Ili, ili, lemana sebactani; but that in the Greek and Latin we have sebactani, not azabthani as it ought to have been, was done that it might be more easily pronounced, just as we are wont to say Isaias, Ezechias, Jeremias, Assuerus, and other such for Jesajahu, Irmejahu, Chizkiahu, Achascueros, and other most harsh Hebrew words.
The seventh objection, of Kemnitz: Chrysostom very often exhorts the laity to the reading of the Scriptures; therefore it is fitting that the Scriptures be permitted to all in the vernacular tongue. And although Kemnitz brought forward no places of Chrysostom, we can nevertheless note his places. Homily 9 on the epistle to the Colossians: “Hear, I beseech you, all you seculars, procure for yourselves Bibles, the medicines of the soul; if you will nothing else, at least acquire the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels, etc.” He has like things homily 2 on Matthew, in his preface on the epistles of blessed Paul, homily 3 on the second to the Thessalonians, homily 10 on John, and homily 3 on Lazarus. I answer: the words of Chrysostom which he uttered in his sermons are always to be taken according to his mind, and the occasions by which he was led to say them. Since therefore at that time men were given to theatres, spectacles, and other trifles, and never read the divine Scriptures, not even those who were capable, therefore Chrysostom, to shake off that sloth, perpetually exhorted all to the reading of the Scriptures — not that he wished all whatsoever, even the rudest, to do it, but that at least those should do it who could with fruit. For he knew that he was dealing with those who needed such amplifications. And that this is so could be demonstrated from many places of his; but for the present I will be content with three only.
For homily 4 on Lazarus he thus says: “It cannot be that anyone attain salvation unless he be perpetually occupied in spiritual reading.” But if this be taken properly, who does not see it to be most false? For what? shall those who have not learned letters not be able to be saved? Therefore that is a hyperbolical expression, not a proper one. Homily 15 on Genesis: “It is not lawful to swear, either in a just matter or an unjust.” And homily 17 on Matthew: “What then,” he says, “if someone exact an oath and impose the necessity of swearing? let the fear of God be to thee more violent than any necessity.” And so he seems to wish that in no way is one to swear, whereas it is certain that it is a religious and good act to swear in a just and necessary matter; but Chrysostom used such amplifications in his sermons because his people were wonderfully addicted to oaths, as is gathered from homily 9 on the Acts of the Apostles and other places of the same author.
They object lastly: that it was conceded to the Moravians 600 years ago by the Apostolic See that they might celebrate the divine offices in the Slavonic tongue; and besides that now the Ruthenians, Armenians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and I know not what other peoples perform the sacred things in their vernacular tongues. I answer: by the examples of the Ruthenians, Armenians, and the like we are no more moved than we are moved by the examples of the Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Calvinists, who publicly read the Scriptures in German, or French, or English, or even Polish, and other vernacular tongues. For these too are either heretics or schismatics, and we know that their Catholic ancestors did otherwise, as has been demonstrated above. But if there are some Catholics among them — as indeed there are the Maronites in Syria, and some both among the Armenians and among the Ruthenians — these do not indeed celebrate the divine offices in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, because those tongues had ceased to be in use even among the learned in those regions; yet they celebrate in a tongue other than the popular. For the Maronites commonly use the Arabic tongue, but in sacred things the Chaldaic; and those who use in sacred things the Syriac or Arabic tongue use the learned Syriac or Arabic, not the popular; which the Greeks also do, who commonly use the vernacular Greek tongue, but in sacred things the learned Greek tongue.
To that of the Moravians I answer: there was a just cause why it ought to be done at that time, namely because (as Aeneas Sylvius relates in his book On the origin of the Bohemians chapter 13) the whole kingdom was being converted at once, and ministers could not be found who might celebrate in Latin; it seemed better to the Supreme Pontiff to permit that it be done in Slavonic than in no way. Yet afterward, when erudition grew, and fit ministers were found who could perform the same in Latin, it was better to omit the use of the Slavonic tongue and to follow the common custom of the whole Church, as at this time the Moravian Catholics do. And thus far of the editions of the Scriptures.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Solvuntur objectiones haereticorum. Sed videamus , quid illi contra objiciant. Primo loco, proferunt verba S. Pauli ex prio¬ re ad Gor. cap. XIV. ubi Apostolus docet, publicas Ecclesiae lectiones et preces debere fieri lingua vulgari ; sic’ enim ait : Etenim si incertam vocem det tuba , quis parabit se ad bellum ? Ita et vos per linguam , nisi manifes¬ tum sermonem dederitis , quomodo scietur id quod dicitur ? eritis enim in aera loquentes. Et infra .* Si orem lingua , spiritus meus orat ; mens autem mea sine fructu est. Quid ergo ? Orabo spiritu , orabo et mente : psallam spiritu , psallam et mente. Cceterum si benedixeris spi- ritu , qui supplet locum idiotae , quomodo dicet Arnen super tuam benedictionem ? quoniam quid dicas nescit : nam tu quidem bene gratias agis , sed alter non aedificatur (1). Respondeo : in primis certum esse, in ma¬ gna parte hujus capitis non agi de lectione Scripturarum, nec de officiis divinis, sed de exhortatione spirituali , sive collatione. Ut enim olim Monachi inter se conveniebant, et conferebant de rebus spiritualibus, unde exi- stunt collationes Patrum apud Cassianum, ita etiam in prima Ecclesia, ut indicat B. Jus¬ tinus in fine Apolog. II. conveniebant Chri¬ stiani diebus Dominicis, et primum legeban¬ tur Scripturae, deinde fiebat concio ab Anti¬ stite, tum celebrabantur mysteria, postremo inter se de rebus divinis sermones misce¬ bant. Ne igitur turbationem pareret multitudo, Apostolus instituerat, ut duo aut tres tantum in singulis collationibus loquerentur, et cae- teri audirent, ac dijudicarent, et si forte dum unus diceret, alteri inspiratum fuisset aliquid melius, ut primus taceret et secundus loque¬ retur. Et quia apud Corinthios interdum ali¬ qui erant, qui ut ostentarent donum lingua¬ rum, peregrina lingua utebantur, Apostolus eos corrigit : nam exhortatfones ab omnibus debent intelligi. Hanc esse veram expositionem majoris par¬ tis hujus capitis intelligi potest, tum ex eo quod hunc locum ita interpretati sUnt Vete¬ res. Cyprianus in epist. ad Pompeium, et in epist. ad Quirinum de haeret, rebaptiz. , cu¬ jus expositionem laudat B. Augustinus lib. II. de Baptis, cont. Donat, c. 8. item Basi¬ bus in qusest. brevit. explic. qusest. 278. Am¬ brosius, Sedulius, Haymo , Theodoretus, et QEcumenius in hunc locum : tum etiam ex verbis Apostoli. Nam illud Prophetae duo, aut tres dicant , et cceteri dijudicent. Et illud Si alii revelatum fuerit , prior taceat. Et illud Mulie¬ res in Ecclesia taceant (2) , et similia multa nonnisi ad exhortationem referri possunt : nam lectio Scripturarum et divina officia non debent a Prophetis dijudicari : nec tunc in¬ spirantur cum leguntur, sed jam olim inspi¬ rata recitantur ; nec unquam mulieres in Ec¬ clesia divina mysteria celebraverunt. De ex¬ hortatione igitur intelliguntur illa verba no¬ bis objecta : Si incertam vocem det tuba , quis parabit se ad bellum ? Ita et vos per linguam , nisi manifestum sermonem dederitis , quomodo scietur id quod dicitur ? eritis enim in aera lo¬ quentes. At manet adbuc difficultas de illis verbis : Si orem lingua , spiritus meus orat ; mens autem mea sine fructu est. Quid ergo ? Orabo spiritu , orabo et mente : psallam spiritu , psallam et mente : cceterum si benedixeris spiritu , qui sup¬ plet locum idiotce , quomodo dicet Arnen super tuam benedictionem ? (quoniam quid dicas nescit. In his enim verbis non de exhortatione, sed de precibus et Psalmis agi videtur. Ubi obi¬ ter notandum est, Ambrosium etHaymonem legisse hunc locum cum duplici interrogatio¬ ne : Quis supplet idiotce ? quomodo respondebit Amenl tamen Graeci semper legerunt, ut no¬ stra vulgata lectio habet : Qui supplet locum idiotce , quomodo respondebit Arnen ? quam et Calvinus, Beza, et alii adversarii nostri pro¬ bant ut veriorem. Ad hanc igitur tollendam difficultatem ali¬ qui respondent : etiam in his verbis agi de exhortatione, non de precibus. Ita Basilius, Theodoretus , et Sedulius paulo ante nomi¬ nati. Sed videtur difficile hoc defendere : nam npousv^ouui. et tJ/kXgc et iw/upiatypizi quibus vocibus Apostolus utitur , non significant condonari , sed precari , et canere , et gratias (1) I. Cor. XIV, 8. et seq. — (2) Ibid. 29. et 34. i 60 LIBER II. agere. Quocirca Chrysostomus etTheophyla- ctus, necnon Ambrosius et Haymo liunc lo¬ cum de precibus intelligunt. Alii ergo dicunt: Apostolum quidem loqui de divinis officiis, sed non requirere ut totus populus intelligat , sed solum ut intelligat aliquis, qui vice populi respondeat, hoc enim significari illis verbis : Qui supplet locum idio¬ tae , quomodo respondebit Amen‘1 Ita intellexe¬ runt hunc locum Haymo, Primasius. Petrus Lombardus, B. Thomas, et alii quidam ex Latinis. Sed nonvidetur omnino solida solu¬ tio , nam illa verba Apostoli 6 av«?r hip&v rov T07rov zou iStwrou , non significant secundum usum Graecae linguae qui gerit vices idiotce, sed qui adimplet locum idiotce , id est, qui sedet in locis idiotarum , qui occupat locum idiota¬ rum , qui est ex idiotis et idiota , ut exponunt Chrysostomus et Tlieophylactus hoc loco : nam non solum profani auctores, sed etiam sacri non utuntur nomine illo ronoq pro vice, sed adverbio cari : ut patet lib. I. Machab. cap. IX. Surrexit loco Judce , et cap. XI. Ut regnaret loco patris sui, et cap. XIII. Loco Jo- nathee fratris sui , et cap. XIY. Summus Sacer¬ dos loco ejus , semper enim est avrt. Alia est aliorum sententia : Apostolum cum dicit qui adimplet locum idiotce , intelli- gere eum, qui est idiota : tamen idiotam vo¬ care non eum, qui est revera idiota, sed qui officio est idiota, id est, qui respondet pro idiotis ; sicut vocamus interdum hominem popularem eum, qui, etsi patritius sit, tamen sequitur factionem populi : ita haec opinio erit eadem cum superiori , sed paulo aliter explicata. Ita hunc nodum expedire voluit Sixtus lib. YI. Biblioth. sanet, annotat. 263'. ubi etiam monet , verba Chrysostomi hom. 35. in prior, ad Cor. non esse fideliter red¬ dita. Yerba enim Chrysostomi sunt, iStwr/jv Se ^atxov )iyst : vertit autem interpres: «Idio¬ tam autem promiscuam plebem vocat , » cum vertere debuerit, « Idiotam autem vo¬ cat laicum, » id est, hominem pro laicis in Ecclesia constitutum. Sed neque haec explicatio videtur huic lo¬ co omnino quadrare, siquidem objici potest : tempore Apostolorum totum populum re¬ spondere solitum in divinis officiis, nec fuis¬ se ullum pro laicis constitutum. Nam Justi¬ nus sub finem II. Apolog. pro Christian. di¬ sertis verbis dicit, totum populum in Eccle¬ sia respondere consuevisse Amen , cum Sa¬ cerdos terminabat orationem, vel gratiarum actionem. Idem etiam postea longo tempore servatum esse tam in Oriente, quam in Occidente, pa¬ tet ex liturgia Chrysostomi, quae habetur in fine operum ejus , ubi apertissime distin¬ guuntur quae Sacerdos , quae Diaconus , et quae populus in divinis officiis canebant. Item ex Cypriano serm. de orat. Domin. ubi dicit, plebem respondere : Habemus ad Domi¬ num, et exHieronymj praefat. lib. II. inepist. ad Galat. qui scribit, in Ecclesiis urbis Ro¬ mae quasi caeleste tonitru audiri populum re¬ boantem Amen. Vera igitur sententia est : Apostolum hoc loco non agere de divinis officiis, nec de pu¬ blica Scripturarum lectione, sed de canticis spiritualibus , quae Christiani componebant ad laudandum Deum , et gratias ei agendas et simul ad suam et aliorum consolationem et aedificationem. Non loqui Apostolum de Scripturis vel officiis divinis , ex eo proba¬ tur, quod Scripturae sine dubio legebantur Graece , et divina officia fiebant Graece in Graecia , ut etiam haeretici admittunt : Apo¬ stolus autem hic loquitur de oratione et gratiarum actione , quae fit per donum lin¬ guarum , lingua aliqua maxime extranea, quam nemo intelligebat, ut Arabica, vel Persica, ut Chrysostomus, et alii omnes exponunt; imo etiam, quam non intellige¬ bat saepe is qui loquebatur, ut illa verba in¬ dicant : Si orem lingua, spiritus meus orat , mens autem sine fructu est, id est, si orem ex dono linguarum, lingua quam non intelligam, spiritus meus orat , id est, affectus meus orat, tamen mens sine fructu est, id est, intellectus non eruditur , quia non intelligo quid dicam. Item illa : Qui loquitur lingua, non hominibus loqui¬ tur, sed Deo, nemo enim audit, id est, nemo at¬ tendit, quia nemo intelligit. Non ergo loquitur de divinis officiis , quae cum Graece fierent, a multis intelligebantur, sed loquitur de ora¬ tione, seu laude Dei, et gratiarum actione, quas interdum lingua peregrina aliqui in col¬ lationibus illis canebant. Porro consuevisse Christianos cantica spi¬ ritualia componere et canere inEcclesia tem¬ pore collationum spiritualium , certissimum est. Nam hoc docet Eusebius lib. Il.hist. cap. 17. ex Philone; item Dionysius cap. III. de divin. nom. et cap. seq. , ubi adducit multa ex canticis Hierothei. Tertullianus quoque in Apologet, cap. 39. describens Agapem Christianorum, id est, publicam ccenam, quae in Ecclesia fiebat, dicit, consuevisse eos qui poterant , ex proprio ingenio aliquid canere CAPUT XVI. 161 Deo. Denique Apostolus ipse Eplies. Y. Co- loss. III. hortatur, ut in Psalmis, et hymnis, et canticis spiritualibus commoneant seipsos: quem locum Haymo intelligitde canticis quse ipsi componebant. Quoniam igitur ista can¬ tica fiunt ad populi consolationem, vult Apo¬ stolus ut fiant lingua quae intelligatur , ut idiotae qui non sciunt similia componere, saltem possint ea confirmare dicendo Amen. At objicies. Sicut Apostolus volebat ista cantica fieri lingua vulgari, ut populus sub¬ jiceret Amen , ita etiam debuit velle, ut di¬ vina officia celebrarentur lingua vulgari, ut populus respondere posset Amen. Respon¬ deo : negando consequentiam, quia divina officia fiebant lingua Graeca , quam multi de populo intelligebant, etsi non omnes, et hoc satis erat, non enim volebat Apostolus , ut omnes possent respondere. Praeterea , tunc quia Christiani erant pauci , omnes simul psallebant in Ecclesia, et respondebant in di¬ vinis officiis : at postea crescente populo di¬ visa sunt magis officia, et solis Clericis reli¬ ctum est, ut communes et preces et laudes in Ecclesia peragant. Denique finis praeci¬ puus illorum canticorum erat instructio et consolatio populi : fiebant enim in collatio¬ nibus loco exhortationis; et ideo aequum erat ut a plurimis intelligerentur, et nisi lin¬ gua nota facta fuissent, vel mox secuta fuis¬ set interpretatio, periisset praecipuus fructus ipsorum. At divinorum officiorum nec est finis praecipuus instructio vel consolatio po¬ puli, sed cultus Dei , et quae populum scire oportet, ex divinis officiis, a pastoribus ex¬ plicantur. Secunda objectio. Ex oratione non intel¬ lecta nulla utilitas sequitur Isa. XXIX. et Matth. -XV. Populus hic labiis me honorat eie. (1) Et I. Gorinth. XIY. Si orem lingua , spiritus meus orat , mens autem sine fructu etc (2) ; igitur preces omnes tam publicae, quam privatae lingua vulgari fieri debent. Quae objectio Calvini est, sed facilem habet solutionem : nam in primis falsum est, ex publica oratione Ecclesiae nullum fructum a populo percipi , nisi ea oratio a populo intelligatur : nam oratio Ecclesiae non fit populo, sed Deo pro populo. Itaque non est opus ut populus intelligat , ut ei prosit, sed satis est si intelligat Deus. Quemadmo¬ dum si quis apud Regem Latine oraret pro aliquo rustico, certe rusticus fructum inde percipere poterit, etiamsr non intelligat ora¬ tionem advocati sui. Pra)terea , Ecclesia orat pro Fidelibus et aliis peccatoribus , qui saepe non solum non intelligunt, sed nec audiunt , nec volunt pro se orari ; et tamen non frustra Ecclesia orat : quanto igitur magis non frustra orat pro Fi¬ delibus praesentibus, et cupientibus orari pro necessitatibus suis? Hinc Levitic. XYI, Deus praecipiebat , ut dum Sacerdos Sanctuarium ingressus pro se et pro populo oraret, popu¬ lus foris maneret , ita ut non solum non in- telligeret, sed nec audiret, nec videret Sacer¬ dotem, quod etiam factum esse tempore Za- chariae legimus Lucae I. et tamen quis dubi¬ tare potest, quin illa oratio populo prodes¬ set? Hinc etiam Origenes hom. 20. in Josue: « Si vides, » inquit , « aliquando legi Scri¬ pturam in auribus tuis, quam non intelligis, interim hanc primam scias te suscepisse uti¬ litatem, quod solo auditu velut precantatio- ne quadam noxiarum virtutum, quae te ob¬ sident, virus depellitur. » Et Chrysostomus homil. 3. de Lazaro : « Quid », inquit , « si non intelligamus quae continentur in sacris libris? maxime quidem, etiamsi non intelli- gas illic recondita , tamen ex ipsa lectione multa nascitur sanctimonia. » Neque solum populus ex oratione alterius fructum percipere potest, quamvis eam non intelligat, sed etiam ex ea quam ipsemet pro se ipso ad Deum fundit : nam ut S. Augus¬ tinus docet lib. III, doct. Christ. c. 9. Judaei non frustra colebant Deum figuris et caere¬ moniis variis, quarum verificationes multi eorum minus intelligebant, quam verba La¬ tina nostri rustici. Praeterea idem Augustinus lib. YI. de Bapt. cap. 25. « Multi irruunt, inquit, in preces, non solum ab imperitis loquacibus, sed etiam ab haereticis compositas, et per ignorantiae simplicitatem non eas valentes discernere, utuntur eis, arbitrantes quod bonae sint, nec tamen quod in eis perversum est evacuat illa, quae ibi recta sunt, sed ab eis potius evacuatur. » Quibus verbis docet S. Augustinus, etiam preces, in quibus ali¬ quid haeretici admixtum est, non carere fructu, quando simpliciter dicuntur ab eo qui nescit quid dicat, et putat se bene di¬ cere. Nam, ut idem Augustinus ibidem ait, plerumque precis vitium superat precantis affectus. Deus enim non tam respicit quod (1) Isai. XXIX, 13.; Matth. XV, 8. —(2) I. Cor. XIV, 14. 12 162 LIBER II. dicamus, quam quid dicere cupiamus; si ergo preces non intellectae et malae non sunt intructuosse , quando dicuntur bona fide, quanto magis preces optimae ab Ecclesia institutae, etiamsi non intelligantur, prode¬ runt? Hinc Origenes hom. 20. in Josue : « Etsi nos, inquit, noii intelligimus, quae de ore ' proferimus, illae tamen virtutes quae nobis adsunt intelligunt, et velut carmine quodam invitatae adesse nobis, et ferre auxilium de¬ lectantur, etc.» Quam rem duabus similitu¬ dinibus illustrat : « Si enim creditum est, inquit, a Gentilibus, quod quaedam carmina, quas praecantationes appellant, quibus istud artis est, insusurrantes, nominibus quibus¬ dam compellatis, quae ne illi quidem qui in¬ vocant norunt, ex solo vocis sono, vel so¬ piantur serpentes, vel etiam de cavernis protrahantur abstrusi; quanto magis to¬ tius praecantationis, et carminis validiorem • et potentiorem ducendam credimus quam- cumque Scripturae sanctae, vel sermonum, vel nominuni appellationem? » Et infra : « Solent medici praebere interdum cibum aliqueiii, interdum etiam potum dare, nec tamen in edendo ipso cibo, vel in potando sentimus quia utile est, etc. Hoc ergo modo, inquit, credendum est etiam de Scriptura sancta, quia utilis est, et animae prodest, etiamsi sensus noster ad praesens intelligen- tiam non capit. ;> Haec ille. Praeterea, si necessarium esset intelligere quidquid orantes, vel Deum laudantes dici¬ mus ; profecto rari, aut nulli possent Psal¬ mos Davidis canere, et Prophetas, atque Apostolos in divinis officiis legere. Quotus enim quisque est, qui intelligat omnium Psalmorum, Prophetarum, et Apostolorum sententias, quam multa occurrunt dum psal¬ limus, quae non intelligimus? nec tamen de¬ bemus currere ab Ecclesia ad commentaria, et non propterea frustra psallimus, modo cum devotione et reverentia psallamus : scimus enim quidquid illud sit, ad Dei lau¬ dem pertinere. Quid, quod S. Antonius di¬ cere solebat, illam esse perfectam oratio¬ nem, in qua animus ita absorbetur in Deum, ut non intelligat ipse verba sua. Neque his repugnant Scripturae illae ‘.Popu¬ lus hic labiis me honorat. Et : Si 'orem lingua spiritus meus orat , mens autem sine fructu est. Nam in priore non agitur de oratione aut lectione, sed de iis qui ore profitentur pie¬ tatem, dicuntque se Deum diligere, et tamen factis contrarium agunt, ut exponit Hiero¬ nymus in cap. 29. Isaiae, et Augustinus lib. XXII Contra Faustum, cap. 55. Si tamen quis velit ea verba ad orationem referre, is dicere debet, reprehendi eos, qui, quamli¬ bet sibi nota lingua orantes, non attendunt quid dicant, sed vagantur animo ad alia ne¬ gotia. In posteriore Scriptura non reprehendi¬ tur oratio quae non intelligitur, sed ei ante¬ ponitur oratio quae intelligitur. Non enim Apostolus dicit orationem esse sine fructu^ sed mentem. Qui enim orat lingua quam non novit, ut cum rudes homines recitant Latine septem Psalmos, affectu quidem et spiritu proficiunt, tamen mens eorum sine fructu est, quia non eruditur. Ejusmodi vero orationem non reprehendi ut malam et pe¬ nitus infructuosam, declarat Apostolus illis verbis : Nam tu quidem bene gratias agis. Et idem confirmat aperte Chrysostomus hoc loco. Adde, quod, ut supra ostendimus, Apostolus loquitur de lingua, quam nemo in tota Ecclesia intelligere potest. Quocirca frustra haec Apostolica verba adversus con¬ suetudinem Ecclesiae Catholicae adducuntur: etsi enim in commuhibus Ecclesiee precibus Latinis mens rusticorum sine fructu maneat: tamen non manet affectus rusticorum sine fructu, nec mens plurimorum aliorum qui Latine sciunt, et fructus mentis qui deest idiotis, compensatur utilitatibus multis qua; inde proveniunt, quod Scripturee in publico conventu, communissimi) idiomate, id est, Latino assidue leguntur. Objectio tertia Brentii in Decretal. cap. Quoniam in plerisque, tit. de offic. jud. ord. Innocentius III praecipit, ut cum in aliqua urbe permixti sunt homines diversarum lin¬ guarum, Episcopus provideat viros idoneos, qui diversis linguis divina officia celebrent, et Sacramenta administrent diversae linguae hominibus. Respondeo : Innocentium tantum loqui in eo decreto de lingua Graeca et Latina. Quia enim tempore Innocentii capta est Constan- tinopolis a Latinis, et Imperatore ac Patriar¬ cha Constantinopolitano Latinis existenti- bus, permulti erant in Graecia Latini Graecis admixti ; postulatum fuit a Pontifice in Con¬ cilio generali Lateranensi, ad quod Graeci et Latini convenerant , ut permitteret duos Episcopos ordinari in fidibus locis. Pontifex autem cum Concilio respondit non conve¬ nire, ut sint duo Episcopi in una Ecclesia> CAPUT XVI. 163 sed tamen debere Episcopum providere, ut sint ministri idonei, qui Grsece Graecis, et qui Latine Latinis sacra celebrarent. Estque hoc decretum cap. IX Concilii, et inde sum¬ ptum est cap. Quoniam in plerisque. Quod igitur non loquatur decretum de lin¬ guis vulgaribus patet, tum ex historia jam recitata, tum etiam quia decretum fuisset maxime in Italia observatum, ubi Pontifex Maximus residet, et temporale dominium habet. At in Italia nunquam id observatum est : nam S. Thomas qui floruit paulo post decretum factum, officium composuit Latine de festo Corporis Domini, quod etiam hodie retinemus, cum tamen ipse in Comment. I Cor. XIV fateatur, linguam vulgarem Italo¬ rum suo tempore non fuisse Latinam. Objectio quarta ejusdem Brentii. Finis di¬ vinorum officiorum publicarumque lectio¬ num est populi instructio, consolatio, et.aedi- ficatio : nam Rom. XV dicitur : Ut per pa¬ tientiam et consolationem Scripturarum spem habeamus (1). Et I Corinth. XIV : Volo quin¬ que verba in sensu meo loqui, ut alios instruam , quam decem millia verborum in lingua. Et ibi¬ dem : Cum convenitis , unusquisque vestrum Psalmum habet, doctrinam habet , Apocalypsim habet , linguam habet , interpretationem habet , omnia ad aedificationem fiant (2) : at ex lingua ignota et peregrina, quae instructio, quae aedificatio, quae consolatio percipi potest? Respondeo : et propositionem et assump¬ tionem hujus argumenti falsam esse. Nam finis praecipuus divinorum officiorum non est populi instructio, vel consolatio, sed cultus Deo ab Ecclesia debitus. Clericorum enim officium est. nomine totius populi Christiani perpetuo immolare Deo sacrificium laudis, ut ipse requirit Psal.XL, et more militum ex¬ cubare, ac vigiliis et orationibus tota castra Ecclesiae protegere. Isai. LXII : Super mu¬ ros tuos , Hierusalem , constitui custodes : tota die et nocte in perpetuum non tacebunt (3). Deinde, qui non sunt imperitissimi, ii Latine sciunt, et instruuntur, dum audiunt divina officia : caeteri autem non instruerentur, etiamsi vulgari lingua officium celebrare¬ tur, non enim in verbis, sed in sensu ins¬ tructio est. Quare plebis instructioni deser- viunt conciones frequentissima*, quae in sin¬ gulis Ecclesiis fieri debent. Neque tria illae Scripturae testimonia sen¬ tentiae nostrae ulla ratione officiunt. Fatemur enim, Scripturas sacras magnam adferre Fi¬ delibus consolationem, ut Rom. XV Aposto¬ lus monet, sed doctis quidem dum leguntur, indoctis autem dum a Concionatoribus ex¬ plicantur. Et merito S. Paulus mavult quin¬ que verba in sensu suo ad instructionem lo¬ qui, quam decem milliaverborum in lingua, quia melior est cohortatio, quae ab omnibus intelligitur, licet brevissima sit, quam ea quae non intelligitur, etiamsi sit longissima. Denique per illa quinque vocabula, psal¬ mum, doctrinam, Apocalypsim, linguam et interpretationem, non intelliguntur Scriptu¬ rae divinae, sed quinque dona gratis data : nam paulo ante in hoc eodem capite Aposto¬ lus de iisdem donis ita loquitur : Si venero ad vos linguis loquens , quid vobis prodero , nisi vobis loquar aut in revelatione , aut in scientia , aut in prophetia , aut in doctrina ? (4) Itaque per linguam intelligit donum lin¬ guarum : per doctrinam intelligit donum do¬ cendi, quae ad bonos mores, vel etiam Fidem pertinent : per Apocalypsim donum revela¬ tionis ; saepe enim Deus tunc sedentibus in Ecclesia revelabat mysteria : per interpreta¬ tionem intelligit donum exponendi Scriptu¬ ras, et de una lingua in aliam transferendi, quod donum etiam prophetiam saepissime Paulus vocat : per psalmum intelligit donum gratis datum psallendi, ut recte ChrySosto- mus exponit, donum componendi spiritualia cantica, et ea in Ecclesia modeste canendi. Sensus igitur est, cum in vestris conventibus et collationibus possitis exercere haec om¬ nia dona linguarum, revelationis etc., vi¬ dete ut nihil fiat ad ostentationem, sed om¬ nia ad utilitatem et aedificationem. Objectio quinta Kemnitii. Christus praedi¬ cavit lingua vernacula ; Apostoli in die Pen¬ tecostes loquebantur variis linguis magnalia Dei, et postea dispersi per orbem terrarum praedicaverunt ubique linguis eorum populo¬ rum quibus praedicabant; igitur oportdt va¬ riis linguis, iisque vernaculis Scripturas di¬ vinas habere : nam si non inquinatur ver¬ bum Dei si proferatur lingua vulgari, cur in¬ quinabitur si scribatur lingua vulgari? Respondeo : hoc argumento nihil con¬ cludi : nam si bona est consequentia a prae¬ dicatione ad Scripturam, cur Apostoli solum scripserunt Grsece, cum praedicaverint tam multis linguis? Igitur verbum Dei recte prae¬ dicatur lingua vulgari, quia praedicatio ex- t (1) I. Cor. XV, 4. — (2) I. Cor. XIV, 19. et 26. — (3) Isai. XLlfi 6. — (4) I. Cor. XIV, 6. 164 UBER II. plicationem continet, quam omnes facile ca¬ piant : at cum scribitur, nudum scribitur, nec ab omnibus capitur. Itaque quemadmo¬ dum non licet sic argumentari : Matres dant infantibus panem dissectum in particulas, vel etiam praemansum ; possent igitur dare etiam integrum et solidum, nam est idem panis. Ita non licet argumentari : ministra¬ tur populis verbum Dei explicatum a Con- cionatore ; igitur ministrari etiam debet sine explicatione et lingua vulgari scriptum. Sexta objectio ejusdem Kemnitii. B. Hie¬ ronymus testatur, se vertisse Scripturas in linguam Slavonicam. Item, Scripturae versae sunt olim in linguam Chaldaicam, quae tunc erat vulgaris, et postea in Graecam linguam, quae etiam tunc erat vulgaris, et Apostoli illa translatione usi sunt. Postmodum etiam versae sunt in linguam Latinam, quando illa erat vulgaris, et Christus in cruce Scriptu¬ ram citavit sermone Syriaco, id est, vulgari; igitur nullum est piaculum eas vertere in linguas vulgares. Respondeo : in primis nos non negare, posse Scripturas verti in linguas vulgares : sed quod contendimus est, non debere pu¬ blice legi lingua vulgari, nec passim omni¬ bus permitti legendas Scripturas lingua vul¬ gari (1). Utrum autem Hieronymus verterit in linguam Slavonicam divinas Litteras, non certe scio. Nusquam enim id legi apud Hie¬ ronymum, vel apud ullum Veterem : tamen si id fecit, non ideo fecit, ut publice legere¬ tur Scriptura Slavonice, sed ad consolatio¬ nem eorum hominum, qui ea sine periculo uti poterant, quemadmodum et apud nos hoc tempore certis quibusdam hominibus conceditur. Porro, editio Chaldaica non tam versio, quam paraphrasis est, nec unquam apud Catholicos magnam habuit auctorita¬ tem. Quod vero de Graeca translatione adfertur, pro nobis facit : non enim in linguam Grae¬ cam translatae sunt Scripturae, quia ea lin¬ gua esset quibusdam vulgaris, sed quia com¬ munissima erat. Nam certe Ptolomaeo Regi iEgypti, qui eas transferri curavit, non erat vulgaris lingua Graeca. Idem dico de Latina, translatas videlicet Scripturas in linguam Latinam, eo quod illa esset communis in toto Occidente, tametsi quibusdam jpaucis adhuc esset vulgaris. Ad illud de Christo. Etsi Epiphanius hae- resi 69. quae est Arianorum, existimet, Chri¬ stum in cruce partim Hebraice, partim Sy¬ riace protulisse illam sententiam : Deus meus , Deus meus , ut quid dereliquisti me (2) : tamen probabilius est, totam Hebraice a Christo pronuntiatam, ut est in ipso Psal. XXI, nulla enim erat causa, cur Dominus verba Davidis Hebraice inciperet, ac deinde mutaret in Syriacum idioma. Quare B. Hie¬ ronymus in libro De nomin. Hebr. tractans hunc locum, non dicit esse verba Syriaca, quod tamen semper monere solet in iis quse Syriaca sunt : sed ponit verba Hebraica, ibit na1? siraijr: et Latinis litteris ita reddit: Eli, eli , lamma azabthani , quae certum est esse Hebraica. Erasmus quoque, cui multum Kemnitius tribuit, in annotatione ad hunc locum docet: Christum pure Hebraice illa verba protu¬ lisse. Adde, quod Syriace sic dixisset, Ilii, hil , lemana sebactani : quod autem in Graeco et Latino habemus sebactani, non azabthani, ut esse debuit, factum est, ut facilius pro¬ nuntiaretur, quemadmodum dicere-solemus, Isaiam, Ezechiam, Hieremiam, Assuerum,et alia hujusmodi pro Jesajahu, lrmejahu, Chiz- kiahu, Achascueros, et aliis Hebraicis durissi¬ mis vocibus. Objectio septima Kemnitii. Chrysostomus saepissime hortatur laicos ad lectionem Scri¬ pturarum; igitur par est, Scripturas vulgari lingua omnibus permitti. Et quamquam Kemnitius nulla Chrysostomi loca adduxit, possumus tamen nos loca ejus annotare. Homil. 9. ^n epist. ad Coloss. « Audite, in¬ quit, obsecro, seculares omnes, comparate vobis Biblia, animae pharmaca,si nihil aliud vultis, vel novum Testamentum acquirite, Apostolorum acta, Evangelia etc. » Similia habet hom. 2. in Matth. praefat. in epist. B. Pauli, homil. 3. in II ad Thess. hom. 10. in Jo. et hom. 3. de Lazaro. Respondeo : verba Chrysostomi quse in concionibus proferebat, semper accipienda esse juxta mentem ipsius, et occasiones qui¬ bus ad ea dicenda adducebatur. Quoniam igitur eo tempore dediti erant homines Thea- (1) Hac de questione consulantur opera J. B. Malou, episcopi Brugensis : De la lecture de la Bible en langue vulgaire; et R. P. Perroe, Le Protestantisme et la regie de foi; hoc ultimum opus, italico idiomate scriptum, in gallicam linguam conversum est ab admodum Rev. D. A. C. Peltier. — (2) Psal. XXI, 1. CAPUT XY. 165 tris, spectaculis, aliisque nugis , et Scriptu¬ ras divinas nunquam legebant, ne ii quidem qui capaces erant; propterea Chrysostomus ad eam desidiam excutiendam, perpetuo hor¬ tabatur omnes ad lectionem Scripturarum, non quod vellet omnes omnino etiam rudis¬ simos id facere, sed ut ii saltem id facerent, qui cum fructu poterant. Sciebat enim se cum iis agere, qui talibus amplificationibus indigerent. Id autem ita esse ex multis ejus locis demonstrari posset : sed tribus tantum in praesenti contentus ero. Igitur hom. 4. de Lazaro sic ait : a Non potest fieri, ut quisquam salutem assequa¬ tur, ni perpetuo versetur in lectione spiri¬ tali. » At si hoc proprie accipiatur, quis non videat esse falsissimum? quid enim? qui lit¬ teras non didicerunt salvi esse non poterunt? igitur hyperbolica ea locutio est , non pro¬ pria. Hom. 15. in Genes. « Neque , inquit, in re justa, neque injusta jurare licet. » Et hom. 17. in Matth. « Quid igitur, inquit, si aliquis juramentum exigat, et necessitatem jurationis imponat? sit tibi timor Dei omni necessitate violentior. » Itaque videtur velle, nullo modo esse jurandum, cum tamen cer¬ tum sit, esse actum religiosum et bonum ju¬ rare in re justa et necessaria : sed Chrysos¬ tomus ejusmodi amplificationibus in concio¬ nibus utebatur, quoniam populus ipsius miro modo addictus erat juramentis, ut colligitur ex homil. 9. in Act. Apost., et aliis locis ejusdem auctoris. Objiciunt ultimo. Moravis concessum fuisse ante annos 600. ab Apostolica Sede, ut lin¬ gua Slavonica divina officia celebrarent, et praeterea nunc Ruthenos , Armenos, vEgyp- tios, d5thiopes, et nescio quos alios populos suis vulgaribus linguis sacra facere. Respondeo : exemplis Ruthenorum, Arme- norum, et similium, non magis nos moveri, quam moveamur exemplis Lutheranorum, Anabaptistarum, et Calvinistarum , qui Ger¬ manice, aut Gallice, aut Anglice , aut etiam Polonice, aliisque linguis vulgaribus Scrip¬ turas publice legunt. Sunt enim etiam illi vel ha3retici, vel schismatici, et scimus, majores eorum Catholicos aliter fecisse, ut supra est demonstratum. Quod si aliqui sunt inter eos Catholici, ut revera sunt Maronitae in Syria, et aliqui tum apud Armenos , tum apud Ru¬ thenos , illi non celebrant quidem divina of¬ ficia hebraice, grsece aut latine, quia desie¬ rant istae lingue esse in usu etiam apud eru¬ ditos in istis regionibus : tamen celebrant alia lingua quam populari. Maronitae enim vulgo utuntur lingua Arabica, sed in sacris lingua Chaldaica, et qui utuntur in sacris lingua Syriaca, vel Arabica , utuntur Sy¬ riaca, vel Arabica erudita, non populari, quod etiam graeci faciunt, qui vulgo utun¬ tur lingua Graeca vulgari , in sacra vero lin¬ gua Graeca erudita. Ad illud de Moravis respondeo : fuisse justam causam, cur id eo tempore fieri de¬ beret, quia nimirum (ut refert iEneas Sylvius lib. de orig. Rohemorum, cap. 13.) totum regnum simul convertebatur , et non pote¬ rant inveniri ministri , qui Latine celebra¬ rent ; visum est summo Pontifici melius, per¬ mittere ut Slavonice id fieret , quam nullo modo. Tamen postea ubi crevit eruditio , et ministri idonei inveniebantur, qui possent Latine idem praestare, melius fuit omittere usum linguae Slavonicae, et communem to¬ tius Ecclesiae consuetudinem sequi , ut hoc tempore Moravi Catholici faciunt. Ac de edi¬ tionibus Scripturarum hactenus.