Book Two: On the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin Vulgate Editions

Chapter Sixteen: The Objections of the Heretics are Solved

But let us see what the heretics object. In the first place they bring forward the words of St. Paul I Corinthians ch.14, where the Apostle teaches that public readings and prayers in Church should be in the common tongue. For he speaks thus, “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for war? So also you, unless you give a manifest speech in tongues, how will it be known what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.” And later, “If I speak in tongues, my spirit prays but my mind is without fruit. What then? I shall pray with my spirit and I shall pray with my mind; I will chant with my spirit, and I will chant with my mind. Besides if you bless in the spirit, who will supply the place of the unlearned, how he should say, Amen, to your benediction? For he does not know what you say; for you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.”

I reply in the first place that it must be that in a large part of this chapter the question does not concern the reading of the Scriptures, nor of the divine office, but spiritual exhortation or contribution. For as formerly the monks used to gather together and confer among themselves about spiritual things, whence exist conferences of the Fathers in Cassian, so also in the first Church, as Blessed Justin indicates at the end of his second Apology, Christians used to come together on the Lord’s days and first the Scriptures were read, then a sermon by the presiding priest, then the mysteries were celebrated, lastly they would add talks among themselves about divine things.

Lest therefore the multitude should produce disturbance, the Apostle established that two or three alone should speak in individual conferences, and the rest should listen and judge, and that if perchance, while one was speaking, something better was inspired in another, the first should be silent and the second should speak. And because in Corinth there were sometimes some who, to show off the gift of tongues, would use a foreign language, the Apostle corrects them, for exhortations should be understood by all.

That this is the true exposition of the greater part of this chapter can be understood first from the fact that this place was so understood by the ancients, by Cyprian in his epistle to Pompeius, and in his epistle to Quirinus about rebaptizing heretics, whose exposition is praised by Blessed Augustine On Baptism against the Donatists bk.2 ch.8, and by Basil in Questions briefly Explained q.127, by Ambrose, Sedulius, Haymo, Theodoret, and Oecumenius on this place; second it can be understood from the words of the Apostle. For the verse, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the rest judge.” And the verse, “If a revelation is given to another, let the first be silent.” And this, “Let women be silent in Church.” And many like things can only be referred to exhortation; for the reading of the Scriptures and the divine office should not be judged by prophets; nor are the readings inspired when they are read, but what was formerly already inspired is recited; nor did women ever celebrate the divine mysteries in Church. About exhortation then must the words be understood that have been objected to us, “if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for war? So also you, unless you give a manifest speech in tongues, how will it be known what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.”

But there remains still a difficulty about the words, “If I speak in tongues, my spirit prays but my mind is without fruit. What then? I shall pray with my spirit and I shall pray with my mind; I will chant with my spirit, and I will chant with my mind.

Besides if you bless in the spirit, who will supply the place of the unlearned, how he should say, Amen, to your benediction? For he does not know what you say.” For in these words the question does not seem to be about exhortation but about prayers and psalms. Here one must note by the by that Ambrose and Haymo read this place with a double question mark. “Which unlearned will supply the place? How will he reply, Amen?” However the Greeks always read it as our Vulgate has it, “who will supply the place of the unlearned, how he should say, Amen?”, which also Calvin, Beza, and our other adversaries approve as truer.

To take away this difficulty, then, some reply that in these words too exhortation is being dealt with, not prayers. So Basil, Theodoret, and Sedulius mentioned just above. But it seems difficult to defend this view; for the words the Apostle uses do not signify to sermonize but to pray and to sing and to give thanks. Wherefore Chrysostom and Theophylact and Ambrose and Haymo understand the place about prayers.

Others therefore say that the Apostle is indeed speaking of divine offices, but he does not require that the whole people should understand, but only that someone understand, who may reply in place of the people. For this is signified by the words, “Who will supply the place of the unlearned, how he will reply, Amen?” So was this place understood by Haymo, Primasius, Peter Lombard, Blessed Thomas, and certain others among the Latins. But the solution does not seem altogether solid; for the words of the Apostle do not signify, according to the use of the Greek tongue, who takes the part of the unlearned, but who fills the place of the unlearned, that is, who sits in the places of the unlearned, who occupies the place of the unlearned, as Chrysostom and Theophylact expound on this place; for not only profane authors but even sacred ones do not use the Greek word for ‘place’ to mean ‘take the part of’ but they used a special preposition for the purpose (anti), as is plain in Matthew ch.1 v.9, “he rose in the place of Judas,” and ch.11, “so as to rule in the place of his father,” and ch.13, “in the place of Jonathan his father,” and ch.14, “the chief priest for his place,” where the Greek word is always anti.

Another opinion of others is that the Apostle, when he says, ‘who fills the place of the unlearned’, understands him who is unlearned; yet he does not call him unlearned who is really unlearned, but who is unlearned for the office, that is, who replies for the unlearned, just as we sometime say that a man is of the populace who, although he is a patrician, yet follows the faction of the populace. Thus this opinion will be the same as the former, but a little differently explained. Thus did Sixtus in Sacred Library bk.6 note 263 wish to untie the knot, where he also warns that the words of Chrysostom hom.35 on I Corinthians are not faithfully rendered. For the words of Chrysostom are translated as, “but he calls unlearned the common people,” when they should be translated, “but he calls unlearned a layman,” that is, a man put in the Church for the laymen.

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 respond in the divine offices, nor was anyone put for the laymen. For Justin at the end of his second Apology for the Christians says in expressive words that the whole people were accustomed in Church to respond, Amen, when the priest ended a prayer or a thanksgiving.

The same practice was afterwards for a long time kept both in the East and in the West, as is clear from the liturgy of Chrysostom which is contained at the end of his works, where very openly are distinguished what the priest would sing in the divine offices, what the deacon, and what the people. Again from Cyprian sermon on the Lord’s Prayer, where he says the people reply, “We lift them up to the Lord;” and from Jerome first preface to bk.2 on Galatians, where he writes that in the Churches of the city of Rome the people were heard resounding ‘Amen’ like heavenly thunder.

The true opinion, then, is that the Apostle is not in this place dealing with the divine offices, nor about the public reading of the Scriptures, but of spiritual canticles, which Christians used to compose for praising God and giving him thanks, and at the same time for their own and others’ consolation and edification. For that the Apostle is not speaking of the Scriptures or of the divine offices is proved from the fact that the Scriptures were without doubt read in Greek, and that the divine offices took place in Greece in Greek, as even the heretics admit; but the Apostle is here speaking of prayer and giving thanks, which are done by the gift of tongues, especially by some very foreign tongue that no one understood, as Arabic, or Persian, as Chrysostom and all others expound, nay even by a tongue that often he who was speaking did not understand, as these words indicate, “if I speak in tongues, my spirit prays but my mind is without fruit,” that is, if I pray from the gift of tongues in a tongue which I do not understand, my spirit prays, that is, my affection prays, but my mind is without fruit, that is, my understanding is not taught, because I do not understand what I am saying. Again the words, “he who speaks in tongues is speaking, not to men, but to God, for no one hears,” that is, no one attends, because no one understands. The Apostle then is not speaking of the divine offices, which when they happened in Greek were understood by many, but he is speaking of prayer or praise to God and giving thanks, which sometimes in their conferences some would sing in foreign tongues.

Further it is very certain that Christians were accustomed to compose spiritual canticles and to sing in Church at the time of the spiritual conferences. For this is taught by Eusebius Hist. bk.2 ch.17, from Philo; again Dionysius Divine Names chs.3 and 4, where he adduces many examples from the canticles of Hierotheus.

Tertullian also in his Apologetic ch.39, when describing the Agape of the Christians, that is, the public feast that happened in the Church, says that those who could were accustomed to sing something to God from their own ingenuity. Lastly the Apostle himself in Ephesians ch.5, Colossians ch.3, exhorts them to move each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles; which place is understood by Haymo of canticles that they themselves composed. Since therefore these canticles were done for the consolation of the people, the Apostle wants them done in a language that is understood, so that the unlearned, who do not know how to compose similar things, can at least confirm them by saying, Amen.

But you will object: just as the Apostle wanted these canticles to be done in a vernacular tongue, so that the people might add at the end, Amen, so also he should have wanted the divine offices to be celebrated in a vernacular tongue, so that the people might respond, Amen. I reply by denying the consequence, because the divine offices were done in Greek, which many of the people understood, although not all; and this was enough, for the Apostle did not want everyone to be able to respond, Amen. Besides, because the Christians were then few, all together would sing the Psalms in Church, and would respond in the divine offices; but afterwards, as the people increased, the offices were more divided, and it was left only to clerics to perform the common prayers and praises in Church. Finally the chief end of those canticles was the instruction and consolation of the people, for these were done in conferences in place of exhortation, and therefore it was right for them to be understood by many, and unless it was done in a known language, or unless an interpretation soon followed, the chief fruit of these conferences would have been lost. But the chief end of the divine offices is not the instruction or consolation of the people, but the worship of God, and what the people need to know from the divine offices is explained by pastors.

The second objection. From a prayer not understood no utility follows, Isaiah ch.29, and Matthew ch.15, “this people honors me with their lips etc.,” and I Corinthians ch.14, “if I speak in tongues, my spirit prays but my mind is without fruit.” Therefore all prayers both public and private should be done in a vernacular tongue. This objection is from Calvin, but it has an easy solution; for in the first place it is false that no fruit from the public prayer of the Church is received by the people unless the prayer is understood by the people; for the prayer of the Church is not made to the people but to God for the people. So there is no need for the people to understand so as to be profited, but it is enough if God understand. In the same way, if someone were to pray in Latin before a king on behalf of some rustic, the rustic would certainly be able to perceive the fruit of it, even if he did not understand the prayer of his advocate.

Further, the Church prays for the faithful and for other sinners, who often not only do not understand but also do not hear and do not wish to pray for themselves, and yet the Church does not pray in vain; how much more then does the Church not pray in vain for the faithful who are present and who desire their necessities to be prayed for? Hence in Leviticus ch.16 God commands that when the priest has entered the sanctuary to pray for himself and for the people, the people should remain without, so that not only do they not understand but neither do they hear or see the priest, which was also done at the time of Zachariah, as we read in Luke ch.1, and yet who can doubt but that the prayer profited the people? Hence also Origen in homil.20 on Joshua says, “If you see sometimes that a Scripture is read in your ears which you do not understand, know that you have in the meantime received this first advantage, that by hearing alone as by a certain request the virus of the noxious powers that beset you is expelled.” And Chrysostom homil.3 on Lazarus says, “What if we do not understand what is contained in the sacred books? Indeed especially if you do not understand the things hidden therein, yet from the reading itself much sanctity is born.”

Nor are the people only able to perceive fruit from another’s prayer, even if they do not understand it, but also from the prayer that they themselves pour out to God for themselves; for as St. Augustine teaches Christian Doctrine bk.3 ch.9, the Jews did not in vain worship God in figures and various ceremonies, whose verifications many of them understood less than our rustics understand the words of Latin. Besides the same Augustine on Baptism bk.6 ch.25 says, “Many rush into prayers composed, not only by unskilled babblers, but even by heretics, and not being able to discriminate them because of the simplicity of their ignorance, they use them thinking that they are good, not that what is perverse in the prayer empties out what is good in it, but rather that what is bad is emptied out by what is good.” In these words Augustine teaches that even prayers, in which something from a heretic is admixed, do not lack fruit when they are said simply by one who does not understand what he is saying and thinks that he is blessing. For as the same Augustine says in the same place, the affection of the one praying overcomes the vice of the prayer. For God has regard not so much to what we say as to what we desire to say. If then prayers not understood and bad are not without fruit when they are said in good faith, how much more profit comes from the best prayers established by the Church even if they are not understood?

Hence Origen homil.20 on Joshua says, “Although we do not understand what we give forth with our mouth, yet the powers that are present to us understand, and invited as it were by a certain charm, they are delighted to be present to us and to bring us help etc.” Which thing he illustrates with two similitudes, “For if,” he says, “it is believed by the Gentiles that when certain charms, which they call incantations, in which that art exists, are whispered, and certain names are collected that not even those know who invoke them, serpents, by the sound of the voice alone, are either put to sleep or even drawn forth from their caverns, how much more do we believe that stronger and more powerful than any incantation and charm is any summoning of speeches or words of Sacred Scripture?”

And later, “Doctors are wont sometimes to provide food, sometimes also to give drink, and yet it is not in eating or drinking it that we feel it is useful etc. In this way, therefore,” he says, “we must also believe about the Holy Scripture, that it is useful and profits the soul even if for the present our sense does not grasp the understanding of it.” So Origen.

Further, if it were necessary to understand whatever we say when praying to 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 far does anyone understand the sentences of the Psalms, Prophets, and Apostles? How many things occur when we sing the Psalms which we do not understand? And yet we should not run from the Church to the commentaries, and neither for that reason do we sing in vain, provided only we sing with devotion and reverence. For we know that whatever it is it pertains to the praise of God. What is that which St. Anthony was wont to say, that the prayer is perfect in which the spirit is so absorbed in God that it does not understand its own words?

Nor are the following Scriptures in conflict with this, “this people honors me with their lips,” and, “if I speak in tongues, my spirit prays but my mind is without fruit.” For in the first the question is not about prayer or reading, but about those who profess piety with their mouth and say that the love God and yet do the opposite in their deeds, as Jerome expounds on Isaiah ch.29, and Augustine Against Faustus bk.22 ch.55. If however anyone wishes to refer those words to prayer, he should say that those are rebuked who, although praying in a language they know, do not attend to what they say, but wander to other business in spirit.

In the second Scripture, it is not that prayer which is not understood is censured, but a prayer we understand is preferred to it. For the Apostle does not say that the prayer is without fruit, but that the mind is. For he who prays in a tongue which he does not know, as when uneducated men pray the seven Psalms in Latin, they are profited indeed in affection and spirit, though their mind is without fruit, because they are uneducated. That this sort of prayer is not censured as bad and altogether fruitless is declared by the Apostle in the words, “For you indeed give thanks well.” And the same is openly confirmed by Chrysostom on this place. Add that, as we showed above, the Apostle is speaking about a tongue that no one in the whole Church can understand. Wherefore in vain are these Apostolic words brought against the custom of the Catholic Church. For although in the common prayers of the Church the mind of rustics remains without fruit, yet the affection of rustics does not remain without fruit; nor does the mind of many others, who know Latin; and the fruit of the mind which is lacking to the uneducated is compensated for by the many advantages that come therefrom, that the Scriptures in public meeting are constantly read in the most common tongue, that is, in Latin.

The third objection is from Brentius, in the Decretals ch. ‘Since in most cases’, title on the offices of ordinary judgment. Innocent III bids that when in any city there are men mixed together of diverse tongues, the bishop should provide for suitable men to celebrate the divine offices in diverse tongues, and to administer the sacraments to men of diverse tongues.

I reply that Innocent is only speaking in that decree of the languages of Greek and Latin. For because in the time of Innocent Constantinople had been captured by the Latins, and the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople were Latin, and there were in Greece many Latins mixed with Greeks, it was requested of the Pontiff in the general Lateran Council, at which Greeks and Latins convened, that he permit two bishops to be ordained in such places. But the Pontiff responded together with the Council that it was not fitting that there be two bishops in one Church, but yet that the bishop should provide for suitable ministers who would celebrate the sacred rites in Greek for the Greeks and in Latin for the Latins. And this is the decree in ch.9 of the Council, and from there is taken the chapter, ‘Since in most cases’.

That therefore the decree is not speaking of vernacular tongues is plain both from the history just related and also because the decree was observed most of all in Italy, where the Pontiff resides and has temporal dominion. But never was this [sc. use of the vernacular] observed in Italy, for St. Thomas, who flourished a little after the decree was made, composed in Latin the feast of the body of the Lord, which we also retain today, although however he himself admits in his commentary on I Corinthians ch.14 that the vernacular of the Italians at his time was not Latin.

The fourth objection is from the same Brentius. The end of the divine offices and public readings is the instruction, consolation, and edification of the people; for Romans ch.15 says, “So that we have hope through the patience and consolation of the Scriptures.” And I Corinthians ch.14, “I wish to speak five words with my sense, so as to instruct others, than 10,000 words in a tongue.” And in the same place, “When you come together and each of you has a psalm, a doctrine, a revelation, a tongue, and interpretation, let all be done for edification.” But from an unknown and foreign tongue what instruction, what edification, what consolation can be perceived?

I reply that 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 due worship of God from the Church. For the office of clerics is to immolate the sacrifice of praise perpetually to God in the name of the whole Christian people, as God himself requires in Psalm 40, and to watch in the manner of soldiers, and with vigils and prayers to protect the whole camp of the Church, Isaiah ch.62, “On your walls, Jerusalem, I have set guards; all day and all night they will never keep silent.” Next, those who are not very unskilled know Latin and are instructed when they hear the divine offices; but the rest would not be instructed even if the office were celebrated in the vernacular, for instruction is not in the words but in the sense. Wherefore very frequent sermons serve the instruction of the people, which ought to happen in each individual Church.

Nor do these three Scriptures in any way injure our opinion. For we confess that the sacred Scriptures bring great consolation to the faithful, as in Romans ch.15 the Apostle advises, but to the learned indeed when the Scriptures are read and to the unlearned when they are explained in sermons. And rightly did St. Paul prefer to speak five words with his sense for instruction than 10,000 words in a tongue, because an exhortation is better that is understood by all, though it be brief, than one that is not understood though it is very long. Lastly by the five words of psalm, doctrine, revelation, tongue, and interpretation are not understood the divine Scriptures but the five gifts freely given. For a little before in the same chapter the Apostle speaks about the same gifts as follows, “If I come to you speaking in tongues, what do I profit you unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?”

Therefore by tongue he understands the gift of tongues; by doctrine he understands the gift of teaching, which pertains to good morals or also to faith; by revelation the gift of revelation. For often at that time God revealed mysteries to those seated in Church; by interpretation he understands the gift of expounding the Scriptures and of translating from one language to another, which gift Paul also very often calls prophecy; by psalm he understands the gift freely given of chanting, as Chrysostom rightly expounds, that is, the gift of composing spiritual canticles and of singing them modestly in Church. The sense therefore is that when in your meetings and conferences you are able to exercise all these gifts of tongues, revelation, etc., see that nothing is done for display but everything for utility and edification.

The fifth objection is from Chemnitz. Christ preached in the vernacular; the Apostles on the day of Pentecost spoke of the great things of God in vernacular tongues, and afterwards, when dispersed through the whole world, they preached everywhere in the languages of the peoples to whom they preached; therefore it is necessary to have the Scriptures in various languages, and those vernacular ones. For if the word of God is not stained if it is put forward in a vernacular tongue, why is it stained if it is written in a vernacular tongue?

I reply that by this argument nothing is concluded; for if the consequence from preaching to Scriptures is good, why did the Apostles only write in Greek since they preached in so many languages? Therefore the word of God is rightly preached in the vernacular, because preaching contains an explanation which all easily grasp. But when it is written, it is written bare, and is not grasped by all. Therefore just as it is not licit to argue like this: mothers give their infants bread broken into small pieces, or even pre-­‐chewed, therefore they could also give it to them whole and solid, for it is the same bread. Thus it is not licit to argue: the word of God explained by a homilist is administered to the peoples, therefore it should also be administered to them without explanation and written in a vernacular tongue.

The sixth objection is from the same Chemnitz. Blessed Jerome testifies that he translated the Scriptures into the Slavonic tongue. Again the Scriptures were formerly translated into Chaldee, which was then vernacular, and afterwards into Greek, which was also then vernacular, and the Apostles used that translation.

Afterwards they were also translated into Latin when it was vernacular, and Christ on the cross quoted the Scripture in Syriac, that is, the vernacular. Therefore there is no crime in translating them into vernacular tongues.

I reply in the first place that we do not deny that Scripture can be translated into vernacular tongues; but what we contend is that it should not be publicly read in the vernacular, nor should the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular be permitted to everyone. But whether Jerome translated the divine letters into Slavonic I do not certainly know. For never is that read in Jerome or in any old author; yet if he did it, he did not do it for this reason, that the Scripture should be publicly read in Slavonic, but for the consolation of those men who could use it without danger, in the same way that among us at this time it is conceded to certain men. Further, the Chaldee edition is not so much a version as a paraphrase, nor has it ever had great authority among Catholics.

As for what is brought forward about the Greek translation, it makes for our side. For the Scriptures were translated into Greek, not because that language was vernacular for some people, but because it was most common. For certainly Greek was not the vernacular for Ptolemy, king of Egypt, who saw to their being translated. I say the same about Latin, namely that the Scriptures were translated into Latin because it was common to the whole West, although for some few it was still vernacular.

To the point about Christ. Although Epiphanius Heresy 69, which is that of the Arians, reckons that Christ on the cross spoke partly in Hebrew and partly in Syriac the sentence, My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?, yet it is more probable that it was also spoken by Christ in Hebrew, the way it is in Psalm 21. For there is no cause why the Lord should begin the words of David in Hebrew and then change to Syriac. Wherefore divine Jerome in his book on Hebrew Names, when treating of this place, does not say the words are Syriac, which however he is always wont to do in the case of those that are Syriac; but he puts the Hebrew words, and renders them thus in Latin letters, “Eli, Eli, la imma azabathani,” which it is certain are Hebrew.

Erasmus too, to whom Chemnitz attributes much, teaches in his note on this place that Christ spoke those words purely in Hebrew. Add that in Syriac he would have spoken thus, Hil, Hil lemana sebactani. But what we have in Greek and Latin was made to be sebactani, not azabathani as it ought to be, so that it might more easily be pronounced; in the same way as we are accustomed to say Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Assuerus, and others of this sort, instead of Iesaiahu, Irmerahu, Chizkiahu, Achaseveros, and other very difficult Hebrew words.

The seventh objection is from Chemnitz. Chrysostom very often exhorts laymen to the reading of the Scriptures, therefore it is right that the Scriptures be permitted to all in the vernacular tongue. And although Chemnitz adduced no places from Chrysostom, we can however note his places. Homil.9 on Colossians, “Hear,” he says, “all you seculars, get for yourself Bibles, medicine for the soul, if you wish for nothing else, acquire a New Testament, Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels, etc.” He has like things in homil.2 on Matthew, preface to the epistles of Blessed Paul, homil.3 on II Thessalonias, homil.10 on John, and homil.3 on Lazarus.

I reply that the words of Chrysostom, which he gave in his sermons, must always be taken according to his own mind, and according to the occasions on which he was induced to speak them. Since therefore at that time men were given over to theatres, spectacles, and other trifles, and never read the divine Scriptures, not even those who were capable of it, for that reason, to cut out their apathy, Chrysostom continually exhorted all to the reading of the Scriptures; not because he wanted everyone altogether, even the most uneducated, to do it, but so that at least whose would do it who could do it with fruit. For he knew he was dealing with those who needed such exaggerations. And this can be proved from many of his places; but I will be content with only three for the present.

Therefore in homil.3 on Lazarus he speaks thus, “It cannot be that anyone should obtain salvation unless he is continually versed in spiritual reading.” But if this is taken literally, who does not see that it is most false? For why? Can those who have not learnt letters not be saved? Therefore the speech is hyperbolic, not proper. Homil.15 on Genesis he says, “It is licit to swear neither in a just thing nor in an unjust thing.” And homil.17 on Matthew he says, “What then if someone requires an oath, and imposes the necessity of swearing it? Let the fear of God be for you stronger than any necessity.” Therefore it seems that he wanted there to be no swearing of oaths at all, although however it is certain that it is a religious and a good act to swear in a just and necessary thing; but Chrysostom used these sorts of exaggerations in his sermons since his people were addicted to oaths in an astonishing way, as is collected from homil.9 on Acts and in other places of the same author.

They raise a final objection. It was conceded to the Moravians by the Apostolic See 600 years ago to celebrate the divine offices in Slavonic, and in addition now the Ruthenians, Armenians, Egyptians, and I know not what other peoples perform sacred rites in their vernacular tongues.

I reply that we are not more moved by the examples of the Ruthenians, Armenians, and the like 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 in Polish and other vernacular tongues. For these too are all heretics or schismatics, and we know that their Catholic ancestors did otherwise, as has been demonstrated above.

To the point about the Moravians I reply that there was just cause why it should be done at that time, namely that because (as Aeneas Sylvius reports in his book on the Bohemians ch.13) the whole kingdom was converted at once, and ministers could not be found to celebrate in Latin, it seemed better to the Supreme Pontiff to permit that it be done in Slavonic than that it not be done at all. However afterwards, when learning increased and suitable ministers were found who could make the same provision in Latin, it was better to set aside the use of Slavonic and to follow the common custom of the whole Church; and at this time the Moravian Catholics so do.

And so much about the editions of the Scriptures.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME