De Moor II:36: The Reading of the Scriptures, Part 2

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

The principal opponents are:

The Ancients following the Gnosimachi,[1] concerning whom JOHN OF DAMASCUS, de Hæresibus, opera, page m. 585, says, “The Gnosimachi are those that are opposed to the inquiry and knowledge of the Christians, to such an extent that they say that vain and unnecessary is the labor of those that seek any Knowledge out of the divine writings.  Neither does God require anything from the Christian, except noble and good actions.  And so it is better for one to follow their own intention with a simple and untutored heart, say they, than to expend much care in learning doctrines and sentences.”

The Papists, who without the permission of Bishops, Inquisitors, or Superiors, which later Popes have further limited, assert that the Reading of Scripture is noxious, etc., and deny the Absolution of sinners until the Bible has been returned to the Ordinary.  The Reading of the Scriptures is dangerous and pernicious, from Facultatis Parisiensis contra Erasmum Censura, article IV, title XII, where the Parisian Theologians thus declare:  “In this tempest arises the dangerous and pernicious translation of the Scripture into the vulgar Tongue from the evident ill will of men.  If it be sometimes useful to some, it is not therefore rashly to be permitted to all.  For in fact, in a matter not necessary for salvation, it is better to look to the profit of the many by interdicting that, than by permitting it for the advantage of the few with grievous harm to the many; whence also translation of this sort is rightly condemned.”  These are the words in GERHARD’S Confessione catholica, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, thesis VIII, page 172.  Indeed, if we listen to Alfonso de Castro,[2] book I adversus Hæreses, chapter XIII, page 33, the reading of the Sacred Codex is more harmful than the reading of Gentile Philosophers:  “Not without reason did we advise above that that the books of the pagans are to be read with great caution.  Therefore, since more harm is brought in by the sacred books translated into the vulgar tongue than by the reading of pagan Philosophers, that is with good reason restricted, even if no prohibition is made concerning the other.”  A good number of similar, crude pronouncements of the Papists shall be given by GERHARD, Confessione catholica, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, thesis VIII, pages 185-187.  Rule V (or IV) of the Index of Prohibited Book prepared by the Council of Trent has it thus, as it is found in the Indice Expurgatorio Hispanico anni 1667, pages XXV, XXVI:  “Since experience teaches that from the permission of the Sacred Books in the vulgar Tongue arises more detriment than advantage on account of the temerity, ignorance, or malice of men; the Bible, extant in the vulgar Tongue, is prohibited, with all its parts, printed or in manuscript….  Now, so that scruples might be avoided, which are able to arise at this point, and so that the reader might distinguish what belongs to vulgar idiom or otherwise, it is declared that the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Chaldean, Syriac, Æthiopic, Persic, and Arabic are not vulgar idiom; which is understood of the original languages, which today are not used commonly in familiar speech; so that the reader might see that all others are vulgar.”  Pope Pius IV[3] somewhat softened this harsh sentence, permitting it to the judgment of the ordinary Parish Priest or Bishop to grant the Reading of the Bible to those that they understand are able from Reading of this sort to reap, not harm, but an increase of faith and piety:  while he denies the Absolution of sinners to the one that without this permission read the Bible in the vulgar tongue before it was handed over:  this is indeed expressed by Tridentine Rule IV of the Expurgatory Index, published by commandment of Pius IV; see Indicem Expurgatorium Romanum anno 1667, page 4.  Sixtus Senensis, Bibliotheca Sacra, book VI, annotation CLII, page 482:  “The Most Holy Synod of Trent in the Index of prohibited volumes, in the fourth rule, decreed in these words:  Since by experience it is manifest that, if the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue be permitted everywhere without discrimination, more detriment than advantage arise from it on account of the temerity of men; in this respect let it be fixed in the judgment of the Bishop or Inquisitor, that with the counsel of the Parish Priest, or Confessor, they might be able to grant the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, translated by Catholic authors, to those that they understand are able from Reading of this sort to reap, not harm, but an increase of faith and piety:  which authority let them have in writing.  But let not those that may presume to read or have the Bible without such authority, except with the Bible previously returned to the Ordinary, be able to receive the Absolution of Sinners.”  Bellarmine set this forth as the sentence of the Catholic Church, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter XV, Controversiis, tome I, column 139.  But this moderation was soon retracted again near the end of the sixteenth century.  Pope Clement VIII, in the following Observation made upon the fourth Rule just now cited, which is found in the Indice Expurgatorio Romano anno 1667, page 6:  “It is to be observed concerning the aforementioned fourth rule of the Index of Pope Pius the IV of blessed memory, that by this impression and edition no authority is newly granted to Bishops, or Inquisitors, or Superiors of Regulars, to grant a license to purchase, read, or keep a Bible published in the vulgar tongue, since hitherto by the mandate and usage of the Holy Roman and universal Inquisition the authority to grant licenses of this sort for reading or keeping vulgar Bibles, or other parts of the Sacred Scripture, both of the New and of the Old Testament, published in whatever vulgar language, was taken from them:  …which is indeed to be kept inviolately.”  Apart from the fact that, at the time of the Rule published by Pius IV mentioned above, there was no Version of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue approved by the Roman Church, which sort was not thereafter admitted in regions in which the Inquisition is strong.  But to permit the Reading of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue, this is permitted only by a Bishop, Inquisitor, or Superior; and to deny to these the authority to grant a license of this sort:  or to concede to Bishops and Inquisitors this authority, and to take care that such an approved Version be not found:  is to make sport in a serious matter:  see MOULIN’S[4] Novitatem Papismi, book I, chapter LVIII, page m. 175-183, especially pages 175, 176; CABELJAUW’S^[5] Catholyk Memorie-voek, part I, chapter V, pages 140-155, especially 143, 144.  At the same time, the judgment of Clement VIII just now reviewed is to stand as the judgment of the Church, until it be publicly revoked:  since the Council of Trent not only acknowledges that supreme authority over the universal Church has been granted to the Popes, Session XIV, chapter VII, de Pœnitentia, pages 128, 129, but also what things concerning Censorship of Books were accomplished by the Fathers appointed to Trent, it ordered that they might be exhibited to the most holy Roman Pontiff, so that all this might be concluded and made public by his judgment and authority, last Session, day 2, Decretal 3, page 270b, compared with Session XVIII, page 161.  And so it is not strange that Clement XI also in the year 1713 in the Bull Unigenitus condemned the following Quesnellian Theses, in which QUESNEL[6] had commended to all the Reading of the Sacred Codex in the Vulgar Tongue.  Thesis LXXX on Acts 8:28:  The Reading of the Holy Scripture between the hands even of a man of business and of finances, mark that this is for the entire world.  Thesis LXXXI on Acts 8:31:  The holy obscurity of the word of God is not a reason for the Laity to dispense with the reading.  Thesis LXXXII on Acts 15:21:  Sunday, which has succeeded the Sabbath, must be sanctified by readings concerning piety, and over all of the Holy Scriptures.  It is the milk of the Christian, even that which God Himself, who knows His own work, has given to him to feed upon.  It is dangerous to want to wean him.  Thesis LXXXIII on John 4:26:  It is an illusion to imagine that the knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be communicated to this sex [women] by the Reading of the Holy Books, after this example of the confidence with which Jesus manifests Himself to this woman.  It is not from the simplicity of women, but rather from the proud knowledge of men, that the abuse of the Scriptures has come, and that heresies have been born.  Thesis LXXXIV on Matthew 5:2:  When we open the New Testament, it is the mouth of Jesus Christ that opens for us.  What is it to close it to Christians, but to snatch this holy book from their hands, or to restrain them from the means of hearing it.  Thesis LXXXV on Luke 11:33:  The Scripture, and especially the Gospel is our lamp….  To prohibit the Reading to Christians, this is to prohibit the use of the light to the children of the light, and to make them suffer a form of excommunication.

We acknowledge likewise with our AUTHOR that from this severity somewhat recede, both the Practice of those dwelling among the Reformed, some of whom are led by the shame of the Roman Decrees, others are not able so to enslave to themselves men entire in blind obedience:  and the doctrine of many of the more judicious; which is able to be seen from what is cited at the end of § XXXV of GERHARD’S Confessionis Catholicæ, tome 2, page 188-203; and from the theses of Quesnel just now recited; and also from Epistolis Philippe Vlaming[7] contra David Pierman, in which the Quesnellian Theses regarding this are defended against the Bull Unigenitus, and it is shown the the Jansenist Theses are upheld, especially the granting of the Reading of the Sacred Scripture to the common people also:  see Epistolas Philippe Vlaming contra David Pierman, tome I, Preface, § XVII, Epistle X, § 7, pages 280-284, Epistle XI, § 5, pages 313-317, and the little book subjoined under the title, Kort Begrip van ’t boeje Beweerde Dryheid der eenvoudige Catholijken in ’t lezen der Heilige Schriftuure:  add also BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 9, tome 2, page 1265b, in which he reviews various writings by Antoine Arnauld,[8] in which this Jansenist vehemently contends that the Reading of the Sacred Scripture to all, even the Laics, is to be conceded, and evinces it with the most resplendent arguments:  add what things from the Table of the Jesuits, which is called, Jansenism destroying all Religion, Grade IX, LEYDEKKER exhibits in his Historia Jansenismi, pages 582-584.  Moreover, time will show what is to be retained of the following Decree, and what the result of the same is going to be, the Decree, I say, mentioned in the New Notices at Amsterdam, February 24, 1759, out of letters sent from Rome on February 7:  “To the Index returned in the past year by order of the Congregation[9] is conjoined a Decree, whereby translation, printing, and reading of the Bible in the vernacular Language are permitted, only let the translation be approved beforehand by the Holy See.  This Decree is additionally confirmed by a special Brief of the deceased Pope Benedict XIV,[10] which likewise is inserted in the new edition.”

The πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, of the Papists on the Question is the Obscurity of Scripture, which they set forward as a pretext without justification.

Their true Scope/Goal:  that the common people, more thoroughly educated by the clarity of Scripture, might not detect Papal Errors and Superstitions, but rather that they might all remain subject to the authority of the Church.

They object in vain:

1.  Passages of Scripture,

              α.  Matthew 7:6, in which it is said that a Holy Thing is not to be given to Dogs.  Thus already in the Twelfth Century Pope Innocent III, in a Decree to those of Metz, says that dogs and swine that tear in pieces a holy thing and despise pearls are they that in the Diocese of Metz read the Sacred Scripture translated into the language of Gaul; and hence argue the ignorance of the Priests:[11]  see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XII, chapter III, § 4, column 1578.  Sixtus Senensis, in his Bibliotheca Sancta, book VI, annotation CLII, page 482, has:  “Therefore, there is to be a restraint…of such abundance and liberty of the vulgar Versions, lest contrary to the Holy precept of the Savior it be given to be devoured by Dogs, and pearls be given to be crushed under foot by swine.”  From which, nevertheless, he distinguishes those that are gifted with a right faith upon God and approved manners, since to these he is willing that translations of the sacred volumes be granted.  But Hosius, de expresso Dei Verbo, tome I, page 664, simply writes:  “To permit the Reading of the Scriptures by the Laity is to give a holy thing to dogs and to cast pearls before swine.”  And GERHARD, Confessione catholica, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, page 185, cites more men that in the same manner and sense apply this saying of Christ.

But We Respond that not one of those that are tolerated in the communion of the Church is able to be treated as a Dog or Pig, impure, trampling, devouring:  for he that is indicated by these similitudes is to be cast out from the holy people of Christ and His tame sheepfold.

              β.  Hebrews 5:14.  In the Scripture, besides Solid Food, useful for Teachers and for the more learned among the people, is also the Milk of babes, comparing verses 12, 13; 1 Peter 2:2; Psalm 19:7.

2.  They object the Practice of the Church, both Christian, see Bellarmine, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter XV, Controversiis, tome I, columns 140-144, and Jewish, see Bellarmine, pages 139, 140.

But to this Objection our AUTHOR adequately Responds; on whose words, with respect to the Christian Church, that it made use of the Scriptures only in the Three Languages, as a figment previously exploded, see what things I taught in § 33.  Consult also for the blunting of this Objection GERHARD, Confessione catholica, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, pages 180-184.  On Nehemiah 8:9, consult CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter I, pages 432, 433.  That the vernacular use of the Hebrew Tongue did not cease in the time of Ezra, with the Chaldean or Syrian dialect substituted even at that time, JACOB ALTING will show in his Dissertatione de Constantia vernaculæ Judæis Hebrææ Linguæ in Captivitate Babylonica, which is Dissertation I, in Heptadibus VII, opera, tome 5, pages 195-197.

3.  They object Reasons taken,

              α.  From the Obscurity of Scripture, on account of which the Reading of it is to no purpose.  For what is not able to be understood by the people, that ought not to be Read by them, say they:  see GERHARD, Confessione catholica, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, page 205, argument I.

Responses:  1.  In § 25, 26, it appeared that such Obscurity was without justification used as a pretext by the Papists.  2.  The Obscurity of the Scripture, which nevertheless is necessary to be known for salvation, should rather furnish an argument for exertion in Reading than for neglecting it.  What things concerning the Majesty of Scripture our AUTHOR here adds, make to enervate what Bellarmine sets forth in the Seventh Place, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter XV, Controversiis, tome I, column 146.

              β.  From the disadvantages following from a promiscuous Reading.  For, what bring more disadvantage and harm than advantage to the people, that is not to be permitted to them:  The Reading of Scripture brings more harm than advantage to the people:  Therefore.  For hence arise heresies, curiosity, desire for popularity, errors in practice, etc.  Thus again Bellarmine, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter XV, Controversiis, tome I, columns 145, 146, § Fifth; and others cited by GERHARD, Confessione catholica, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, pages 205-207, numbers 2, 3.

Responses:  1.  It is the fallacy of false cause.  If these evils arise from the Reading of Scripture, that will only happen because of the wickedness of the man reading:  and so the Reading of Scripture will only be the cause per accidens, circumstantially, but the wickedness of the man per se, efficiently.  The very best things of all are not without abuse of this sort.  The impious abuse the longsuffering and grace of God unto lasciviousness and hardening in sin, Ecclesiastes 8:11; Jude 4.  The Use of the Reading of the Scripture is not therefore to be abrogated.  2.  No more the Reading than the hearing of the Scripture is going to produce evils of this sort.  3.  No more in the people than in the Clergy are those evils going to arise from the Reading of Scripture:  contrarywise, heresies everywhere get their rise, not from the common people, but from Teachers.  4.  On the other hand, Ignorance of Scripture is to be held as the true cause of heresies and errors, Matthew 22:29.  CHRYSOSTOM, in his Proœmio in Epistola ad Romanos, opera, tome 9, page 426, says, τὰ μυρία ἐφύη κακὰ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν ἀγνοίας·  ἐντεῦθεν ἡ πολλὴ τῶν αἱρέσεων ἐβλάστησε λύμη· ἐντεῦθεν οἱ ἠμελημένοι βίοι, countless evils are produced by ignorance of the Scriptures:  hence the manifold outrages of heresies sprouted:  hence the dissolute lives.  Contrariwise, from the Scripture is the knowledge of the truth, a conviction of errors, a correction of vices, and a most powerful incitement to holiness, 2 Timothy 3:15; it hinders curiosity, Romans 12:3; discourages pride, James 4:6, etc.:  consult GERHARD, Confessione catholica, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter II, pages 206-208.

              γ.  From the Unity of the Church, which of course requires the public use of the Scriptures in whatever language is most common; without which the frequenting of the public Assemblies would be even more neglected:  see Bellarmine, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter XV, Controversiis, tome I, column 145, § the Fourth argument, etc.  But our AUTHOR easily explodes these reasonings with three words.  Consult § XXXV, XXXVI, of CHRISTOPH LOEBER’S Defensionem doctrinæ orthodoxæ de omnibus concedenda Scripturæ Sacræ Lectione, occasione Bullæ Anti-Quesnellianæ, in BUDDEUS’ Miscellaneis Sacris, part III, pages 281-312.

[1] It is doubtful that the Gnosimachi were actually a well-defined sect, but they stood in opposition to the Gnostics, that is, they were doctrinally indifferent, and believed that true religion consists of a good life.

[2] Alfonso de Castro (1495-1558) was a Franciscan theologian of the School of Salamanca.  His work was largely devoted to the defense of Roman Catholicism by means of civil and criminal law.

[3] Pius IV reigned as Pope from 1559 to 1565.  In 1562, he reconvened the Council of Trent to moderate some of the Council’s pronouncements that had occasioned unrest among the principal Roman Catholic nations.

[4] Pierre du Moulin (1568-1658) was a Huguenot pastor and theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1621-1658).

[5] Pieter Cabeljauw (c. 1608-1668) was a Reformed theologian.

[6] Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719) was a French Theologian.  Although he graduated from the Sorbonne with distinction, he fell out of favor as he began to embrace Jansenist doctrine.  Beginning with his banishment from Paris in 1681, Quesnel suffered persecution for the rest of his life.  The publication of Unigenitus marks the end of Roman Catholic toleration of Jansenism.

[7] Philippe Louis Verhulst (died 1753) was a Roman Catholic.

[8] Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694) was a French theologian, philosopher, and mathematician, and an intellectual luminary and apologist for the Jansenists of Port-Royal.

[9] In 1571, the Sacred Congregation of the Index was established to evaluate questionable works, and to make recommendations to the Pope concerning these works.

[10] Benedict XIV reigned as Pope from 1740 to 1758.  He laid restraints upon the Sacred Congregation of the Index, opening up publishing to a significant degree.

[11] Pope Innocent III, reigning from 1198 to 1216, wrote a letter to Metz, urging the persecution of the Waldenses because of their reading of the Scripture in the vernacular tongue.