Annotation CLII

”Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus.” — Luke 16:24

Whether anyone can attain salvation without the reading of the Divine Scripture.

Chrysostom, in the third sermon on Lazarus, and in very many other homilies, exhorting his hearers to the reading of the sacred volumes, uses several sentences by which the heretics of our times try to persuade [people] that the holy Scriptures ought to be translated into all the languages of all peoples, so that they may be read by the rude people without any distinction, and understood without labor. For they say that nothing is a hindrance to the divine Scriptures being understood by all, even the unlearned, save ignorance of a foreign tongue. Now the propositions culled by the heretics from Chrysostom are chiefly three. The first is read in the third sermon on Lazarus, in these words: “Let us extinguish from afar the darts of the devil as they come, and drive [them] away by assiduous reading of the Scriptures. For it cannot be — it cannot be, I say — that anyone attain salvation, unless he be perpetually engaged in spiritual reading.” And this proposition he urges by a twofold argument: first, indeed, from the necessity of instruments in any art whatever, saying thus in the same place: “Dost thou not see the coppersmiths, the goldsmiths, the silversmiths — in short, those who practice any art whatever — have all the instruments of [their] art ready [at hand]? With this same disposition it behooves us too to be endowed. For, as their instruments of art are the hammer, the anvil, the tongs; so for us the instruments are the books of the apostles and prophets, and every Scripture divinely inspired. And as they, by those instruments, accomplish whatever they undertake to do: so indeed we too by these fashion, correct our soul, and renew [it grown] old.” Secondly, he establishes the same from this — that by divine precept each one ought to be prepared to render an account of his faith to whoever asks. His words, in the sixteenth homily on John, are these: “If the pagans watched so diligently to speak against our religion, what pardon shall we deserve, unless we know how to repel assaults of this kind against us? This Peter commands us. For he says:¹ ‘[Be] always ready to give satisfaction to everyone that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you.’ And Paul:² ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you abundantly.’”³ But what [our theologians] answer to these [things]

— [replies] more foolish than [their own] pretenses? “Blessed is every simple soul: and he who walks simply walks in confidence.” For this indeed is the cause of all evils — that not many know how to adduce the testimonies of the Scriptures in seasonable matters. For “simple,” in that place, is not to be understood as [meaning] “foolish,” and as one who knows nothing; but as [meaning] not-evil, not-crafty. For if it were so understood, it would have been superfluous to say,⁴ “Be prudent as serpents, and simple as doves.”

Whether the reading of the Scriptures pertains more to clerics than to laymen.

The second proposition is, that the reading of the divine Scripture pertains not only to theologians, and clerics, and monks, but also, and much more, to laymen — especially merchants and craftsmen. And this he shows in the third sermon on Lazarus, writing thus: “Let no one say to me: I am fastened to lawsuits; I conduct public business; I ply a craft; I have a wife; I bear the care of a household; I am a worldly man; it is not for me to read the Scriptures, but for those who have said ‘Farewell’ to the world, who have occupied the mountain-tops, who lead such a life continually. What sayest thou, man? It is not thy business to unroll the Scriptures, because thou art distracted by innumerable cares? Nay, it is thine more than theirs. For they do not need the aid of the Scriptures in like manner as we, tossed in the midst of the waves of business. For the monks, indeed — free from the forum and forensic affairs, and who have fixed their little huts in the desert, and have commerce with no one, but philosophize in that quiet tranquillity with all security, and, sitting as it were in a harbor, enjoy things exceedingly safe — but we, on the contrary, tossing as in the midst of the sea, and, will we or not, bound by innumerable sins, always have need of the perpetual and continual solace of the Scriptures.” Again, in the second homily on Matthew, confirming this same [thing], he says: “But is there at last any defense of these faults? ‘I am not,’ he says, ‘a monk; I have a wife and children, and bear the care of a household.’ This indeed is that which corrupts all [things] as by a certain single plague — that you think the reading of the divine Scriptures pertains only to monks, whereas it is much more necessary for you than for them. For those who are engaged in the midst [of the world], and daily receive wounds, need the medicine the more,” etc.

Whether occupation, want, or ignorance excuse anyone from the reading of the Divine Scripture.

The third proposition, which is completed in three parts, is: That no one can be excused from the reading of the divine Scriptures, either by the occupation of business, or by the want of books, or by the obscurity of the divine eloquence. The first and second parts of this proposition he urges in the tenth homily on John, in these words: “What, then, do we demand of you? That on one of the days in the week — at least on the Lord’s day — you make it your care to read the evangelical lessons; to have them in hand before these sermons, to repeat them frequently at home, diligently to search out their sense; to note what is clear, what obscure in them; what may seem to conflict, though it does not conflict — all [these] being thoroughly examined, [that] you may show yourselves most attentive to these sermons. But if there are [some] who plead business and occupations: first, in this they err not a little — that they are so always fastened to secular affairs that they bestow not even the least study on those [things] which are most necessary.

Then, moreover, they bring forward a frivolous excuse of no moment — [that] in worthless matters, every excuse being rejected, they can apply diligent study, but toward the divine [things] think that not even the least care is to be imposed. And in what way are those who feel such [things] worthy to breathe, or to behold the Sun?” There is also another inept excuse of these drowsy [sluggards] — namely, the want of books. And to the rich it is indeed ridiculous to respond to this. But since I judge that many poor use an excuse of this kind, it pleases [me] to jest a little with these, and thus to question them: Have they not all the instruments of their [own] craft? And if they are much hindered by poverty in procuring these: is it not, then, absurd — here not to plead poverty, but where they would obtain so great a benefit, to bewail [their] occupations and want? The third and last part of this proposition he pursues thus, in the sermon on Lazarus already cited: “‘What, then,’ they say, ‘if we do not understand the [things] which are contained in the sacred books?’ Very [much profit], indeed: even if thou understandest not the [things] hidden there, yet from the very reading much holiness is born. Although it cannot be that thou be ignorant of all [things] equally. For therefore the grace of the Spirit dispensed and tempered those [things] — so that publicans, fishermen, tent-makers, shepherds, the unlearned and illiterate apostles, might be made safe through these books — lest any of the unlearned could flee to this excuse of difficulty: that the [things] which are said might be easy to the sight of all, that both the craftsman, and the servant, and the widow, and the woman, and the most unlearned of all men might carry off from the heard reading some gain and profit. For not for empty glory, as the pagans [did], but for the salvation of the hearers, did they compose these [things]. The philosophers, not seeking what profits the common [good], but looking to this — that they themselves be [held] in admiration — even if they said anything useful, this too their accustomed obscurity hid in a certain fog of wisdom: but the apostles and prophets did the contrary. They set forth all [things] manifest and clear, expounded [them] to all, as common teachers of the world, so that each might be able to learn by himself, from the reading alone, the [things] which are said.” Again, in the third homily on the latter epistle to the Thessalonians, he indicates that the Scriptures are so clear that those who read them do not need the explanation of preachers and doctors. His words run thus: “But thou sayest, Why do I go into the church, if I hear no one preaching there? This has ruined and corrupted all [things]. For what need is there of a preacher? Through our negligence has this necessity been made. For why is there need of a sermon? All [things] are clear and plain from the divine Scriptures: whatever [things] are necessary are manifest. But because you are dainty hearers, hunting for delight in listening, therefore you seek preachers. But I am ignorant, thou sayest, of the [things] which are set down in the divine Scriptures. Why? [Are they] uttered in Hebrew? in Latin? in some other foreign tongue? Are they not spoken in Greek? But obscurely, thou sayest. What is that obscurity, tell [me], I pray? Are they not histories? Thou knowest the [things] which are clear, [seeing] that thou askest about the obscure [ones]. There are a thousand histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of them. But thou wilt not say [one]. These are pretexts, and empty words.”

These [things], then, have been said by Chrysostom on this matter, from which the heretics draw three errors: first, that the reading of the divine Scripture is necessary for all, the learned as much as the unlearned; second, that the divine Scripture is by its own nature most clear, and so easy of understanding that it can be most plainly understood by any rude and simple little fellow, if the impediment of a foreign tongue be absent; third, that the divine letters ought to be translated into the peculiar and proper languages of each people — so that, this one obstacle of an unknown tongue being removed, all the nations of the whole world may read and understand the sacred volumes; which of old, too, it is agreed was done with great profit to the Christian world by the ancient fathers of the Church — of whom, as very many ecclesiastical writers testify, Chrysostom translated the New Testament and the Davidic Psalms into the Armenian tongue; Jerome, both Testaments into the Dalmatian [Slavonic] tongue; Ulphilas [Wulfila], bishop of the Goths, all the sacred Bible into the Gothic tongue; and in Chrysostom’s times all the Greek church read the divine books, either published or translated, in the vulgar tongue.

Against errors of this kind it behooves [us] to remember — what we have also often warned elsewhere — that the words of preachers are not always to be taken with that rigor with which they first come to the ears of the hearers. For many declaimers frequently pronounce and inculcate [things] by hyperbole — whether led by the occasion of places, times, and persons, or carried away by the impulse of the affections and the course of [their] discourse. This sometimes befell Chrysostom, and [befell him] especially [when] speaking on this argument. For indeed, when he noticed that the multitude of the Greeks — intent on theaters, spectacles, stage-plays, and the fables of the poets — utterly despised the divine Scriptures; he, bearing grievously so great a sloth and ignorance of his flock, desired that all, if it could be done, might be theologians and teachers; by which spirit Moses of old, [being] inspired, said,⁵ “Who will grant that all the people may prophesy, and that the Lord give them his spirit?” And on account of this he exhorted all indiscriminately to the divine reading — as though it pertained promiscuously to all, and no access of salvation lay open to [anyone] who did not read the sacred volumes.

In what way the reading of Divine Scripture is necessary for all.

Accordingly, when we read in him that the study of the divine Scripture is necessary for all, and that the reading of the Scriptures pertains more to laymen than to monks: his words are not to be so taken as if he means [that] craftsmen, fishermen, farmers, and illiterate men of this kind — who neither know letters, nor have learned to read — cannot be saved unless they unroll and read the sacred codices (for this would be to close the kingdom of heaven to the foolish and the rude, which Christ willed to be open no less to the unlearned than to the learned); but it is credible that he understood, by “the reading of the Scriptures,” that knowledge to which the supreme heads of the whole divine Scripture are referred — such as are the precepts of the Decalogue, and the sentences of the Christian Creed; which, being utterly unknown, it is certain that no one attains eternal life.

In what way the Divine Scripture is easy, or difficult.

But as to what he says — that the divine Scriptures are so clear that they can be understood by anyone, however unskilled — [this] is to be referred not to the whole, but to [some] parts. For Chrysostom distinguishes the divine writings into two classes: of which one contains the hidden and abstruse mysteries of a higher wisdom, neither accessible to all, nor necessary for all to know — such as are, for the greater part, the epistles of Paul: concerning which Peter, speaking, says:⁶ “Our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote epistles, in which are certain [things] hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable pervert — as also the other Scriptures — to their own destruction.” The other class is open and clear, embracing the first and highest principles of the things to be believed, and the chief precepts and examples of living well, easy to understand — such as are the moral sentences, and certain sacred histories, useful for the forming of morals; concerning which almost all the exhortations of Chrysostom are to be understood.

Whether the Divine Scriptures ought to be translated into the mother tongues of each people.

But to that which the heretics contend — that the divine letters ought to be translated into the mother tongue of each nation, because of old this very thing was done with great benefit to the Church — it is answered that an argument of this kind is inept: for many [things] have at other times been instituted for the common utility of the commonwealth, which, when afterward they brought inconvenience and danger, were abrogated. There were once held, by the institution of the Church, great night-vigils at the tombs of the martyrs, with a great throng of holy virgins, of monks, and of secular men: but when thence, little by little, many foul and base wickednesses began to issue forth, they were entirely abolished by the sanction of the Council of Elvira. There was once given — as is clear from book 6 of the Eusebian History, chapter 33, and from the fifth volume of Theodoret, chapter 18 — the sacrament of the Eucharist into the hands of the faithful; but, when many were detected who handled it unworthily, and who carried it off secretly home, hidden, for magical vanities, that custom was abolished.⁷ We ourselves, therefore, confess that formerly the sacred books, rendered into the vulgar tongue, [were spread] with great propagation of the Christian faith. But now it is not altogether expedient that this same be done — since by most certain experience we have learned that a very great crowd of the simple has, from this occasion, fallen into detestable and irremediable errors, while every cobbler, fuller, and tanner, relying on a vernacular translation of the Scriptures, dares in this insolent age rashly to discourse of the obscure difficulties of the divine Scripture, and to judge, according to his own madness, of the chief dogmas of the faith. Therefore so great an abundance and license of vulgar versions is to be restrained — both for the reverence of the divine Scripture, and for the salvation of souls — lest, against the Savior’s precept, the holy [thing] be given to be eaten by dogs, and the pearls be trampled by swine. And as a certain prudent and pious moderation is to be applied in this matter — that translations of the sacred volumes of this kind be not forbidden to all, lest the unlearned (as Chrysostom says) be entirely deprived of the instruments of their art: so care must be taken that the divine letters be not everywhere published to all indiscriminately, but only to those who are endowed with a right faith toward God and with approved morals; even as the sacrosanct Synod of Trent, in the Index of Prohibited Books, Rule 4, decreed in these words: “Since it is manifest by experience that, if the sacred Bible in the vulgar tongue be permitted everywhere without distinction, more harm than utility arises thence, on account of the rashness of men: in this matter let it be [committed] to the judgment of the bishop, or [of the] inquisi-

-tor — that, with the counsel of the parish priest or confessor, they may grant the reading, in the vulgar tongue, of Bibles translated by catholic authors, to those whom they shall understand able to receive from such reading not harm, but an increase of faith and piety: which faculty they are to have in writing. But he who without such faculty shall have presumed to read or to have these [Bibles], let him not be able to receive absolution of [his] sins unless he have first returned the Bibles to the ordinary. And the booksellers who shall have sold, or in any other way granted, Bibles written in the vulgar tongue to one not having the aforesaid faculty, let them lose the price of the books — to be converted by the bishop to pious uses — and let them be subject to other penalties, according to the quality of the offense, at the judgment of the same bishop. But regulars may not read or buy these [Bibles] except with a faculty had from their prelates.