§ 1. Nearly all who make mention of the Bible in their jubilees have this one complaint. One of the cruder stentors relates that Luther was accustomed to read the Bible but was prohibited by the brothers and sent to clean bedrooms and upper chambers with brooms. Chemnitz long ago preceded all the others in his Examination of the Council of Trent, session 4, when he said that we persecute vernacular editions with iron and flame. Several sermons dwell most odiously upon this one matter. But I ask that the reader, setting accusations aside for a little while, deign to give ears and mind to the truth.
First proposition. It is not commanded to all persons that they privately read the sacred Scriptures translated into the German or another language. The reason is manifest, because such a law is found nowhere in sacred Scripture, canon law, or civil law. Next, among all nations the greatest part of the faithful has hitherto not known how to read; and although many in the more cultivated towns now learn letters, the crowd in the country, which is the greatest, is for the most part ignorant of reading and writing. Therefore there is no law which commands reading, since there is none which commands the knowledge of letters. And certainly, if there were one which commanded that knowledge to the people generally, I would judge that it should immediately be abolished. For there is now so great an abundance of scurrilous, frivolous, abusive, lustful, and magical books that it is preferable not to know letters than to fall upon writings so pestilential.
Third, it was not the custom of the Church for the Scriptures to be read in the vernacular language; therefore no law concerning that matter was divinely enacted. For although from Moses to the Babylonian captivity, while the Hebrew language remained intact, the Bible could be read by all the Jews, nevertheless a most particular instruction and tradition was necessary on account of the vowel points. From this it is apparent that reading was customary among few and that great practice was necessary even for those to whom the Bible was vernacular. After the captivity the Jews had passed into the language of the Chaldeans just as into their dominion. The remnants which afterward returned to their homeland mixed this language with Syrian, and it could in no way be brought about that ancient Hebrew was vernacular.
Nevertheless, a certain translation into the Chaldean language was made by Onkelos, whom some think to be Aquila, who likewise translated into Greek; Serarius treats of him in the prolegomena, chapter 14, question 4. If he was Aquila, he therefore lived in the time of Hadrian. If he was more ancient, the Church nevertheless could not use his version, since he acted as a paraphrast, omitted many things, and perverted many things, so that this paraphrase can in no manner be called the word of God. All the monuments of the ancients show that Aquila was a heretic, but I cannot be induced to believe that Onkelos and Aquila were the same person, for in the more obscure passages of Scripture those two versions differ exceedingly. The Targum of Onkelos and the fragments of the Greek version cited from Aquila do not appear to have been the work of a cautious man who would bring forward most diverse interpretations when, with less labor, he could have prepared authority for himself by agreeing with himself. The former wrote the Pentateuch. About the birth of our Lord Jonathan translated the Former and Latter Prophets. Afterward, in the year of the Lord 400, Joseph the Blind translated the Hagiographa. That there was nothing sincere in these is taught both from the fact that the latter two were unbelievers—and perhaps Onkelos also—and especially because there is no chapter in which they do not depart from the original and mix in dreams and trifles. Accordingly, from the Babylonian captivity until Christ, the Church possessed no vernacular Scripture; nor was Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi, Zechariah, Haggai, Onias, the Maccabees, and other most holy men concerned to translate it. Therefore they possessed no command.
§ 2. Nor in the times of the apostolic Church and those which followed did any churches except a few—that is, the Greek and Latin—possess versions in their native languages; neither the apostles nor their successors translated the Bible into various languages. There were multiple Greek versions. The first was before the monarchy of the Greeks. The second, at the beginning of that monarchy. The third, that of the Seventy interpreters. The fourth, the Herodian. The fifth, Aquila’s. The sixth, Symmachus’s. The seventh, Theodotion’s. The eighth, the Jericho version. The ninth, the Nicopolitan. The Origenian,
Lucianic, and Hesychian are also named, but they received their names from the correction of errors which had crept into the version of the Seventy interpreters and ought not to be called new versions. The tenth, therefore, is derived from Jerome’s, for the Greeks translated the Bible from Saint Jerome’s Latin version into their own language.
But the peoples to whom the Gospel was preached were of various languages. Acts 2:7 and following: “All were astonished and wondered, saying: ‘Behold, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how have we each heard our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and those who inhabit Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya which are around Cyrene, and Roman visitors, Jews also and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we have heard them speaking in our languages the great things of God.’ But all were astonished and wondered, saying to one another, ‘What does this mean?’ But others, mocking, said: ‘These men are full of new wine.’” If anyone says that all those peoples knew Greek or Latin, he does nothing other than become insane with reason.
§ 3. Second proposition. Hence it is also established that neither a version nor that reading was necessary. For why would the Church of the Jews for so many centuries and afterward that of the apostles neglect a matter so necessary? Why would they not do what all the innovators have done and translate the Scriptures into all languages, a thing most easy at that time, since all the apostles and many others spoke in various languages? Therefore, when they reprove us for the omission of vernacular versions and odiously exaggerate the fact that not all read the Bible, do they not under our name speak evil of the apostles, who neglected a translation of the Bible so easy to make and which they could have made authentic in each language by placing their own names before it? But the apostles judged that sufficient provision had been made for the churches if they instructed each nation and left teachers and bishops who would explain the faith and Scripture to them.
§ 4. Third proposition. To translate the Bible into the vernacular language for a good end, and to read it, is at times good and is absolutely prohibited by no law. For no law of this kind exists, and it was permitted in the Church to use versions and by reading them to incite minds to piety.
Whitaker teaches that this is the opinion of Catholics, controversy 1, question, chapter 13: “The first opinion,” he says, “is that of those who deny altogether that the Scriptures ought to be translated into vernacular languages. The second and contrary opinion is that of those who establish that sacred Scripture must altogether be translated into all the common languages of peoples. The third is that of those who neither condemn vernacular versions of Scripture absolutely nor permit them absolutely, but in this matter wish a certain exception and account of times, places, and persons to be maintained.”
The last opinion is the position of the papists and the decree of Trent. Next, the Council of Oxford established against Wycliffe that the editions of Wycliffe or others should not be read unless approved by the diocesan bishop; therefore there was no question then concerning approved editions. Next, many read them usefully, as formerly among the Hebrews when they were vernacular. Third, the Fathers frequently exhort persons to read the Scriptures, as my teacher Serarius shows in the prolegomena, chapter 20, question 3.
§ 5. Fourth proposition. Although, therefore, the translation and reading of the Bible are not absolutely forbidden, it can nevertheless happen that they are useless or even harmful.
First, on account of versions which are not good, or certainly are not of tested goodness. Thus I showed above that the most serene James, king of Great Britain, approves no edition; that the Genevan Bible is the worst; and that its notes are false, seditious, and too strongly redolent of the dangerous and most perverse contrivances of a mind. But since it is better not to read the Bible than, under the name of the Bible and of the word of God, to read the word of the devil, who does not see that a reading which does not edify but destroys is harmful? And certainly there are now many versions: Italian, Spanish, French, the Genevan and another by Castellio, the Zurich, Belgian, English, and Lutheran; most are various, as their editions are various. There are also Bibles published at Hamburg in various languages, even in Saxon and Slavonic. There are Bibles of Eber, Neander, Caspar Carolus, and a Hungarian Bible. The Calvinists condemn all Bibles made by Lutherans and receive them with mockery, as is established from Stoltz in his defense of Luther. The Osiandrians and Bucer judge the same. The Lutherans establish the same concerning the Calvinist versions, and the most serene king of Great Britain concerning all. Therefore they do not read the true word of God, or certainly cannot be certain that they read it. For how, I address you, rustic Lutheran, were you certain by faith that Luther’s Bible is authentic when all Catholics, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and Osiandrians protested, when Matthesius chastised it, and Luther himself acknowledged errors?
Second, reading the Bible is harmful to very many who at this time are not Catholics, because when they judge it most easy they immediately undertake to interpret it, lest they become objects of ridicule if they deny that they understand a most evident matter. Luther said in his book On the Bondage of the Will that there is no difficulty in the sacred writings and that no passage can be brought forward to him which he himself cannot easily interpret. Therefore they judge that they can understand what they suppose to be open and clear, and consequently they interpret it. But an ignorant person who supposes a difficult matter easy falls into paradoxes and ridiculous opinions.
Third, reading the Bible also inflicts injury upon many when it raises them into pride and causes them to disdain being taught, on which occasion they necessarily fall into heresies. Luther himself experienced this, for he says that the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians, if they have read even one book, think that they know all things, Table Talk 1, folio 5. And next: “Luther once said that the nobility, citizens, peasants, and almost persons of every highest and lowest condition knew the Gospel better than Doctor Luther himself knew it, or even Saint Paul himself, as at least they appeared to themselves; for they considered themselves to be wise and more learned than all parish priests.” He adds that they contemned not the parish priests but the Lord. Such also were the Hussites, as Cochlaeus recalls in books 1 and 4 of the history; such were the Wycliffites, as Waldensis states in book 2, chapters 70 and 73; such were the people of Orlamünde in Luther’s time. This appears to be the reason why Luther, in the history which occurred at Staßfurt in 1536, calls the Bible “the book of heretics.”
Fourth, from these things it is established that very many heresies arise and that many things are perverted by the unlearned. Indeed, nearly every person now possesses preconceived judgments and draws Scripture toward them. Calvin certainly sufficiently indicates in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 8, §11, that the interpretation of Scripture is promised to individuals.
§ 6. Fifth proposition. In the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, versions and readings
of the Bible are not forbidden but permitted under a fixed law, and this rightly and deservedly. The foundation of the adversaries is therefore calumnious and their disparagement wholly malevolent.
§ 7. Here, above all, it admonishes that reading not be permitted without discrimination, and adds the cause: because through the temerity of human beings more detriment than utility arises from it. The Lutherans and Calvinists judge this to be so, since every day they are divided into more sects. Hence they too prohibit books of diverse sects. For the books of Zwingli, while he was still living, were forbidden in Saxony and Hesse, as Zwingli states in the Exegesis of the Eucharistic Matter; thereafter they always did this, as Lavater, Micronius, Utenhovius, Danaeus, and others testify. Yet the Calvinists do not cease to do the same concerning the Lutherans to the present day. Thus Schlusselburg, book 3 of Calvinistic Theology, article 4: “From this it appears that the Sacramentarians apply themselves especially to this: that their blasphemous books alone be read by all, while our writings are utterly rooted out from the nature of things as unworthy of public circulation and reading.” Nor did they do only this, but also what Luther writes in volume 7, Letter 2 to Linck, folio 272: “The peasants of Orlamünde wipe their buttocks with my little book.” Calvin, Letter 1, says “that magistrates who not only permit bad books to be published but approve all the worst ones by their vote provide most badly for the state by their immoderate facility.”
And Schlusselburg says in book 3 of Calvinistic Theology, article 4: “We do not deny that our magistrates in certain places forbid booksellers indiscriminately to sell to anyone the books of heretics, pontificians, Anabaptists, Calvinists, and fanatical human beings of that kind. But, account being taken of the persons who buy, let them take care not to communicate poisonous and erroneous writings to the unlearned and inexperienced, who, not yet confirmed in the foundations of Christian doctrine, could easily be seduced by reading them without any judgment.”
Among the sectarians, therefore, there are a great many catalogues of prohibited books, among which are also versions of the Bible.
But you will say: “We prohibit not sacred Scripture but bad books.” Nor do I say this; rather, I admonish that, since there are many very bad versions of the Bible—as all testify, even the adversaries—and since there is none which is approved by the most serene king of Britain, it is rightly prohibited that they be permitted indiscriminately to the unlearned and inexperienced.
For if this is done, how easily among so many versions will the rustic fall upon an Anabaptist, Socinian, or Arian version? For it cannot happen that he judges which version agrees with the Hebrew or Greek. Therefore a choice ought not to be permitted to one who cannot distinguish between a salutary medicine and poison. He will incline the law toward his own vices.
But if the version is approved by the bishop, account of times, places, and persons must be maintained in granting permission. For if someone is eager for novelties, puffed up, lustful, restless, and an admirer of himself, if you give him the Bible he will do the things of which Luther complains concerning his own people. Tell me, Lutherans: did not reading the Bible make the Calvinists sevenfold worse than the papists? Luther said that they were such and Jacob Andreae confirmed it in the Herzberg Colloquy.
If anyone with a good mind and a desire to advance wishes to read the Bible, he will never perceive it to be denied him; it is necessary only that he approach his pastor concerning the matter. But when Bibles are permitted to be published, sold, and bought publicly, it is judged that a general faculty of reading has been granted, which certain persons without doubt abuse. Yet all scandals cannot be guarded against. Accordingly, a thing to whose permission a condition is added is not prohibited. Thus, when a prince forbids arms to be carried without his permission, he does not absolutely wish no one to be armed, but wishes to strip the furious, turbulent, and irascible of instruments of malice and to have the strong and just armed with defenses of the state.
So too, if a bishop sees an atheistic man, lacking the Spirit of God, walking along the whitewashed ways of the age, and seeking fuel for his vices from the polygamy of Abraham and David, he will rightly keep him from reading the Bible, which is understood only by the Spirit of God that this man lacks; he will instruct him himself and command him to hear pastors. For Calvin himself is witness that a certain instruction truly ought to precede. For in the preface to the Institutes in 1559 he thrusts the reading of his own Institutes upon readers as a certain εἰσαγωγὴν, introduction to reading the divine books: “This was proposed to me in this labor: so to prepare and instruct candidates of sacred theology for the reading of the divine word that they may both possess an easy approach to it and be able to proceed in it with an unoffending step.”
If, therefore, Calvin judges that candidates of theology must be prepared for reading the divine word, why should a Catholic bishop not first prepare an unlearned person before handing him the Bible? Certainly, candidates of theology are more apt than the unlearned. If Calvin instructs them through such long Institutes, why does an unlearned person have less need of instruction? If without Calvin’s Institutes candidates of theology do not possess an easy approach to reading the divine word, why is it charged as a crime against Pius IV that he grants access through bishops, parish priests, and confessors, yet only if they have been so instructed that they can obtain from that reading not injury but an increase of piety and faith? If Calvin’s Institutes carry a light before candidates of theology so that they can proceed with an unoffending step in the reading of Scripture, why should a Catholic bishop not also fortify his subjects beforehand so that they do not stumble? And if candidates of theology need those Institutes lest they stumble, therefore without them they could stumble; therefore someone can also stumble in the Catholic Church; therefore reading the Bible is rightly denied to him until he is so instructed that he can proceed in that reading with an unoffending step.
I end this part concerning Scripture and protest before God and human beings that we are assailed with the greatest and unheard-of calumnies. Formerly calumny placed its summit in the Arians against Athanasius; now our Jubilarians have surpassed all the calumnies of the ancients. And certainly, if they learned anything from the ancients, they imbibed the art of calumniating so exactly that nothing is now safe. They can accomplish nothing by truth; they trust in shouting and falsehood.
We permit the law of God to be read, but prohibit harmful reading and an interpretation which corrupts the law—the thing which we said the magistrate does in civil laws.