THE TREATMENT OF THE SCRIPTURES UNDER CENSORSHIP
1. Germany.
2. France.
3. Netherlands.
4. Spain.
5. England.
6. Scriptures in the Vernacular.
=1. Germany.=--The cordial co-operation extended by the Church to
the work of the printers continued until the Humanists, more than a
generation before the protest of Luther, began to assail the authority
of the Church and the infallibility of the pope. The ecclesiastics
now took the ground that errors and heresies arose through a wrongful
understanding of the Scriptures, and from the beginning of the 16th
century, took measures to discourage, and finally to prohibit, the
circulation of the Scriptures.
In 1479, was printed in Cologne a fine edition of the Scriptures in
Latin which bears record of the approval of the University of Cologne.
The term is _admissum et approbatum ab alma Universitate Coloniensi_.
This appears to be the earliest instance of the exercise of censorship
by a university in connection with a printed book. Cologne had extended
early hospitality to the printing art and it was there that Colard
Mansion, the associate of Caxton, secured his training. It was only
through the oppressive censorship of the faculty of theology in the
University that during the succeeding century the business of book
production became seriously burdened and the city lost its relative
importance as a publishing centre.
The first Hebrew Bible printed in Europe was issued in Soncino, in
1461, from the press of Abraham Colonto. In 1462, Fust brought to
Paris from Mayence a supply of his folio Bible, copies of which he was
able to sell for fifty crowns. The usual price for manuscripts of this
compass had heretofore been four to five hundred crowns. The first
Bible printed in the vernacular was issued, in 1466, in Strasbourg by
Heinrick Eggestein.
Among the earlier printers of Zurich (in which the work of printing
began in 1504) was Christ Froschauer, who is known chiefly through his
association with Zwingli. Froschauer, who devoted himself earnestly
to the cause of the Calvinists, had a religious as well as a business
interest in securing a wide circulation for the works of Zwingli and
his associates, and together with these he printed editions of the
Bible not only in German but in French, Italian, Flemish, and English.
Froschauer’s editions were the first Bibles printed on the Continent
in the English tongue. For these Bibles, which were distributed at
what to-day would be called popular prices, very considerable sales
were secured and the presses of Froschauer were thus made an important
adjunct to the work of the Reformation.
Anthoni Koberger of Nuremberg, at that time one of the greatest
publishers of Europe, brought into print, in 1481, an edition in
eight volumes folio, of the Bible of Cardinal Hugo. This work had
been produced about 1240, the editor having been made a cardinal by
Innocent IV. It was used for two centuries (of course in manuscript
form) as one of the theological text-books of the Sorbonne. The text
of the Scriptures as revised by Hugo, together with his notes, were
utilised by Luther and by a number of the later editors and translators
of the Scriptures. Koberger’s publishing catalogue included in all no
less than fifteen impressions of this _Biblia Latina_. In the year
1483, the year in which Luther was born, Koberger published his German
Bible. The text was translated from the Latin of the Vulgate and was
illustrated with woodcuts. It is not clear who was responsible for the
version or what was the German idiom utilised for it, but it was a form
that never took any permanent place in the literature of the country.
Luther, referring to this Nuremberg Bible, declares that “no one could
speak German of this outlandish kind.” The catalogue of Koberger
constituted a very good representation of the foundations of scholarly
Catholicism. The Catholic teachers who rested their contention for
the supremacy of the Roman Church upon the Scriptures as interpreted
for fourteen centuries by the scholars of the Church, depended for
the material of their teachings upon such folios as those produced by
Koberger. Weighty as were these folios, and assured as appeared to
be the foundations upon which had been raised the great structure of
ecclesiasticism, their instruction and their authority were undermined,
at least for a large portion of the community, by the influence of the
widely circulated pamphlets and sheets, the _Flugschriften_, which
brought to the people the teachings of the reformers. A series of Latin
Bibles were printed by Froben of Basel between 1500 and 1528. His
undertakings, like those of Koberger, were addressed almost exclusively
to scholars. He added later a series of works of the Fathers and an
edition of the New Testament in Greek edited by Erasmus. The Testament
included, printed in parallel columns, an improved Latin version. This
was the first edition of the Greek text and it was utilised by Luther
in the preparation of his German version. The text as shaped by Erasmus
was based in part upon the previous issue of Laurentius Valla, to whom
must be given the honour of having been the first scholar to attempt a
revision of the Scripture text by a comparison of authorities.
Notwithstanding the approval given to the book by the pope, its
publication brought out many and bitter criticisms. Accusations were
heard of heresy and Arianism. Erasmus had departed from the version of
the Vulgate and in his Latin text had substituted pure Latin for the
monastic barbarisms; he had even, it was said, charged the Apostles
with writing bad Greek. He had had the temerity to correct a number of
texts in such a way as materially to alter their meaning, and in the
first Epistle of John had ventured to omit altogether the testimony of
the “Three Witnesses.” This unfortunate verse, after being accepted by
the Protestants on the strength of its retention by Luther and of the
later and more scholarly authority of the editors of the King James
version, was finally condemned, as an interpolation, by the revisers
under Victoria, who were thus in a position, after an interval of three
and a half centuries, to bear testimony to the scholarship and the
editorial boldness of Erasmus. That Erasmus did possess the courage of
his convictions was evidenced by the character of the notes throughout
the volume; for instance, in commenting upon the famous text, Matt.
XVI, 18, “Upon this rock will I build my church,” he takes occasion to
deny altogether the primacy of Peter and to express his surprise that
words undoubtedly meant to apply to all Christians should have been
interpreted as applying exclusively to the Roman pontiff; and this is
said, it should be remembered, in a volume dedicated to the Pope.[3]
The paraphrase of the New Testament, printed by Erasmus in Basel in
1524 was reprinted in an English version in London, and the work was so
highly appreciated in England that a copy was ordered to be placed in
every parish church beside the Bible.
It was the influence of Erasmus (who was at the time in good favour
with the Pope, Leo X) that secured for Froben, in 1514, a papal
privilege for a term of five years for the works of St. Jerome.
=2. France.=--Up to the close of the 12th century, the Church appears
to have issued no regulations in regard to the use of the Bible in the
vernacular or to the reading of the Bible in any form by laymen. In
the 13th century, several of the synods in France prohibited the use
of French versions of the Bible, and forbade the laity from reading
theological writings or the Scriptures in any form (excepting the
Psalms).[4] These regulations failed, however, to secure any uniform or
enduring obedience.
In 1522, Robert Estienne of Paris, working as the assistant of his
stepfather Colines, undertook the preparation of an edition in Latin
of the New Testament. The text followed, in the main, the version
of the Vulgate, but the youthful editor found occasion for certain
corrections. The textual changes ventured upon at once called forth
criticism from the divines of the Sorbonne, and Robert found himself
classed with the group of heretical persons. It appears from his
correspondence that he held himself ready to justify on critical
grounds the corrections that he had ventured to make in the text of
the Vulgate. The divines, while continuing their invectives, took
pains to avoid any direct controversy on the points at issue.[5] In
1540, Robert was brought into special jeopardy through an impression
of the Decalogue executed in large characters and printed in the
form of a hanging map for placing on the walls of schoolrooms. Such
an undertaking seems to our present understanding innocent enough,
whether considered from a Romanist or a Protestant point of view, but
in this publication of the Ten Commandments, the divines discovered
little less mischief than in the heresies of Luther. The censors caused
to be put into print a counter-impression of the Decalogue in which
the first two commandments were combined into one, with the omission
of the prohibition of making and worshipping images, while the tenth
commandment was divided into two in order to make up the complete
number. During the same year, various proceedings were taken against
Estienne on the part of the Sorbonne, and on more than one occasion he
was compelled to leave his home and to betake himself for safety to the
King’s court. The fact that a publisher, in order to protect himself
against the violence of officials who were (at least nominally) the
King’s censors, should take refuge at court, throws a curious light on
both the strength and the weakness of the Crown. With all the authority
of the kingdom at his command, Francis was evidently unable to control
the operations of the ecclesiastical censors who, in their dogmatic and
unruly zeal, did what was in their power to throw the influence of
the university against the literary development of France and Europe.
On the other hand, the doctors of the Sorbonne, although backed by
the authority of Rome, were not strong enough, at least for a number
of years, to put a stop to the publication in Catholic Paris of works
stigmatised by them as dangerously heretical.
Fénelon takes the ground in regard to the use of the Scriptures, that
originally the Church permitted such reading without restrictions;
that with increasing degeneracy, restraint was found to be necessary;
that the necessity became increasingly manifest when the Vaudois, the
Albigenses, and the later heretics, Wyclif, Luther, Calvin, and their
associates, utilised the Scriptures as the basis of attacks upon the
true Faith and the authority of the Church; Fénelon’s conclusion is:
_Enfin, il ne faut donner l’écriture qu’ à ceux qui, ne la reçevant
que des mains de l’Église, ne veulent y chercher que le sens de
l’Église même_.
In 1686, an edition of the New Testament in French was printed at
Bordeaux. The edition is described in a tract by Bishop Kidder, printed
in London in 1690, entitled _Reflections on a French Testament_.
This tract was reprinted in 1827 by Doctor H. Cotton in connection
with a Memoir of Bishop Kidder. The Bordeaux Testament is described
as rare; but five copies are recorded as having been in existence in
Great Britain in 1827. The immediate occasion of the production of this
special version of the Testament was the revocation, in 1685, of the
Edict of Nantes. Strenuous efforts were made after the revocation, by
the Church, and by the State acting in co-operation with the Church,
for the recall to the fold of the various groups of Protestants who
still remained in the kingdom. The publication, under the authority
of the State, of the volume in question has been referred by Catholic
writers (including among others Mr. Butler in his _Book of the Roman
Catholic Church_[6]) as a contradiction to the charge that the
Church was averse to the dissemination of the Scriptures. Mr. Butler
reminds his readers, on the authority of Bausset in his _Life of
Bossuet_ that, under the orders of Louis XIV, no less than fifty
thousand copies of the French translation of the New Testament were,
“at the recommendation of Bossuet, distributed among the converted
Protestants.” Bausset refers to this version as being the work of Père
Amelotte, and says that with the Testament were distributed copies
of a translated missal. Mendham points out that among the several
peculiarities specified by Kidder in the Bordeaux version, the more
noteworthy have to do with references of a special character to the
Mass, to Purgatory, and to the Roman Faith, which have been made to
find place in the text of the Testament. Among the examples cited are
the following:
Acts xiii, 2, given in the King James version “As they ministered to
the Lord,” is given in the French version _Comme ils offraient au
Seigneur leurs sacrifices de la Messe_, or “They rendered unto the
Lord the sacrifice of the Mass.”
1 Cor. ii, 15, where the Apostle writes they shall be saved as “by
fire,” this version has _par le feu de Purgatoire_, “by the fire of
Purgatory.”
1 Tim. iv, 1, “In the latter times,” says St. Paul, “some shall depart
from the faith,” is rendered _de la Foy Romaine_, “from the Roman
faith.”
These instances will serve as examples of the character of the
accusations brought by Kidder, Cotton, and Mendham,[7] against the
trustworthiness and good faith of the Catholic censors who undertook to
present to the Protestants who were to be recalled to the true Faith
the doctrine of the Scriptures. It would certainly appear as if the
zeal of these editors had outrun their standard of accurate scholarship.
=3. The Netherlands.=--In 1559, Plantin printed a French edition
of the New Testament and found sale within the year for nearly
twenty-five hundred copies. In 1568, Plantin completed the publication
of the most important of his undertakings, _La Bible Royale_, or
_Bible Polyglotte_, which was produced under the editorship of
the great scholar Arias Montanus. This was the most scholarly edition
of the Scriptures that had thus far been put into print. A polyglot
Bible had been planned by Aldus but he had not lived to complete it. In
1517, the Cardinal Ximenes had had printed at Alcala a polyglot edition
of the Old Testament, and in 1547, an edition of the Pentateuch,
prepared under the supervision of certain Jewish editors, was printed
in Constantinople in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and Syrian. Plantin secured
for his Bible from King Philip II a subvention (or at least the promise
of a subvention) of twenty-one thousand florins, which amount was to
be repaid to the King in copies of the book. The editor Montanus had
himself been appointed by the King, and he selected as his associates
members of the theological faculty of the University of Louvain. The
enterprise received also the co-operation and support of Cardinal
Granvelle.
One of the most important, and also one of the most difficult,
parts of the undertaking was the securing of the various privileges
required to authorise the sale of the work, and to protect it from
infringement in the several countries in which a demand for it was
expected. A general privilege was first obtained from the governor
of the Netherlands acting in behalf of the King, and this secular
authorisation was supplemented by a certificate of orthodoxy issued by
the theological faculty of Louvain, which was naturally prepared to
approve of its own work. The Pope, Pius V, or his advisers, took the
ground, however, that any general circulation of the Scriptures might
prove dangerous, and in spite of the approval given to the work by
Louvain, he refused to sanction its publication. This refusal blocked
the undertaking for some years and brought upon the publisher Plantin
serious financial difficulties. The history of this work presents a
convenient example of the special difficulties attending the publishing
enterprises of the time. The examiners or censors, whether political
or ecclesiastical, were prepared to make their examinations and to
arrive at decisions only when the book in question was already in
printed form. It was necessary, therefore, that the outlays for the
editing, the typesetting, and the printing should be incurred before
the publisher could ascertain whether or not the publication could be
permitted. It was quite possible also that the plan of the publication
might be approved by one authority, while the work, when completed,
might fail to secure the sanction required on the part of some other
or succeeding authority. With Plantin’s Bible, the history took a
different course. Pope Gregory XIII, who succeeded Pius V, was finally
persuaded to give his approval to the work and, in 1572 (that is to
say four years after the book was in readiness), he issued a privilege
for it which gave to the publisher exclusive control for the term of
twenty years, and which brought upon any reprinter excommunication and
a fine of two thousand livres. The editor, Montanus, after finishing
his editorial labours and supervising the printing of the final sheets
of the Bible, was obliged to devote some years to travelling from
court to court and to a long sojourn in Rome, before he could secure
the privileges required for its sale. Even after the work had secured
the approval of Gregory, it was vigorously attacked by a group of the
stricter Romanists, led by Leon de Castro, professor of Salamanca. De
Castro took the ground that the Vulgate had been accepted by the Church
as the authoritative text, and that all attempts to go back to the
original Hebrew, Greek, or Syriac must, therefore, be sacrilegious.
As early as 1520, Noël Beda, Dean of the Sorbonne, had taken similar
ground in connection with the editions of the Bible printed by Henry
Estienne. Beda contended that the study of Greek and Hebrew would bring
religion into peril, as it would tend to undermine the authority of the
Vulgate. When Montanus, after completing his work in Antwerp, returned
to Spain, he was accused of being a partisan of the Jews and an enemy
to the Church, and was threatened with a trial for heresy. He was able,
however, through his own scholarship and with the backing of the Pope,
to hold his own against his accusers, and no formal trial ever took
place.
=4. Spain.=--The earliest censorship in Spain was undertaken in
Aragon and was directed against vernacular versions of the Scriptures.
In 1234, the Cortes of Tarragona adopted a decree of King Jayme I
forbidding the possession by any one of any portion of the Old or New
Testament in Romance.[8] The Church in the 13th century, as later, was
satisfied with the Latin Vulgate. It authorised no translation into
modern tongues and preferred that popular instruction should come from
learned priests who could explain obscurities in orthodox fashion. The
sects of the Cathari and the Waldenses, whose growth was for a time a
real danger to the establishment, were ardent students of Scripture
and found in it a potent instrument of propagandism. The Cathari, who
rejected nearly the whole of the Old Testament, had translations of
the New. The Waldenses had versions of the whole Bible.[9] In Castile,
literature remained until the 15th century without interference on
the part of either Church or State. The first instance of general
censorship of which I find record in Spain was exercised on the library
of the Marquis of Villena, after his death in 1434. The marquis had
dabbled in occult arts and had won the reputation of a magician. At the
command of Juan II, his books were examined by Lope de Barrientos, who
by a royal order publicly burned such as were deemed objectionable.
In 1479, Pedro de Osma, a professor of Salamanca, was condemned by the
Council of Alcala for certain heresies. The professor was required to
make public recantation holding a lighted candle, and the book in which
his errors were set forth was burned by the secular authorities. In
1316, the inquisitor, Juan de Llotger, on the report of an assembly
of experts, assembled at Tarragona, condemned the works on spiritual
Franciscanism by Arnaldo de Villanneva. The sentence in which the
tracts were condemned formed the model of a long series of similar
prohibitions. Towards the close of the 14th century, Nicholas Eymerich,
who won fame as a strenuous inquisitor, secured the condemnation of a
long series of books including some twenty works by Raymond Lully and
several of Ramon de Tarraga.[10] In Castile, during the latter part
of the 13th century, the censorship of the Scriptures was evidently
relaxed. In 1267, Alfonso X caused a Castilian translation to be made
of the Bible, a copy of which, in five folio volumes, is preserved in
the Escorial.[11] In 1430, Rabbi Moyses aben Ragel completed the work
of translating the Old Testament which had been undertaken in 1422,
under the instructions of the Master of Calatrava. He secured for his
task the aid of certain Franciscans and Dominicans who supplied the
Catholic glosses. An illuminated manuscript of this version still
exists in the collection of Condé, Duke de Olivares.[12] During the
14th and 15th centuries, a number of versions of different portions of
the Scriptures were executed in Catalan. One of these was prepared by
the Carthusian, Bonifacio Ferrer. Of this, an edition was printed in
1478 at Valencia, which edition had been revised by the Jesuit, Jayme
Borell. This volume was issued on the eve of a general proscription of
the Scriptures in the vernacular.
Excepting for the instance of censorship in Aragon, there appears to
have been up to the close of the 15th century, no obstacle to the
printing or the distribution in Spain of versions of the Scriptures
in the vernacular. Carranza, Archbishop of Toledo, writing in 1557,
says that before Lutheran heresies emerged from hell he knew of no
prohibition of the Bible in the vulgar tongue.[13]
Cardinal Ximenes at first took strong ground against the circulation
of all versions of the Scriptures, and even stopped the work that had
been begun by the Archbishop of Granada, in translating into Arabic
the Scripture text used at the matins and in the mass. In 1519,
however, the Cardinal had printed at Alcala a polyglot edition of the
Old Testament, known in bibliographies as the Ximenes Bible. In this
edition, the text of the Vulgate was placed in a column between the
text in Greek and that in Hebrew. Mendham quotes the Cardinal as saying
that the arrangement recalled the crucifixion where Christ was placed
between two thieves.[14]
In 1533, Maria Cazalla, when on trial before the Inquisition, speaks
of its being customary for Catholic women to read portions of the
Scriptures in Castilian, and Carranza in his _Comentarios_ complains of
the “number of female expounders of Scripture who abounded everywhere,”
as an evil to be suppressed.[15] Alfonso de Castro takes the ground
that from the misinterpretation of the Scriptures spring all heresies;
as the keenest intellect and widest learning are required for their
interpretation, they must be sedulously kept from the people; reverence
for the Scriptures would be destroyed if they were allowed to become
common.[16] The Spanish Index of 1551 includes among books prohibited,
Bibles translated into Spanish or other vulgar tongue. In this year,
Valdes issued an edict directed particularly against the importation
of heretical Bibles. In 1554, Valdes issued a special expurgatory
Index in which were examined fifty-four editions of the Scriptures and
lists of the objectionable passages were given. The owners of these
Bibles were required to present them to the inquisitors within sixty
days in order that the objectionable passages might be obliterated.
In 1554, was printed at Salamanca the edition of the Bible of Vatable
which had been thoroughly expurgated, but this expurgated edition was
prohibited in the Index of 1559. A further expurgation was undertaken
and the second revised edition appeared in 1584. Even this contained
additional expurgations inserted with the pen. In 1613, and 1632,
the much revised book endured two further series of expurgations.
Its circulation appears thereafter to have been permitted without
further interference. The Bible edited by Montanus and printed in
Antwerp by Plantin, was denounced by de Castro and others as full
of heresies, but the charges do not appear to have been adequately
supported. The Index of 1583 contains in its general rules a sweeping
prohibition of vernacular Bibles and of all portions thereof. An Edict
of Denunciations, published annually after 1580, classes among works
absolutely prohibited, the writings of the Lutherans, the Alcoran, and
Bibles in the vernacular. It appears to have been the conclusion of the
Spanish censors that the effect of the Bible on the popular mind was on
the whole more to be dreaded than that of the Koran.[17]
The Spanish writer Villanueva has endeavoured to show by extracts
from religious authors whose writings were issued between 1550
and 1620, that there was a large body of educated opinion which
favoured the study of the Scriptures. He finds such utterances from
Carmelites, Franciscans, Benedictines, and even Dominicans. Lea points
out, however, that, with the first quarter of the 17th century, the
authorities of Villanueva come to an end. The generation which had
witnessed the prohibition of the Scriptures had died out and the
Scriptures themselves were forgotten in the intellectual gymnastics
of casuistry. The work of the Inquisition had been accomplished among
both priests and people.[18] Villanueva, himself a _calificador_
(councillor) of the Inquisition, writing in 1791, says that the people
are now practically ignorant of the existence of the Scriptures and
those who have knowledge of such existence regard the Scriptures with
horror and detestation.[19]
In the fifth of the series of the rules in the Index of 1790, the
Inquisitor announces that the Church authorities have become sensible
of the benefits to be secured from the perusal of the Scriptures and
that they are prepared to repeat the declaration given in the Index
of Benedict and to permit, under similar restrictions, the reading
of the Bible in the vernacular. This Index repeats the condemnation
first published in the preceding Index of 1747, and withdrawn under
the protest of Pope Benedict, of the _History of Pelagianism_ by
Cardinal Noris.
The Protestants had little success in getting into Spain their great
weapon of attack, a vernacular Bible, little I mean compared with their
success in Italy. The Spanish Bible upon which they chiefly relied is
the one of 1602 which was prepared by Cypriano de Valera, but which,
in fact, is a second edition, much improved, of that of Cassiodoro de
Reyna, printed in 1559, which in its turn used for the Old Testament
the Jewish Bible in Spanish, printed at Ferrara in 1553. De Reyna was
a native of Seville and had been educated at the university there.
Becoming a heretic, he escaped from Spain about 1557 and went first
to London and then to Basel, where, with the aid of the Senate, he
published his Bible in 1559.
In 1836–37, the Cortes made an attempt to reconcile the liberty of the
press with the repression of certain abuses. It was at this time that
George Borrow undertook to test the censorship conditions in Spain, by
printing and circulating the New Testament. Lea points out[20] that he
utilised for his work a version prepared from the Vulgate by Father
Scio and that he was, therefore, presenting Scriptures which were
entirely orthodox. Borrow succeeded in having an edition of his New
Testament printed in Madrid and in opening a shop for its sale. With
a change of ministry, the sale was blocked and Borrow was for a few
weeks placed in prison. Later, his supplies of books were seized and
cancelled.[21] The later issues of the Bible Society for circulation in
Spain are reprints of the translation by de Valera. The constitution of
1876 gives to all Spaniards the right to express freely in speech or
in print their ideas and opinions without subjection to a preliminary
censorship. Article XI concedes liberty of thought and belief.[22]
In an encyclical letter of Leo XII, written to Spain in 1824, occur the
following passages:
“A certain sect not unknown certainly to you, usurping to
itself undeservedly the name of Philosophy, has raked from
the ashes disorderly crowds of almost every error. This sect,
exhibiting the meek appearance of piety and liberality,
professes Latitudinarianism or Indifferentism.... You are
aware, venerable Brothers, that a certain society, commonly
called the Bible Society, strolls with effrontery throughout
the world; which society, contemning the traditions of the Holy
Fathers and contrary to the well-known decree of the Council
of Trent, labours with all its might and by every means, to
translate--or rather to pervert--the Holy Bible into the vulgar
languages of every nation; from which proceeding it is greatly
to be feared that what is ascertained to have happened as to
some passages may occur with regard to others; to wit that,
by a perverse interpretation, the Gospel of Christ be turned
into a human Gospel, or, which is still worse, into the Gospel
of the Devil (Hier. Cap. I, _Ep. ad. Gal._). To avert this
plague, our predecessors published many ordinances.... We also,
venerable Brothers, in conformity with our Apostolic duty,
exhort you to turn away your flock, by all means, from these
poisonous pastures. Reprove, beseech, be instant in season
and out of season, in all patience and doctrine, that the
faithful entrusted to you (adhering strictly to the rules of
our Congregation of the Index) be persuaded that if the Sacred
Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately public, more evil
than advantage will arise thence, on account of the rashness
of men.... Behold then the tendency of this Society, which, to
attain its ends, leaves nothing untried. Not only does it print
its translations, but wandering through the towns and cities, it
delights in distributing these among the crowd. Nay, to allure
the minds of the simple, at one it sells them, at another with
an insidious liberality it bestows them. Again, therefore, we
exhort you that your courage fail not. The power of temporal
princes, will, we trust in the Lord, come to your assistance,
whose interest, as reason and experience show, is concerned when
the authority of the Church is questioned.”[23]
=5. England.= The Synod of Canterbury, held at Oxford in 1408,
forbids the translation into English under individual authority
(_auctoritate sua_) of any portion of the Scriptures. It further
forbids, under penalty of the greater excommunication, the reading or
the possession (except with the approval of the bishop or provincial
council) of any versions of the Scriptures which had been issued since
the time of Wyclif, or which might thereafter be issued.[24] This
prohibition appears not to have been very thoroughly enforced. Sir
Thomas More speaks of seeing old versions of the Bible in the hands
of the laity, without criticism from the bishops.[25] It is the case,
however, that, between 1408 and 1525, the date of Tyndale’s Bible, no
English version of the Scriptures was printed.
The first Bible published in England was Tyndale’s English version of
the New Testament. This was, however, printed not in England but in
Cologne at the press of Quentell. Tyndale was by birth a Welshman.
After studying in Oxford and in Cambridge, he sojourned in Antwerp
and in that city he completed, in the year 1525, with the assistance
of John Fryth and Joseph Royes, his translation of the New Testament.
The supplies of the book when forwarded to London, came into immediate
demand, but as soon as the ecclesiastical authorities had an
opportunity of examining the text, the book was put under ban and all
copies that could be found were seized and destroyed. At the instance
of Catholic ecclesiastics in England, Tyndale was, in 1536, arrested
at Antwerp, under the authority of the Emperor Charles V and after
being imprisoned for eighteen months, was burned. In 1535, a complete
English Bible, comprising Tyndale’s version of the New Testament and
the Pentateuch and a translation, prepared by Coverdale and others, of
the remaining books of the Old Testament, was printed somewhere on the
Continent, probably at Zurich by Trochsover.
Fortunately for the freedom of the English press and for the spread of
religious belief through the instruction of the Scriptures, it happened
that shortly after the completion of the Coverdale Bible, Henry VIII
wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. With the close of the supremacy of the
papal power in England, and with the addition of Great Britain to the
list of the countries accepting the principles of the Reformation,
the printing and the distribution of the English versions of the
Scriptures became practicable. It would not be correct to say that
from this date the printing-press of England was free, but it was
the case that it became free for the production of the Protestant
Scriptures and of other Protestant literature, while it was also the
case that the censorship put in force by the English ecclesiastics, or
by the authority of the State, never proved as severe or as serious an
obstacle to publishing as had been the case with the ecclesiastical
censorship of the Catholics.
The first English Bible printed in England was the translation of John
Hollybushe, which was issued in 1538 by John Nicholson, in Southwark.
The great Cranmer Bible was printed between 1539 and 1541, the funds
for its publication being supplied by Cranmer and Cromwell. The
magnificent illustrations are ascribed to Holbein.
When the Scriptures were no longer interdicted in England, the printers
themselves began at once to supply reasons why certain of their
editions should be suppressed. In the year 1631, in a Bible and Prayer
Book printed in London by R. Barker, the word “not” was omitted in the
seventh commandment. This discovery led to a further examination of
the edition and it was stated by Laud that no less than one thousand
mistakes were found in this and in another edition issued by the same
printers. The impressions of both books were destroyed and the printers
were condemned by the High Commission to be fined two thousand pounds,
a condemnation which naturally ruined their business.
=6. The Reading of the Scriptures in the Vernacular.=--The various
Protestant versions of the Scriptures were prohibited in so far as
they came to the knowledge of the Inquisition or the Congregation. The
same course was taken with a number of translations into the language
of the people, which were the work of good Catholics. In 1668, the
New Testament of Mons was condemned by a brief of Clement IX; and in
addition to the New Testament text with the commentaries of Quesnel,
were prohibited French versions that had been prepared by Sinori and
by Hure and a Dutch translation by Schurius. A number of editions
for popular use escaped prohibition and some of these secured a very
wide circulation; but in Italy, in Spain, and in Portugal, a general
regulation was kept in force prohibiting any reading of the Scriptures
in the language of the people. In the last decade of the 17th century,
the question of the use of the Scriptures by the unlearned brought
about some active controversies. The Jansenists maintained from the
outset that the fourth of the Ten Rules of the Index of Trent was
not to be accepted as binding. This question brought into the Index
a number of controversial writings of the time, and in the Bull
_Unigenitus_ were condemned a series of specific propositions,
a condemnation which carried with it the prohibition of any works in
which could be identified the doctrines contained in the propositions.
In the Index of Benedict XIV, Rule IV, cited from the Trent Index,
is printed, with an addition based upon a decree issued by the
Congregation of the Index in June, 1757:
Permission can be given for the use of versions of the Scriptures or
of portions of the Scriptures printed in the language of the people,
when these versions have been prepared by devout and learned Catholics
or have been issued with commentaries or annotations selected from the
writings of the Fathers of the Church, and when said editions have been
specifically approved by the Holy See. For the reading of all editions
not carrying such specific approval, permission must be secured in each
individual case.
This modification of Rule IV was, however, itself revoked under
Gregory XVI through a _Monitum_ issued by the Congregation of the Index
in January, 1836, which _Monitum_ has, since 1841, been printed in the
successive issues of the Index.
“It has come to the knowledge of the authorities of the
Congregation that, in certain places, editions of the
Scriptures, printed in the language of the people, have been
brought into circulation without reference to the restrictions
and regulations imposed by the Church. The Congregation recalls
therefore to believers that, according to the decree of 1757,
only such versions of the Scriptures can be permitted which have
secured the specific approval of the Holy See. For all other
editions of the Scriptures the provisions of Rule IV must be
enforced.”
In 1699, a provincial synod of Naples had declared that editions of the
Scriptures in the vernacular were not to be possessed or read, even
with the authorisation of the bishops, because an Apostolic mandate
had taken from the bishops the authority to grant such permission. The
editions of the Scriptures prepared by the Catholic divines for the use
of the faithful appear for the great part to have been made up with
carefully selected citations, the selections being restricted to the
portions which were not doctrinal. Care was taken also to omit certain
of the stories and historical episodes in the Old Testament which were
considered to be not edifying or wholesome in their teaching. Hilgers
contends that under the present policy of the Church, each Catholic
is, as far as the Church is concerned, at liberty to utilise in his
home reading the text of the entire Bible. The spiritual protectors of
the faithful emphasise, however, the importance of securing for each
division of the Scriptures the interpretation of the Church and the
guidance of those who are made responsible for the shaping of sound
doctrine.