Petrus Sutor, De tralatione Bibliae (Paris, 1525), Caput vicesimumsecundum: Latin text and English translation Petrus Sutor (Pierre Cousturier) edited by D. Maust D. Maust https://sutor.drewmaust.com/c22/ Transcription and translation: CC BY 4.0. Petrus Sutor, De tralatione Bibliae, et novarum reprobatione interpretationum. Paris: Pierre Vidoue for Jean Petit, 1525. USTC 180977. Copy: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Alt Prunk *44.A.2.

Semi-diplomatic transcription: long s is recorded as s; u/v, i/j, ę/æ and punctuation as printed; abbreviations recorded with expansions. The English translation is a machine draft; the status of each paragraph is given in @ana.

¶ Capite vicesimosecundo, & postremo tralatio bibliæ invernaculam, seu maternam linguam effecta primum improbatur ac deinde fit exhortatio ne tralationes biblięrecenter factę admittantur, sed penitus explodãturexplodantur,& denique pia fit querimonia pro terminis fideicatholicæ, scripturę sacrę, & probitatis christianę hoc tempore translatis.

TAndem igitur volentes temeritatem illam reprobare, quæ de biblia latina tralationem fecitvernaculam. Imprimis percunctamur quæ necessitas flagitat hanc effici tralationem?Dicet quispiam, vt ydiotę & mulierculæ. quælatine nesciũtnesciunt sacram scripturam nosse possint,sicque scriptura ipsa plenius diuulgetur, & abomnibus intelligatur, quæ pro salute omnium tradita est. Bella scilicet responsio, quasi vero notitia totius bibliæ sit omnibus necessaria ad salutem, aut etiam ad omnes pertineat sacrę scripturæ mysteria nosse, vel denique possint literæ diuinæ sine periculo passim abomnibus tractari. Hæc enim falsa. Quæ vt seriatim improbenturcertum est ostendere primum bibliæ intelligentiam omnibus necessariam non esse. Deinde eius tralationem vulgarem admodumesse temerariam. ¶Postmodum eam quoque periculosissimamesse Postremo prorsus esse inutilem.

¶Imprimis vulgus passim non tenetur ymo nec potest totam nosse bibliam, sed satis est regulariter simplici popello scire dominicam orationem, fidei articulos, præcepta decalogi, præcepta ecclesiæ quę passim proponuntur, & denique quę ad suum statum pertinent. Quapropter stultum est dicere totius scripturæ cognitionemomnibus necessariam esse. Obligarentur enim pene omnes ad impossibile, cum plerique vel ob ingenii tarditatem, vel propter occupationes & sollicitudines huius vitæ, vel aliunde non possent bibliam ipsam scire,

¶At dicet aliquis, esto non teneantur passim omnes, tamen vtileac sanum est omnes indiscriminanter in studio bibliæ versari, proptereaque biblia ipsa potest palam omnibus proponi in ea linguaquam intelligere queant. Verum hæc responsio friuola est, quæ &in sequentibus reprobabitur. Transeamus igitur ad alterum, & probemus tralationem biblię in maternam linguam esse admodumtemerariam.

Enimuero sacris ipsa literis videtur esse aduersa quibus iubet veritas qui Christus est, ne mysteria veritatis indignis ꝓproponantur. Nolite (inquit) sanctum dare canibus, neque mittatismargaritas vestras ante porcos. Mathęi. vii. Quod exponens Chrisostomus inquit. Mysteria autem veritatis margaritæ sunt, quia sicut margaritæ inclusæ cochleis positæ sunt in profundum maris, sicmysteria diuina verbis inclusa posita sunt in altitudine sensus sacræscripturæ. Et subdit. Mysteria veritatis id est margaritæ non suntdandæ nisi desiderantibus veritatem & cum ratione humana viuentibus. Si enim porcis ea miseris id est cenosæ vitę delectationegrauatis, non intelligent pretiositatem earum, sed ęstimabunt eassimiles cęteris fabulis mundialibus, & eas actibus suis carnalibuscõculcantconculcant. Hęc Chrysostomus.

Cum igitur in republica sint quamplurimi canes, hoc est impugnatores veritatis, vel ad vomitum peccatorum reuersi, sint & quamplurimi porci id est contemptores, autin luto viciorum versantes, sint denique plerique indigni quibustalia proponantur, non sunt passim committenda sacrę scripturæmysteria, ne sordidis actibus ea conculcent, vel non intelligentescontemnant, vel male intelligentes erroris occasionem inde hauriant. Adde, cum Christus plicatum librum ministro reddidit, vthabetur Luce quarto. Insinuauit auctore Beda non omnia omnibusdicenda, sed pro capacitate audientium proferenda. Si igitur nonsunt omnia omnibus committenda, quomodo precor sane poterittota sacra scriptura passim omnibus proponi? Non sane poterit.

¶Cæterum quam periculosum sit ipsam diuinam scripturam indoctis ac ydiotis committere legendam, patet ex detrimentis ac periculis quæ inde vsu venire faciliter queunt, quæ partim auctoritatibus, partim rationibus possunt ostendi. Imprimis cortex ipsiusdiuinæ scripturæ legentes perimit. Quod Paulus intelligens secundę ad Corinthios tertio, hunc in modum dicit. Litera enim occidit,spiritus autem viuificat. Qui locus licet varie intelligi possit, vtper literam & spiritum vetus & nouum testamentum capiatur, velper literam & spiritum lex & gratia intelligatur, tamen etiam perliteram intelligitur ipse cortex literæ, siue sensus ille grammaticalis quem prima fronte verba faciunt, qui quidem sępe occidit legentem, cum frequenter falsus sit, & det quoque peccandi occasionem.Per spiritum vero sensus accipitur ipsius scripturæ verus a spiritusancto intentus. qui licet viuificet, prima tamen fronte non patet,sed multo labore quęrendus est.

Hæc autem ne gratis ex nostro dicere videamur, auctoritate comprobemus, pręsertim Hieronymiqui in commentariis ad Galathas quinto Origenem secutus huncin modum ait. Opera carnis diuinorum voluminũvoluminum historia continet, non valde eos iuuans qui sic eam intelligũtintelligunt vt scripta est. Quisenim non docebitur seruire luxurię, & fornicationem habere pronihilo, cum Iudam ad meretricem legerit ingredientem, & patriarchas multas habuisse pariter vxores? Quomodo nõnon ad ydololatriam prouocabitur, qui sanguinem taurorum, & cæteras leuiticivictimas non plus quam quod in litera sonat putauerit iudicare?

Quod autem inimicitias in aperto positus scripturę sermo doceat,& ex hoc loco probatur, filia Babilonis misera, beatus qui retribuettibi retributionem tuam quam retribuisti nobis. Beatus qui tenebit & allidet paruulos suos ad petram. Et ex illo. In matutino interficiebam omnes peccatores terræ, & cętera his similia. de contentionibus videlicet, ęmulatione, ira, rixis, dissentionibus. Ad quæ sinon altius aliquid sentiamus, prouocant nos magis historiæ exempla quam prohibent. Hæreses quoque magis de carnis scripturæ intelligentia quam de opere carnis nostræ vt plurimi æstimant substiterunt, Et paulo post. Quęritur quomodo ad veneficia & ad maleficas artes simplex scripturæ diuinæ sermo (qui dicitur caro eius)nos prouocet nisi ad eiusdem scripturæ spiritum transcendamus?Et post pauca. Multorum ergo malorum occasio est si quis in scripturę carne permaneat. Quæ qui fecerint, regnum dei non consequentur. Quamobrem spiritum scripturæ, fructusque quęramus, quinon dicuntur esse manifesti. Multo quippe labore & sudore, & digno cultu in scripturis fructus spiritus inuenitur. Vnde arbitror Paulum diligenter & caute de scripturę sensibus dixisse carnalibus:Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis. Hęc Hieronymus.

Ex cuiusverbis constat carnem siue corticem diuinę scripturę ansam prebere peccandi, & multorum quoque malorum (nisi decenter intelligatur) causam esse. Quod si verum sit, vt verum est, quis sane mentisdicet ipsam scripturam esse vulgo committendam quæ tantorummalorum prębere facillime potest occasionem? Non enim dicerepossis per se rudem populum intelligere posse scripturam ipsam aliter quam verba sonent. Nam vt Hieronymus suis in commentariis in Marcum capite tertio ait. Est consuetudo diuinæ scripturæallegorice loqui, & cum aliud dicat, aliud velit intelligi. Et idemin explanationibus suis in Paulum ad Galathas primo. Neque putemus ait in verbis scriptum esse euangelium, sed in sensu. non insuperficie, sed in medulla. non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis. Si igitur aliud dicat, aliud intelligat, si inquam non in verbis, non in cortice literæ est euangelium, quomodo simplex populus poterit intelligere, qui nec possit quidem capere vt verba sonãtsonant?Denique si scriptura diuina posset intelligi vt par est, maxime asimplicibus faciliter & prima fronte sine expositore, cassę essenteius explanationes, superflui quoque essent theologici doctores. Athoc dicere insanissimum est.

¶At dices. Simplex populus curabit locos sibi obscuros ab aliquoediscere. Rogo te primum quomodo rudis popellus discernere poterit quinam sunt loci illi qui aliter capiendi sunt quam verba sonent, & qui non? Deinde vbi passim inuenientur tot viri docti quisufficiant ad docendos omnes indoctos? Hæc deliramenta suntplus quam anilia.

¶Sed alia detrimenta prosequamur. Non solum litera, siue simplex sermo diuinæ scripturæ, præsertim per historias quas refert, occidit spiritaliter, hoc est ansam peccandi prębet vt diximus, sed etiãetiamoccasionem errandi atque hęreticandi tribuere solet. Enimueropene omnes in catholicãcatholicam fidem errores ex sacræ scripturę corticeperperam decorticato prodierunt. Nonnulle (fateor) hęreses exturbidis philosophorum fontibus profectę sunt. At longe maiorpars ex sacræ paginę litera male intellecta suborta putatur. Cumigitur dęmon errorum inuentor callidissimus iampridem viros &ingenio & doctrina pręstantes ita delusit vt in absurdissimas hęreses eos impulerit, quid tandem putamus eum in rudi popello & adomnem tentationis auram variabili facturum? Nonne per occasionem huiusmodi tralationis vernacule quam plurimos est decepturus? Sed obsecro cum pene innumerę sint apparentes sacris inliteris dissonantię, qui fieri poterit vt simplices legendo non offendãturdantur? Si legerit aliquis de Christi passione in Marco. Erat autemhora tertia & crucifixerunt eum. Legerit & quod habetur in Luca.Erat autem fere hora sexta &c. quomodo non protinus dicet euangelistas inter se dissentire, quod & nonnulli iampridem dixerunt?

Itidem cum plus mille sint propositiones quæ secundum sonumverborum falsę, ymo & impię videntur, vt pote cum deus haberemembra humana dicitur, cum in eo ira, furor, vindicta, & cętera huiusmodi in eo esse referantur, nonne simplices hæc legentes hallucinabuntur? Nonne putabunt deum humanam effigiem habere,& crudelem quoque vel certe passionibus obnoxium instar hominum esse? Ecce quod detrimentorum biblia in vernaculum sermonem tralata paritura est.

¶Insuper ex lectione ipsius diuinæ scripturæ sequetur apud vulgusfacilis eius contemptus. Enimuero non poterit intelligi saltem decenter a multis, eamque ob rem contemnetur. Quod enim minimecapitur, facile contemni solet. Hinc Iulianus Augustus (quem passim apostatam nuncupant) cum legisset sacras literas sibi missas,nec pie intellexisset, stulte eas contempsit dicens. Vidi, legi, contempsi. Cui tamen prudenter responsum est a Basilio, vidisti, legisti, non intellexisti, Si intellexisses non contempsisses. Ergo idipsum quod contigit Iuliano, continget & rudi popello faciliter, vtscilicet sacram scripturam flocifaciant, quam nec intelligere, necsententias quæ mutuo pugnare videntur concordare possit,

¶Porro ex huiusmodi tralatione vulgari quid (precor) aliud contingere potest quam curiositas, quam incuria, quam arrogantia?Nonne curiositatis vicium est legere ea quæ legenti potius noxiasunt quam vtilia? Nonne & curiosum est ea quæ supra vires sunt, &ad proprium statum non pertinent lectitare? Et quid opus est simplici populo cognoscere quam plurima quibus referta est scripturadiuina, quibus ecclesiæ prælati ac reipublicę rectores passim arguũarguntur? Nonne ex huiusmodi cognitione ad murmurandum, despiciẽdespiciendumque leuiter impellentur?

Sed cum multa palam tradantur obseruanda quæ sacris in literis expresse non habentur, nonne ydiotę hæc animaduertentes facile murmurabunt, conquęrentes curtantę sibi imponantur sarcinę quibus & libertas euangelica ita grauiter eleuatur? Nonne & facile retrahentur ab obseruantia institutionum ecclesiasticarum, quando eas in lege Christi animaduerterint non contineri? Cuiusmodi sunt ieiuniũieiunium quadragesimę, cõfessioconfessiosacramentalis, certe semel in anno, obseruatio dominicę loco sabbati, & alia id genus. Murmurabunt igitur non intelligentes ea quęab initio ecclesiæ hactenus obseruata sunt de traditione apostolorũapostolorumesse qui ea creduntur a Christo accepisse, sed literis diuinis creditanon fuisse, ne lex gratiæ nimis onerosa principio videretur. Nunquam enim apostoli ipsi præsumpsissent tam grauia onera populochristiano imponere, nisi habuissent a Christo. Sed vnde probas(ait aliquis) hæc esse de traditione apostolorum? Nempe quod ieiunium quadragesimæ, de quo minus videtur, sit ab eis apostolis institutum, quemadmodũquemadmodum testatur Hieronymus in epistola ad Marcellam contra montani hęretici insaniam, dicens hoc pacto. Nosvnam quadragesimam secundum traditionem apostolorum totoanno tempore nobis congruo ieiunamus.

Sed ad institutum reuertentes conficiamus ex tralatione vulgari curiositatem imprimisnoxiam facile excitari posse. Quod autem inde quoque proficiscileuiter queat incuria eorum quæ necessaria sunt, facile est animaduertere. Nam mulierculę in lectione bibliæ versantes curam rei domesticę negligent. Similiter ydiote huiusmodi negocio dediti,non curabunt vt par esset, suis artibus incumbere, & quæ ad familiam alendam exiguntur, suo labore satis parare. Ita enim per illusionem dæmonis vsu venire solet vt inepti, curiosique hominesea prætermittant quibus opera danda foret, & inutilibus se rebusoccupent.

Denique quod huiusmodi tralatio præsumptioni & arrogantię præbeat excitamentum, ex eo confici potest quod præsumptio sit insignis rudibus hominibus tractare velle ardua scripturæ diuinæ mysteria quæ docta, sublimia que ingenia vix penetrare queunt. Velle inquam in eorum lectione versari quæ obscura sunt ac recondita. Quod enim sacra eloquia sint obscura, probatur ex Hieronymo dicente in epistola ad Algasiam hoc pacto. Simulque animaduerti quod quęstiunculę de euangelio tantum & deapostolo positæ indicant te veterem scripturam aut non satis legere, aut non satis intelligere quæ tantis obscuritatibus & futurorumtypis inuoluta est vt omnis interpretatione egeat, & porta orientalis de qua verum lumen exoritur, & per quam pontifex ingreditur& regreditur semper clausa sit, & soli pateat Christo qui habet clauem Dauid &c.

Et in commentariis super Marcum capite tertio,sic ait. Est consuetudo scripturæ diuinæ allegorice loqui, & cum aliud dicat, aliud velit intelligi. Quod in euangeliis positum frequenter inuenies. Ex his eñenim Hieronymi verbis liquet scripturãscripturam diuinãdiuinamobscuram esse eamque obrem non posse faciliter & prima frontepassim intelligi. Itaque simplices, indoctique hoĩeshomines nõnon poterũtpoterunt a vicio p̃sumptionispræsumptionis imunes euadere ꝗqui in eius lectione versari voluerit.Sed & maioris arrogãarrogantię fuerit si eam excutere, & de sensibus eiusdisceptare præsumpserint. Quod quia tempore Ieronymi fiebat iniquo animo se tulisse satis mõstratmonstrat, cum ad Paulinum scribens sic ait.Sola scripturarum ars est, quam sibi passim omnes vendicant. HãcHancgarrula anus, hanc delyrus senex, hanc sophista verbosus, hanc vniuersi præsumunt, lacerant, docent antequam discant. Alii abductosupercilio grandia verba trutinantes inter mulierculas de sacris literis philosophantur. Alii discunt (proth pudor) a fœminis, quod virosdoceant, & ne parum hoc sit quadam facilitate verborum, immo audacia edisserunt aliis quod ipsi non intelligunt. Taceo de mei similibus, qui si forte ad scripturas sacras post seculares literas venerint,& sermone composito aures populi mulserint, quicquid dixerĩtdixerint hoclegem dei putant. Nec scire dignantur quid prophetę, quid apostoli senserint, sed ad sensum suum incongrua aptant testimonia, quasigrande sit & non viciosissimum dicẽdidicendi genus deprauare sententias& ad voluntatem suam sacram scripturam trahere repugnantem.

Ecce quemadmodum sacer Ieronymus temerarios, & arroganteseos esse ostendit, qui sacras literas tractare audent, quas non didicerunt. Quomodo igitur non erunt præsumptionis vehementius incusandi laici, indoctique homines, qui in sacris literis & lectitandis& excutiendis versari præsumpserint? Et nihilominus audio quosdam nuper asseruisse christianos omnes esse inducendos ad studiũstudiumscripturæ sanctæ, & licitum quoque esse simplici populo diebus festis aut aliis conuenire, vt de sacra scriptura & eius difficultatibusconferat, & denique etiam licere ipsi populo de fide disceptare, & sacram scripturam exponere. Hæc etenim ex his quæ dicta sunt satisreprobantur. Et reuera non facile put...ias ab homine sani capitis fuisse profectas debuerant assertores illi meminisseillius prouerbii satis triti. Ne sutor vltra crepidam. Et illius. Altiora te ne quæsieris. Et illius Horatiani quod medicorum est promittunt medici, tractãttractant fabrilia fabri. Et illius gręcanici, quam quisque norit artem in hac se exerceat. Vt ergo illa stulte dicta sunt, ita& stulte. immo stultius attentarentur. Bene igitur cœtus theologorum parisiensium vesanias huiusmodi reprobans dixit propositiones illas temerarias, ac falsas esse, & errores VvaldẽsiũVvaldensium & Bohemorum instaurare. Neque vero ferenda sunt ydiotarum conuenticula pro talibus negotiis tractandis, vtpote quæ iure damnantur.

Denique quid præsumptionis ac confusionis ex huiusmodi temeritate negotii prouenire soleat satis deprehendi potest ex eo quod parisiis contigit. Cum enim doctor quidam ad populum prædicansquippiam citasset, quod in duobus bibliæ locis esset, sed vnum dunxat protulisset, protinus quædam muliercula de grege earum, quædeuotulę seu theologe nuncupantur surrexit in medium dicens idquod allegatum fuerat alio in loco esse. Quam petulantiam concionator ille dure carpens vt decebat, dixit (id quod res erat) duobus inlocis contineri, Ecce quid peperit pręsumptuosum studium bibliæin vernaculum sermonem versę. Sed reliqua prosequamur.

¶Ex vulgatione biblię traductę in linguam maternam facile sequetur magna diuinorum irreuerentia. Tractabuntur enim ipsi libri diuini passim indecenter in domibus prophanis a mulierculis,a cerdonibus, a sartoribus, a fabris, a cementariis, a lanariis, a fullonibus, ab aliis denique id genus opificibus, & homunculis. Quin &plerunque in locis parum honestis reponentur, cum tamen diuini libri sint reuerenter admodum tractandi. Nam & Iudęi hunc moremseruant vt nunquam iuxta libros sacros sedeant, sed eos collocent altiore loco. Quo nimirum exemplo deberent, magno rubore suffundi christiani illi qui sacros libros interdum tractãttractant inhonestius quãquamlibros ethnicorum.

¶Denique biblia ipsa vernaculo sermone traducta nihil est commoditatis allatura, quandoquidem nihil vtilitatis parere potestquod minime intellectum est. Atqui non intelligetur a simplici populo, sed nec intelligi quidem poterit. Etenim illa quæ exigunturad sanam diuinæ scripturæ intelligentiam vix vnquam in simplici popello poterunt inueniri. Est enim præceptore opus pro sana diuinarum literarum intelligentia. Hinc Hieronymus ad PaulinũPaulinumscribens ait. Hæc a me perstricta sunt breuiter vt intelligeres te inscripturis sacris sine pręuio & monstrante semitam non posse ingredi. Et alibi. Nulla inquit ars sine pręceptore discitur. Et rursus in epistolis ... teipsum ... doceas. Et reuera qui artem aliquamassequi nituntur, præceptore vtantur necesse est. Alioqui non possunt esse quod cupiunt.

¶Deinde opus est labore assiduo ac diligenti. Sudoris enim ac laboris comites sunt literæ, præsertim diuinæ. ¶Insuper opus estpio studio. Quantumuis enim assiduum, vehemensque studium fuerit, nisi pium sit, non sufficiet vnquam pro assequenda sacrę scripturę intelligentia, sed potius studiosum ipsum in varios pręcipitabiterrores, quemadmodum fausto contigit quem diuus Augustinusimprobans ait eum errasse in euangeliorum narratione, quia nonfuit in eo pium euangelicę lectionis studium. Si enim euangelia pielectitasset, maluisset sensum eorum quę latebant, & intellectumquoque eorum quę pugnantia videbantur pie sciscitari, quam ea temere damnare. At quoniam pio studio vsus non est, oblatrauit reprehendit, oppugnauit. Cuius temeritatis occasione merito ei negata est vera intelligentia ipsius euangelicę doctrinæ,quę & petentibus data,& a quęrentibus inuenta,& pulsantibus aperta est.

¶Porro in huiusmodi negocio si certe vtiliter ac pie geratur opus,est vitę sanctimonia,quod & testatur sapiẽssapiens in hũchunc modũmodum dicẽsdicens. Inmaliuolãmaliuolam animãanimam nõnon introibit sapiẽtiasapientia,nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis. Spiritus em̃enim sanctus effugiet fictũfictum,& recedet a cogitatiõibustionibus quę sunt sine ĩtellectuintellectu. Literę quoq;quoque diuinæ vt Hieronymusinfit socię sunt ieiuniorum nõnon saturitatis,cõtinentiæcontinentiæ non luxuriæ.

¶Ad hęc opus est gratia ac reuelatione spũsspiritus sancti. Reuela, inquitPsalmista,oculos meos & cõsideraboconsiderabo mirabilia de lege tua. Cui Ieronymus ipse astipulatus in epl̃aepistola ad PaulinũPaulinum hoc pacto ait. Lex enĩenimspiritalis est,& reuelatione opus est vt intelligatur, ac reuelata faciedei gloriãgloriam cõtẽplemurcontemplemur. Et in cõmẽtariiscommentariis Oseę ꝓphetęprophetę. In epla.naexplanationibus (ĩquitinquit) oĩmomnium ꝓphetarũprophetarum spũsspiritus sancti indigemus aduẽtuaduentu,vt cuius instictuinstinctu scripti sunt,illius reuelatione pãdãturpandantur. Et Micheę ca.capitei.Semper in exponẽdisexponendis scripturis sancti spũsspiritus dei indigemus aduentu.

¶Pręterea opus est his quę ad vitãvitam cõtẽplatiuãcontemplatiuam ꝑtinentpertinent. s.scilicet oratiõeoratione,meditatione,& ocio siue quiete,pręsertim a turbinibus sęculi huius.Oportet enĩenim eũeum qui sacris in literis ꝓficereproficere gestit frequẽtesfrequentes ad deumpreces fundere,more Psalmistę qui sępe deũdeum flagitat vt eũeum doceat iustificationes suas. Proinde Ieronymus ad PaulinũPaulinum inquit. Petentidatur,pulsanti aperitur,quęrẽsquęrens inuenit. Oportet inquãinquam iugiter eummeditari in lege dñidomini instar viri iusti, de quo loquẽsloquens psalmographusinquit. Sed in lege dñidomini volũtasvoluntas eius, & in lege eius meditabitur dieac nocte. Ad quod etiãetiam hortatur Ieronymus PaulinũPaulinum cũcum ait. Orote frater charissime ĩterinter hęc viuere,ista meditari,nihil aliud nosse,nihil aliud quęrere. Oportet quoq;quoque ocio sancto,& ...e p̃sertimpræsertimintraria frui. Exutus enim a curis negociisq;negociisque secularibus,& a perturbationibus animũanimum distrahentibus esse debet, quisq;quisque ocio theologio decenter vacare cupit .

¶Denique opus est simplici corde,sinceraque intentione. Simplici quidem ac humili pectore opusest vt omnia credantur vera quæ sacris in literis continentur, estonon intelligantur omnia. Agendum est igitur (inquit Augustinusepistola quadãquadam ad HieronymũHieronymum) vt ad cognitionẽcognitionem diuinarũdiuinarum scripturarum talis homo accedat qui de sanctis libris tam sancte & veraciter existimet vt nolit aliqua eorũeorum parte delectari pro officiosa mẽmendacia,potiusq;potiusque id quod nõnon intelligit transeat q̃quam cor suũsuum p̃feratpræferat illi veritati. ItidẽItidem sincera intẽtioneintentione opus est, vt nõnon propter sacerdotia, nõnonpropter fluxos honores, nõnon demũdemum propter nudãnudam cognitionem assequendam discantur literæ sacrę,sed vt sana,sapida, frugiferaque habeatur earum intelligentia quæ ad recte viuendum conducat.

¶Hæc autem quæ dicta sunt quando (precor) inueniri poterunt insimplici,rudique popello? Quomodo inquam facile poterit vulgus ipsum passim habere, quod vix in paucis theologię candidatisreperire est? Itaque oĩbusomnibus diligenter animaduersis ineptissimũineptissimum estbibliam sermone vernaculo ꝓponereproponere lectitandãlectitandam,cũcum hoc ip̃mipsum necsanũsanum,nec necessariũnecessarium sit, sed ediuerso temerariũtemerarium,periculosũpericulosum,ꝓrsusq;prorsusqueinutile atque ineptum,quemadmodũquemadmodum iam satis ac satis ꝓbauimusprobauimus.

¶At dicet quispiam, esto non possit simplex populus iugiter studio sacræ scripturæ operam dare, id tamen potest diebus festis quibus feriatus est. Non enim videtur cui rei potius ac decentius quamsacrę lectioni tali tempore incumbere queat. Respondetur imprimis studium ita interpollatum ac succisiuum nullum habere momentum, vt pote quod non satis sit pro assequenda sacræ scripturæintelligentia, quæ & totum tempus totumque hominem exigit.Enimuero qui iugiter ac vehementer huic negocio negociorum incumbunt vix tandem possunt improbi, sed pii laboris fructus vberes legere. Quis igitur fructus sperari poterit ex studio ita remissovt intermissum potius quam remissum videatur.

¶Enimuero tantum fructus habebitur tandem quantum consequi solent scolastici semel tantum in ebdomada ludum siue scolamadeuntes. At quęris. quid igitur populus aget diebus festis? NẽpeNempeimprimis suæ cõscientiæconscientiæ examinationi diligentiorem dabit operãoperam,cogitando qualiter anteacto tempore vixit. Itidem diuino sacrificio rebusque spiritalibus reuerenter ac deuote toto matutino aderitpreces fundet,diuina beneficia sedula mente volutabit,gratias aget,deo largitori. PostmodũPostmodum sermonẽsermonem siue prędicationẽprędicationem adibit vt discatqualiter viuẽdũviuendum sit. Plus enim horaria p̃dicationeprædicatione discet,quãquam si totodie in studio siue lectione versaretur. Quid (inqsinquis) si nulla fiat p̃dicaprædicatio? Aliis piis operibus incũbãtincumbant simpliciores,visitẽtvisitent infirmũinfirmum,cõsolẽconsolentur desolatũdesolatum,elemosynas largiãturlargiantur. Quid (ais) si nihil horũhorum tũctunc accurrat? Id perrarũperrarum est. Si tñtamen ita cõtingatcontingat,ad pias meditationes erit occurrendũrendum. Sed & lõgelonge tolerabilius esset aliquid recreationis honestę capere decenter tẽporetempore & loco opportunis, vt & vitaretur iners ociũociummalarũmalarum cogitationũcogitationum parens,& mẽbramembra quoq;quoque ebdomadario labore fatigata reficerẽturreficerentur,quãquam hmõihuiusmodi p̃sũptuosispræsumptuosis negociis incũbereincumbere. PoterũtPoteruntetiãetiam pię historię legi ab his qui lectiõislectionis sunt amãtioresamantiores. EtenĩEtenim gestasctõꝝsanctorum pie lectitata deuotionẽdeuotionem accẽdũtaccendunt,miroque mõmodo simplici populocõducũtconducunt.

¶At dicit aliquis deuotulus latinæ linguę nescius. VellẽVellemetiãetiam sacris diebus de purissimo fonte sacrarum literarũliterarum quicquãquicquam haurire, hoc autem non possum nisi maternam in linguãlinguam transfundantur. Respondemus,huic non esse propterea faciundãfaciundam bibliæ tralationem vernaculo sermone, cum alia satis sint pia negocia quibusilliterati & deuoti homines possunt diebus festis se occupare. Et nihilominus vt votis eius plenius respondeatur, dicimus epistolas &euangelia quæ in ecclesia palam decantari & a prædicatoribus proponi,exponique solent,cum decenti,fidelique explanatione in vernaculam linguam transfundi posse. Qua quidem tralatione plenecontentus esse debet simplex populus,nec ab eo desideranda est totius bibliæ vernacula traductio, quæ cum decenti expositione totaproponi passim nõnon posset.& sine explanatione plus officeret quamprodesset, Multa etenim detrimenta, periculaque inde prodirentquemadmodum satis diffuse probatum est.

¶At dicit aliquis, etiam ex biblia latina eadem possunt mala, velcerte plurima pericula prouenire. Cur igitur fateris bibliam potius in latinum quam vernaculum sermonem verti sane posse?Nempe quod biblia latina sit & rationabilis, & vtilis & necessaria,ecclesiæ christianæ, Biblia vero in vernaculam linguam transfusaediuerso sit temeraria,sit inutilis,sit periculosa, sit & superuacanea.Nec tamen negauerim multa per accidens detrimenta ex biblia latina prouenire posse. At hoc per se non efficit biblia ipsa,sed abusus legentium. Sunt (fateor) grammatistæ, rhetorculi,græculi,sophistę,philosophastri,legulei,theologistę,aliique id genus scioli,vanique ac præsumptuosi homines qui sacras literas arroganter,indigneque tractant, peruerse interpretantur, & eas docent ac iactitant,quas nunquam didicerunt, quorum & tanta temeritas est vtputent sibi licere quod & veris theologis,qui totum vitæ tempus intheologico studio consumpserunt, de arduis ipsius bibliæ mysteriisdisceptare,& demum bibliam,theologiamque diuinam omnes decere sicut & fidenifidem catholicam,non intelligentes inter fidem ipsam& theologiam multum esse discriminis, nec protinus sequi si quisfidelis sit, eum propterea theologum esse. Fateor igitur talibus pręsumptoribus plurima contingere detrimenta & permulta imminere pericula spiritalia,quæ tamen ipsi minime norunt, sed nec suspicantur quidem. At nihilominus propter istorum abusum nonest aut vellicanda aut palam non proponenda biblia latina, quippequæ & multis vtilis & ecclesiæ quoque christianę necessaria sit. Atita non est de biblia vernaculo sermone edita vt satis probauimus.Sed de his iam satis.

¶In calce libenter moneremus ipsos tralatistas vt resipiscerẽtresipiscerent,vtpalinodiãpalinodiam cãtarẽtcantarent,vt suas tralatiõestralationes de medio tollerẽttollerent,vt suas quoq;quoqueparaphrases vel supprimerent,vel certe viris doctis traderent castigandas vt demum suę saluti ac rei christianę propter huiusmodinouas inuentiones turbatę consulerent. sed asellis frustra personatlyra. Ita enim stupidi,ita præposteri,ita demum obcęcati videntur,vt ęqui, bonique consulere nolint. Nolint inquam prudentissimisviris audire,sed se omniũomnium lõgelonge doctissimos arbitrantes aliena consilia paruipendunt. Hos itaque mihi desperatos tandem missos faciens, pium lectorem moneo vt biblia cõmunicommuni per ecclesiam iamolim probata prorsus sit contentus,nec aliam vel desideret vel admittat,sed illas nouas tartareo spiritu editas funditus abigat. IpsorũIpsorumquoque theologastrorum annotationes siue cõmentarioscommentarios, ymo verius paraphrases nullo modo legat vel attingat,nisi adeo sit theologicis literis imbutus vt hęreses a veritatibus catholicis discernerepossit, Docti theologi (fateor) qui norunt aurum a luto disseparare,possunt & hęreticos libros euoluere,vt pote quibus nihil propter lectionem huiusmodi periculorum immineat .

Nam & Dionysiusepiscopus Alexandrinus referente Eusebio septimo historiæ ecclesiasticę libro asserit cũcum tractatus hęreticorũhęreticorum legere soleret, & aliquisex fratribus & compresbyteris prohiberet eũeum ne hæretica lectionetanquam ceni alicuius fœtore pollueretur,visionem quandam diuinitus sibi factam,& verba quoque huiuscemodi dicta ei fuisse. Legeomnia quęcunque in manus tuas venerint,quia probare singula quęque & discernere potes. Itaque vel hoc exemplo possunt theologi satis eruditi libros erroribus scatentes lectitare,cæteris vero non licet,qui inter ea quæ probanda sunt vel improbanda,discernere non norunt. Magnis enim se periculis exponũtexponunt talia præsumentes. Quamobrem monemus iterũiterum atque iterum homines qui satis theologi nõnonsunt, vt ab huiusmodi librorum periculosissimorũpericulosissimorum lectione prorsusabstineant.

Hortamur denique omnes in cõmunicommuni vt antiqua tritaque sequantur vestigia,maiorum traditionibus acquiescãtacquiescant. & demũdemumoccasione nouarum tralationũtralationum,insanarũqueinsanarumque inuentionũinuentionum terminos apatribus positos nulla ex parte transferant. Hoc enim sacræ literænobis loquũturloquuntur & admonẽtadmonent. Pręcepit siquidẽsiquidem dominus per MoysemDeuteronomii.xix.non trãsferẽdostransferendos terminos quos finxerunt priores,& capite.xxii.maledicitur qui transfert terminos proximi sui .Et apud Iob capite,xxiiii.Increpantur qui terminos transtulerunt.Denique prouerbiorum vigesimo secundo dicitur. Ne transgrediaris terminos antiquos quos posuerunt patres tui . His ergo sententiis monemur secundum mysticum sensum ne præcedentium patrum regulas,definitionesque viuendi,ac cõstitutionesconstitutiones transgrediamur,ne catholicãcatholicam,deserẽtesdeserentes doctrinãdoctrinam,suꝑstitionessuperstitiones, sectasque nouasinducamus, ne a sanctę ecclesię gremio deficiamus , ne demum eaquæ trita sunt passimque probata vel carpamus vel relinquamus.Si de huiusmodi expositione hæsites lege glossas, doctores consule, & nos vere interpretari cognosces. Cum igitur tam sollicite nosadmoneant oracula diuina, profecto non debemus terminos, quosstatuerunt patres nostri transferre.

¶ At prothdolor hac misera tempestate, maxima ex parte translati sunt patrum termini. Enimuero si diligenter omnia lustres, videbis terminos catholicæ fidei magna ex parte translatos esse.Videbis & sacræ scripturæ terminos transpositos esseVidebis demum christianæ religionis, ac probitatis terminos propemodum elocatos esse. Quantum enim fidei catholicæ terminitranslati sint, nullus pene est, qui ignoret. Etenim ab hinc decennium plus hæresum suscitatum est, quam quingentis annis anteafuerat. Omnes veteres hæreses, quæ emortuæ putabantur, hoc tempore fere instauratæ sunt, & nouæ quoque excogitatæ.

Quibus prothdolor multi huiustemporis homines (qua sunt insania) potius tribuunt fidem, quam vetustis, sanis, passimque probatis fidei rudimentis, quæ nostri maiores tradiderant. Qua in re satis demirari non possum cur plus credatur duobus, aut tribus Antichristi præcursoribus, quam vetustis doctoribus, quam sanctis pontificibus, quam generalibus synodis, quam ecclesiæ vniuersali, quãquamtoti mundo. Dicant obsecro qui eiusmodi sunt, quanam authoritate, qua ratione, quo denique iure id faciunt? Plus ne ipsi cum suisperditissimis hæresiarchis sapiunt, quam omnes, qui vel nunc suntvel ante nos fuerunt? O insaniam penitus detestandam. At plerique sunt, qui hęresiarchas ipsos nõnon sectantur propter pulchros (vtita dixerim) oculos eorum, sed quia suis viciis fauent, & quæ sibi grata sunt licenter astruunt.

¶ Quod autem termini sacrę scripturæ translati sint hac ætate iamsatis ex superioribus constat. Et nihilominus miror quonam pacto ausi sint multi homines leuissimi bibliam communem missamfacere, & istorũistorum tralatistarum insanias, tartareasque interpretationessectari. Nunquid huiusmodi sacrilegæ tralationes diuinæ sunt?nunquid autenticæ? nunquid probatæ? nunquid tralatione communi per ecclesiam approbata vel certiores, vel saniores? Et quis itademens est, qui putet censuram duorum, vel trium stultorum, acmagistrorũmagistrorum examini doctorũdoctorum oimomnium, qui sunt, & qui fuerunt, immo& totius orbis iudicio esse præferendam? Viderint igitur illi ipsi,qui ita bestii sunt effecti, talibus non solum nugis, sed horrendis etiãetiamimpietatibus assensum præbere non vereantur. Quid tandem suntdicturi, quid acturi, quid demum rationis coram deo reddituri?

¶ Denique quam misere sint christianę religionis, ac probitatis termini passim translati, experientia ipsa loquitur. Etenim cerimoniæ velut inutiles improbantur, & ceremoniæ dicuntur despectiuęcontemnuntur orationes, quas & indeuoti preculas vocant, ieiuniadicuntur pro nihilo continentia reprobatur, secularis status religioso vel ęquatur, vel antefertur, probi monachi a refugis vellicantur, & probi mores passim sunt ludibrio, sana pene omnia cõtemnũcontemnuntur theologi a rethorculis, & sciolis nihilifiunt, solidæ disciplinædespiciuntur, & pene solę habentur in precio futilitatis artes. quashumanitatis, bonasque literas isti grammatistæ nuncupant.

Nec solum abiiciuntur, ac spernuntur, quæ bona sunt, sed prothnephas scelera etiam admittuntur inaudita, quod testantur insolitæexactiones, & diluuia non quidem aquarum, quę astrologorum prędixerat vanitas, sed bursarum, pecuniarumque pro quibus suggendis, nullus subtilitatis modus non excogitatur. Incendia quoquevrbium, ac villarum plusquam tartareis dolis excitata satis indicant, quam infœliciter, ac peruerse translati sint probitatis, humanitatisque termini.

¶ Quis credidisset vnquam tantam humanis in pectoribus fraudem, proditionem, malitiam, crudelitatemque reperiri posse quãquanramtam nuper in Trecensis vrbis incendio experti sumus? O cœlum,o terra. Quid impium, quid execrabile, quid dyabolicum est si hocnon sit velle, scilicet nullo belli iure seruato, sed nephandis, inauditisque incendiis, ac proditionibus plusquam hostilibus rem publicam (quæ nihil tale commeruit) tam misere, tamque fraudulenter disperdere? Quis putabit istis barbaris pectoribus aliquid, velhumanitatis, vel christianitatis inesse? Quis non potius credatquasdam crudelissimas esse bestias, aut certe pessimos dæmonessub humana effigie latitantes? Et certe sceleris immanitas, barbarusque, ac insuetus modus agẽdiagendi, & mortis qualitas, quam obeunt isti incendiarii conficere videntur non homines, sed cacodęmones esse, qui tam atrox flagitium attentarunt. Non enim communi morte afficiuntur, volunt aut confiteri quicquam, aut suæ saluticonsulere. Quid aliud putari potest, quam non digne pœnitentesde temporali incendio quo viui absumuntur in vulcanicos ignes trãtransire? Sed hanc miserrimam calamitatem quã nemo satis intelligere queat, nisi coram viderit), missam facientes ostendamus adhuc quam miserę sint pietatis, ac honestatis limites translati.

¶ Enimuero milites, siue satellites, quos recte dixeris grassatoressceleratissimos (quorum & nonnulli se dæmones non iniuria vocabant) tam impia, tam obscœna, tamque inhumana in superos, &mortales fecerunt, & annis proxime lapsis rempublicam, pręsertimgallicam insueta oppressione ita vexarunt, vt vel referendo horrorem incutiant. Nullum enim seculum putatur tam nephanda vnquam in republica christiana vidisse. Quis non horrescat audiensperditissimum nebulonem postquam in abnegando deo esset fatigatus, pecuniam dedisse socio, vt vice sua abnegaret? Quis non contremiscat reuoluens blasphemias in Christum & matrem eius benedictam ore sacrilego prolatas, quas referre quoque scelus est?Quis non pallescat, cum audit istas beluas gladiis, & pugionibussanctas, venerandasque imagines confodisse? Quis non mireturcum mente versat obscœna illa, quæ canes impudentissimi pro suisvoluptatibus explendis, fœdissime admiserunt? Quis denique nonstupeat secum volutans insolitos excessus, quibus cruenti bestii simplicem populum afflixere?

Etenim tanta insania debachati sunt,vt non satis eis fuerit delicatis epulis satiari ad vomitum, sed etiambona hospitum tanquam sua essent, vel palam exportarunt, vel redimere coegerunt. Nihil fuit ita obclusum, quin aperiretur, autfrangeretur. Quod si forte quicquam ostendebatur, quod nec efferri poterat, nec redimere hospes volebat, in ignem proiiciebatur.Et vt semel dicam vix potest quicquam inhumanitatis, ac improbitatis cogitari, quin ab istis dæmonibus sit excogitatum.

Et quia vixerunt vt dæmones, plerique etiam dæmonum instar perierunt. In quibus vnus cum dixisset se velle emori dæmon, postmortem in patibulo obitam, totus niger, & cornutus apparuit.

¶ Ecce quam mire, ac misere translati sunt fines probitatis christianæ. Et (quod summa malorum est) hæc alia id genus plurima, quæ prosequi tędiosum foret, ita licenter & impune admittũadmittuntur, vt nec verbo quidem redarguantur. Iam nemo quicquam mutire audet. Fuit aliquando cum sapientes & stulti veritatem loquiviciaque incusare audebant. Fuit & tempus, in quo soli illi, qui laruati facetias agebant, vera dicere sinebantur. At tempus aduenitin quo nec sapientes, nec stulti veritatem proloqui audent.

Piientissimus deus dignetur rebus sic afflictis consulere, & vindictam sua...e iam cœpit, clementer auertere, potissimũpotissimuma g... ...ans...um in suo tenore putatur, quandiusyncera... ...rabit, quemadmodum sancto Remigiocœlitus di... ...unt, cum Clodouęum primum nostrę gentis regem ch...um sacro baptismate abluit. Faxit itaque deusvt in fide permaneat, ne dissipetur, diuidaturque in frusta, quemadmodum barbaræ, finitimæque gentes, & liuore, & ambitione percite efficere tentauerunt. Faxit inquam vt nouis hæresibus nouisque temeritatibus non seducatur populus christianissimus. Faxitdenique vt reparetur pietas, & probitas resartiatur.

¶ Sed iam finis totius negotii, esto in hoc capite vicesimosecundo.Fecimus enim hoc in opere de industria duo & viginti capitula, vt quemadmodum literę sacrę duabus & viginti literis, siue elementis primitus apud Hebræos, & postremo apud Latinos scriptæ fuerunt (Græcienim, qui in medio sunt) vigintiquatuorliteras habent, ita & ipsarum diuinarum literarum traductiones duobus & viginti capitibus excuteremus, & nouas interpretationum temeritates simul improbaremus ad laudemdei omnipotentis,qui est benedictus in secula.Amen.

In the twenty-second and last chapter, the translation of the Bible made into the vernacular, or mother tongue, is first condemned. Then comes an exhortation that the translations of the Bible made recently should not be admitted but should be utterly driven out. Lastly comes a devout lament over the boundaries of the Catholic faith, of Holy Scripture and of Christian uprightness, which have been moved in this age."Boundaries" (*termini*) recalls Prov 22:28, "the ancient landmarks". *Translatis* ("moved", literally "carried across") plays on *tralatio*, "translation". Sutor develops the image at the end of the chapter.CWE 79 translates this heading "…makes a devout complaint about moving the boundary-stones of the Catholic faith, of Sacred Scripture, and of Christian morality" (Begley and Begley 2025, xxix). François reads *translatis* here as "translated", as if Sutor asked that the "terms" of the faith be translated truly (François 2006, 142–143); the Proverbs text quoted in §35 favours "moved".

At last, then, wishing to condemn the rashness that has made a vernacular translation out of the Latin Bible, we ask first of all: what necessity demands that this translation be made? Someone will say: so that unlettered people and silly women*Mulierculae*, a contemptuous diminutive of *mulier*, "woman"; cf. 2 Tim 3:6 (Vulgate *mulierculas*). who know no Latin may be able to know Holy Scripture, and so that Scripture itself, which was handed down for the salvation of all, may be more fully spread abroad and understood by all. A fine answer, to be sure! As if knowledge of the whole Bible were necessary to all for salvation, or as if it even belonged to everyone to know the mysteries of Holy Scripture, or, lastly, as if the divine letters could be handled everywhere by everyone without danger. For these things are false. To refute them in order, I have resolved to show first that understanding of the Bible is not necessary for all; next, that its vulgar translation"Vulgar" (*vulgaris*) here means "common, of the people", not "coarse". is exceedingly rash; after that, that it is also most dangerous; and finally, that it is altogether useless.On the plan of the chapter (condemnation, exhortation, lament) and this opening, see François 2006, 142–144; in English, François 2009, 119–120. Holeczek observed, as François reports, that neither Erasmus nor Lefèvre ever claimed that Bible reading was necessary for salvation (François 2006, 143).

First, the crowd at large is not bound to know the whole Bible. Indeed, it cannot. As a rule it is enough for the simple common folk to know the Lord's Prayer, the articles of the faith, the commandments of the Decalogue, the precepts of the Church which are set forth everywhere, and finally what pertains to their own state of life.Discussed in François 2006, 144, and Bedouelle 2008, 134. It is therefore foolish to say that knowledge of the whole of Scripture is necessary for all. For almost everyone would then be bound to the impossible, since most people, whether from slowness of wit, or because of the occupations and cares of this life, or for some other reason, could not know the Bible itself.

But someone will say: granted that not everyone at large is bound to it, still it is useful and wholesome for all without distinction to be occupied in the study of the Bible, and therefore the Bible itself may be set openly before all in a language they can understand. But this answer is frivolous, and it too will be refuted in what follows. Let us pass on, then, to the second point, and prove that translating the Bible into the mother tongue is exceedingly rash.

Indeed, it seems to be contrary to the sacred letters themselves, in which the Truth, who is Christ, commands that the mysteries of truth not be set before the unworthy. "Do not give what is holy to dogs," he says, "nor cast your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7).Matt 7:6. Expounding this, Chrysostom says: "The mysteries of truth are pearls. For just as pearls, enclosed in shells, are placed in the depth of the sea, so the divine mysteries, enclosed in words, are placed in the depth of the sense of Holy Scripture." And he adds: "The mysteries of truth, that is, the pearls, are not to be given except to those who desire the truth and live by human reason. For if you throw them to swine, that is, to those weighed down by delight in a filthy life, they will not understand their preciousness but will think them like the other tales of this world, and they trample them with their carnal deeds." Thus Chrysostom.The *Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum*, on Matt 7:6. It was then attributed to Chrysostom and is now ascribed to an anonymous fifth-century Arian author. François gives the passage as PG 56, cols. 728–729, and discusses Sutor's reading of the dogs and swine as the lay multitude (François 2006, 144–145; François 2009, 120).

Since, then, there are very many dogs in the commonwealth, that is, assailants of the truth, or those who have returned to the vomit of their sins;Cf. Prov 26:11; 2 Pet 2:22. since there are also very many swine, that is, despisers, or those who wallow in the mire of vices; and since, lastly, most people are unworthy to have such things set before them, the mysteries of Holy Scripture are not to be entrusted to everyone at large. Otherwise they may trample them with filthy deeds, or despise them for not understanding them, or, understanding them badly, draw from them an occasion of error. Add to this that when Christ rolled up the book and gave it back to the attendant, as we read in Luke 4,Luke 4:20. he intimated, on Bede's authority, that not everything is to be said to everyone, but brought out according to the capacity of the hearers.Bede's words are not identified. François 2006, 146 n. 32, suggests Bede on 2 Pet 1:3 (*In epistulas septem catholicas*, CCSL 121, p. 262) or *Homiliae evangelii* 1.2 (CCSL 122, p. 8). On Sutor's use of Luke 4:20 as a model act that puts Scripture in the hands of the clergy, see François 2006, 145–146; François 2009, 120; Noblesse-Rocher 2018, 122. If, then, not everything is to be entrusted to everyone, how, I ask, can the whole of Holy Scripture be set before everyone at large? Surely it cannot.

Moreover, how dangerous it is to entrust the divine Scripture itself to the unlearned and the unlettered for reading is clear from the harms and dangers that can easily come of it in practice. These can be shown partly by authorities and partly by reasons. First of all, the husk of divine Scripture itself kills those who read it. Paul understood this when he said, in the third chapter of Second Corinthians: "For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life."2 Cor 3:6. This passage may be understood in various ways: by letter and spirit may be taken the Old and New Testaments, or by letter and spirit may be understood the law and grace. Yet by the letter is also understood the husk of the letter itself, that is, the grammatical sense that the words present at first sight. This sense often kills the reader, since it is frequently false and also gives occasion for sin. By the spirit, however, is understood the true sense of Scripture itself, intended by the Holy Spirit. Though this sense gives life, it is not evident at first sight but must be sought with much labour.On the "husk" (*cortex*) and the letter that kills, see François 2006, 146–147; François 2009, 120.

But so that we may not seem to say this gratuitously and on our own account, let us confirm it by authority, especially that of Jerome, who, following Origen, speaks as follows in his commentary on the fifth chapter of Galatians:Jerome, *Commentary on Galatians*, book 3, on Gal 5:19–21. PL 26, cols. 407–408 (François 2006, 146 n. 36). "The history of the divine volumes contains works of the flesh, and it does not much help those who understand it as it is written. For who will not be taught to serve lust, and to count fornication as nothing, when he reads of Judah going in to a harlot,Gen 38:15–18. and of the patriarchs having many wives at once? How will he not be provoked to idolatry who has thought fit to judge the blood of bulls and the other victims of Leviticus as no more than what sounds in the letter?"

"That the word of Scripture, taken at face value, teaches enmities is proved also from this passage: 'O wretched daughter of Babylon, blessed is he who will repay you the recompense you have paid us. Blessed is he who will seize and dash his little ones against the rock.'Ps 137:8–9 (Vulgate 136:8–9). And from this one: 'In the morning I put to death all the sinners of the land,'Ps 101:8 (Vulgate 100:8). and others like these, namely about strifes, emulation, anger, quarrels and dissensions. Unless we understand something higher in these, the examples of the history provoke us to such things rather than forbid them. Heresies, too, have arisen more from an understanding of the flesh of Scripture than, as most people think, from the work of our own flesh." And a little later: "It is asked how the plain word of divine Scripture (which is called its flesh) provokes us to sorceries and evil arts, unless we pass over to the spirit of that same Scripture." And after a few lines: "So it is an occasion of many evils if anyone remains in the flesh of Scripture. Those who do such things will not obtain the kingdom of God.Gal 5:21. Let us therefore seek the spirit of Scripture, and its fruits, which are not said to be manifest. For it is with much labour and sweat, and fitting cultivation, that the fruit of the spirit is found in the Scriptures. Hence I think that Paul spoke carefully and cautiously about the fleshly senses of Scripture when he said: 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest.'"Gal 5:19. Thus Jerome.

From his words it is plain that the flesh or husk of divine Scripture offers a handle for sinning, and is also (unless it is fittingly understood) the cause of many evils. If this is true, as it is, who in his right mind will say that Scripture itself should be entrusted to the crowd, when it can so very easily give occasion for such great evils? For you cannot say that the unlearned people can by themselves understand Scripture otherwise than as the words sound. For, as Jerome says in his commentaries on Mark, chapter 3: "It is the custom of divine Scripture to speak allegorically, and, when it says one thing, to wish another to be understood." And the same Jerome says in his explanations of Paul to the Galatians, chapter 1: "Let us not think that the gospel is in the words, but in the sense; not on the surface but in the marrow; not in the leaves of speech but in the root of reason."Jerome, *Commentary on Galatians*, book 1, on Gal 1:11–12. If, then, it says one thing and means another, if, I say, the gospel is not in the words, not in the husk of the letter, how will the simple people be able to understand it, when they cannot even grasp it as the words sound? Finally, if divine Scripture could be understood as it should be, especially by simple people, easily and at first sight without an expounder, its explanations would be empty, and theological doctors would be superfluous too. But to say this is utter madness.Discussed in François 2006, 147–148. The Mark commentary is identified in §18.

But you will say: the simple people will take care to learn the passages that are obscure to them from someone. I ask you, first, how will the unlearned rabble be able to tell which passages are to be taken otherwise than as the words sound, and which are not? Next, where at large will enough learned men be found to teach all the unlearned? These are ravings worse than an old woman's.

But let us go on to other harms. The letter, or the plain word of divine Scripture, does more than kill spiritually, especially through the histories it relates, that is, give a handle for sinning, as we have said. It also commonly supplies an occasion of going astray and falling into heresy. Indeed, almost all the errors against the Catholic faith have come forth from the husk of Holy Scripture wrongly husked. Some heresies, I admit, set out from the muddy springs of the philosophers. But by far the greater part is thought to have sprung from the letter of the sacred page badly understood. The devil, that most cunning inventor of errors, long ago so deluded men outstanding in both talent and learning that he drove them into the most absurd heresies. What, then, pray, do we think he will do among the unlearned rabble, who are swayed by every breath of temptation? Will he not deceive very many by occasion of this sort of vernacular translation? But I beg you: since the apparent discrepancies in the sacred letters are almost countless, how can the simple read them without stumbling? If someone reads of Christ's passion in Mark, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him,"Mark 15:25. and reads also what we have in Luke, "And it was about the sixth hour," etc.,Luke 23:44. how will he not at once say that the evangelists disagree among themselves, as some said long ago?On this paragraph and §12, see François 2006, 148.

Likewise, there are more than a thousand statements that, taken by the sound of the words, seem false and even impious. God is said to have human members, and anger, fury, vengeance and other things of this kind are said to be in him. Will the simple people not be deluded when they read these things? Will they not think that God has a human form, and that he is cruel too, or at least subject to passions as men are? See how much harm the Bible translated into vernacular speech is going to bring forth!

Moreover, reading the divine Scripture itself will easily lead the crowd to despise it. For many will not be able to understand it, at least not properly, and so it will be despised. What is least understood is usually despised easily. So the emperor Julian (whom everyone calls the Apostate), when he had read the sacred letters sent to him and had not understood them piously, foolishly despised them, saying: "I saw, I read, I despised." Basil answered him wisely: "You saw, you read, you did not understand. If you had understood, you would not have despised."The exchange (in Greek, *anegnōn, egnōn, kategnōn*) is reported by Sozomen, *Ecclesiastical History* 5.18, who attributes the reply to the bishops and says that some credit it to Basil. Sutor's use of the story: François 2006, 148–149. So what happened to Julian will easily happen to the unlearned rabble too: they will hold as worthless the Holy Scripture that they can neither understand nor reconcile where its statements seem to conflict with one another.

Further, what else (I ask) can come from a vulgar translation of this kind but curiosity, neglect and arrogance? Is it not the vice of curiosity to read things that do the reader more harm than good? Is it not also curious to keep reading things that are beyond one's powers and do not concern one's own station? And what need is there for the simple people to know the great many things in divine Scripture that everywhere rebuke the prelates of the Church and the rulers of the commonwealth? Will such knowledge not lightly drive them to grumbling and contempt?On the vices Sutor lists (curiosity, neglect, arrogance, irreverence), see François 2006, 149–150; François 2009, 121.

But many things are openly handed down to be observed that are not expressly found in the sacred letters. When the unlettered notice this, will they not easily grumble and complain that such great burdens are laid on them, by which gospel freedom is so heavily curtailed? Will they not also easily be drawn back from observing the institutions of the Church once they notice that these are not contained in the law of Christ? Such are the Lenten fast, sacramental confession (at least once a year),Annual confession was made obligatory by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), canon 21, *Omnis utriusque sexus*. keeping the Lord's day in place of the Sabbath, and other things of the kind. So they will grumble, because they do not understand the following. What has been observed from the beginning of the Church until now comes from the tradition of the apostles, who are believed to have received it from Christ. It was not committed to the divine letters, so that the law of grace would not seem too burdensome at its beginning. For the apostles themselves would never have presumed to lay such heavy burdens on the Christian people unless they had them from Christ. "But how do you prove," someone says, "that these things come from the tradition of the apostles?" Well, that the Lenten fast (the case in which this seems least evident) was instituted by the apostles is attested by Jerome in his letter to Marcella against the madness of the heretic Montanus, where he says: "We fast one Lent according to the tradition of the apostles, over the whole year, at a time suitable to us."Jerome, Letter 41 (to Marcella), on the Montanists. The received text reads *toto nobis orbe congruo* ("with the whole world agreeing with us"), where Sutor's has *toto anno tempore nobis congruo*. On this paragraph see François 2006, 149–150; Begley and Begley 2025, xxxiv; Bedouelle 2008, 134.

But to return to our purpose: we conclude that a vulgar translation can easily stir up curiosity, which is harmful first of all. It is easy to see that neglect of necessary things can also readily come from it. For silly women busy with reading the Bible will neglect the care of the household. In the same way, unlettered men given over to this business will not take care, as they should, to apply themselves to their crafts and to earn enough by their labour to provide what is needed to feed their households. For through the devil's deceit it usually happens that foolish and curious people leave aside the things they ought to attend to and busy themselves with useless things.

Finally, that such a translation gives ⸢an incitement⸣ to presumption and arrogance can be concluded from this. It is a notable presumption for uneducated people to want to handle the hard mysteries of divine Scripture, which learned and lofty minds can scarcely penetrate. It is presumption, I say, to want to busy themselves reading things that are obscure and hidden. That the sacred oracles are obscure is proved from Jerome, who says in his letter to Algasia: "At the same time I noticed that your little questions, put only about the Gospel and the Apostle, show that you either do not read the Old Scripture enough or do not understand it enough. It is wrapped in such obscurities and types of things to come that all of it needs interpretation, and the eastern gate, from which the true light rises and through which the high priest goes in and out, is always shut and open to Christ alone, who has the key of David," etc.Jerome, Letter 121 (to Algasia), preface. The eastern gate is Ezek 44:1–2. The key of David is Rev 3:7 (cf. Isa 22:22). CSEL 56/1², p. 3 ll. 16–22 (François 2006, 150 n. 57).

And in his commentary on Mark, chapter 3, he says: "It is the custom of divine Scripture to speak allegorically, and when it says one thing, to mean another ⸢to be understood⸣. You will find this often set down in the Gospels."Ps.-Jerome, *Commentarius in evangelium secundum Marcum* 3 (PL 30, col. 599), then printed among Jerome's works (François 2006, 151 n. 58). The same passage is quoted in §9. From these words ⸢of Jerome⸣ it is clear that divine Scripture is obscure, and ⸢for that reason⸣ cannot be understood easily, at first sight, by everyone. Simple and unlearned people, then, whoever wants to busy himself with reading it,The print has the singular *voluerit* after a plural subject. François prints *voluerint* (François 2006, 150 n. 56). will not escape the vice of presumption. And it would be ⸢an arrogance⸣ greater still if they presumed to pick it apart and to argue about its meanings. That this was going on in Jerome's time, and that he bore it with indignation, he shows clearly enough when he writes to Paulinus: "The art of the Scriptures is the only one that everyone everywhere claims for himself. The chattering old woman, the doting old man, the wordy sophist, all of them presume on it, tear it to pieces and teach it before they learn it. Some, with raised brow, weighing out grand words, philosophise about the sacred letters among silly women. Others (for shame!) learn from women what they are to teach men. And as if that were not enough, with a certain facility of words, or rather audacity, they expound to others what they do not understand themselves. I say nothing of people like me, who, if they happen to have come to the Holy Scriptures after secular letters and have charmed the ears of the people with polished speech, think that whatever they say is the law of God. They do not deign to learn what the prophets and the apostles meant, but fit unsuitable proof-texts to their own meaning, as though it were a great thing, and not the most faulty kind of speaking, to distort statements and drag a resisting Holy Scripture to one's own will."Jerome, Letter 53 (to Paulinus), 7.

See how the holy Jerome shows that people who dare to handle the sacred letters they have not learned are rash and arrogant. How, then, will lay people and the unlearned not be charged all the more severely with presumption if they presume to busy themselves with reading and picking apart the sacred letters? And yet I hear that some have recently asserted that all Christians are to be led to the study of Holy Scripture. They also asserted that it is lawful ⸢for the simple⸣ people to gather on feast days ⸢or on other days⸣ to confer about Holy Scripture and its difficulties, and finally that the people themselves may even argue about the faith and expound Holy Scripture. For these things are sufficiently refuted by ⸢what has been said⸣.The damaged words are supplied from François's transcription of the Leuven copy: *Haec etenim ex his quae dicta sunt satis reprobantur* (François 2006, 151 n. 62). Likewise *aut aliis* above and *debuerant* below (151 nn. 61–62). And indeed ⸢I could⸣ not easily ⸢believe that such […]⸣ had come from a man of sound mind. ⸢Those who assert them ought⸣ to have remembered that well-worn proverb, "Let the cobbler ⸢not go beyond his last,"⸣Pliny, *Natural History* 35.85 (Apelles and the shoemaker). *Sutor*, the author's name, means "cobbler". ⸢and⸣ that other one, "Do not seek things higher than yourself,"Sir 3:22 (Vulgate 3:22; some modern versions 3:21). and that ⸢one from Horace,⸣ "Doctors undertake what belongs to doctors, craftsmen handle the craftsman's work,"Horace, *Epistles* 2.1.115–116. and ⸢that⸣ Greek one, "Let each practise the art he knows."A Greek proverb, quoted in Latin by Cicero, *Tusculan Disputations* 1.41. ⸢So⸣ as those things were foolishly said, so they would be foolishly, ⸢indeed⸣ more foolishly, attempted. ⸢Rightly,⸣ then, the assembly of the Paris theologians, ⸢condemning⸣ such madness, declared those propositions rash and ⸢false⸣, and said that they revive the ⸢errors⸣ of the Waldensians and the Bohemians.Sutor is quoting the Paris Faculty's determination of 2 December 1523 against the preachers Martial Mazurier and Pierre Caroli of the Meaux circle. It condemned, as "rash and false" and reviving "the errors of the Waldensians and the Bohemians", the propositions that all Christians should be led to study Scripture, that the simple people may meet "on feast days or other days" to confer about the Bible and its difficulties, and that they may dispute about the faith and expound Scripture; and it added that "conventicles of the unlettered are not to be tolerated". Latin text in François 2009, 117 n. 22; English in Noblesse-Rocher 2018, 119–120. François 2006, 151, had suggested Gerson instead. Nor should ⸢little conventicles⸣ of the unlettered be tolerated for ⸢handling⸣ such business, since ⸢they are rightly⸣ condemned.

Finally, how much presumption ⸢and⸣ confusion usually comes ⸢from⸣ rashness in this business can be seen ⸢well enough⸣ from what happened in Paris. A certain doctor was preaching to the people and cited something that is found in two places in the Bible, but gave only one of them. At once a silly woman from the flock of those called "the little devout," or women theologians,*devotulae*, a contemptuous diminutive of *devotae*, "devout women". The masculine *devotulus* recurs in §31. François discusses the anecdote in François 2006, 151–152. stood up in the middle and said that what he had cited was in another place. The preacher rebuked her impudence sharply, as was fitting, and said (as was the case) that it was contained in both places. See what the presumptuous study of a Bible turned into vernacular speech has brought forth! But let us pursue the rest.

From spreading abroad a Bible translated into the mother tongue, great irreverence for divine things will easily follow.*traductae*, from *traducere*. Sutor uses *traductio* as a synonym of *tralatio*; both are rendered "translation". For the divine books themselves will be handled everywhere, indecently, in profane houses, by silly women, cobblers, tailors, smiths, masons, wool-workers, fullers, and finally by other craftsmen and little men of that sort. Indeed, they will often be put away in unseemly places, when the divine books ought to be handled with great reverence. For even the Jews keep this custom: they never sit next to the sacred books, but place them in a higher place. By this example those Christians ought surely to be covered with deep shame who sometimes handle the sacred books less decently than the books of the heathen.François 2006, 152.

Finally, the Bible translated into vernacular speech will bring no benefit, since nothing that is not understood can produce any use. But it will not be understood by the simple people. Indeed, it cannot even be understood. For what is required for a sound understanding of divine Scripture can hardly ever be ⸢found⸣ among the common folk. For a teacher is needed for a sound understanding of the divine letters. Hence Jerome, writing to Paulinus, says: "I have touched on these things briefly so that you might understand that you cannot enter the ⸢sacred⸣ Scriptures ⸢without a guide⸣ going before you and showing the path."Jerome, Letter 53 (to Paulinus), 6. CSEL 54², p. 452 ll. 4–7, where Jerome's text reads *in scripturis sanctis* (François 2006, 152 n. 66). And ⸢elsewhere⸣: "⸢No⸣ art," he says, "is learned without a teacher."Jerome, Letter 125 (to Rusticus), 15: *Nulla ars absque magistro discitur* (CSEL 56/1², p. 133), quoted loosely (François 2006, 152 n. 66). And again in the letters […] ⸢[…] yourself […]⸣ teach.Text lost in this copy (paper damage). Probably Jerome, Letter 125, *nec ipse te doceas* (CSEL 56/1², p. 128; François 2006, 152 n. 66). François notes Holeczek's point that Sutor leaves out Jerome's remark that anyone of ordinary ability can learn this art (François 2006, 152–153). And in truth those who ⸢strive⸣ to master any art must ⸢use a teacher⸣. Otherwise they cannot be what they desire to be.

Next, assiduous and diligent labour is needed. For letters, and divine letters above all, are companions of sweat and labour. Moreover, pious study is needed. However assiduous and intense the study may be, unless it is pious it will never be enough for gaining an understanding of Holy Scripture. It will rather hurl the student himself into various errors, as happened to Faustus. The divine Augustine, censuring him, says that he erred about the narrative of the Gospels because he did not have a pious zeal for reading the Gospel.Faustus of Milevis, the Manichaean, answered by Augustine in *Contra Faustum*. The exact place of the words paraphrased here is not identified. Sutor's conditions for understanding Scripture (§§22–27) are summarised in François 2006, 152–154; François 2009, 121. For if he had read the Gospels piously, he would have chosen to inquire piously into the meaning of what was hidden, and into the sense of what seemed contradictory, rather than to condemn them rashly. But since he did not bring pious study, he barked at them, censured them, attacked them. On account of this rashness, a true understanding of the Gospel teaching itself was rightly denied him, the understanding that is given to those who ask, found by those who seek, and opened to those who knock.Cf. Matt 7:7–8.

Further, if this business is indeed to be carried on profitably and piously, holiness of life is needed. The wise man bears witness to this when he says: "Wisdom will not enter a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins. For the Holy Spirit will flee from deceit, and will withdraw from thoughts that are without understanding."Wis 1:4–5. Sutor omits the Vulgate's *disciplinae* ("the Holy Spirit of discipline"). The divine letters too, as Jerome says, are companions of fasting, not of fullness; of continence, not of luxury.Jerome, *Apologia adversus libros Rufini* 1.17 (CCSL 79, p. 16 ll. 37–38), identified by François 2006, 153 n. 69.

In addition, the grace and revelation of the Holy Spirit are needed. "Open (*revela*) my eyes," says the Psalmist, "and I will consider the wonders of your law."Ps 119:18 (Vulgate 118:18). Jerome himself agrees with this in his letter to Paulinus, where he says: "For the law is spiritual, and revelation is needed for it to be understood, so that with unveiled face we may contemplate the glory of God."Jerome, Letter 53 (to Paulinus), 4 (CSEL 54², p. 450 ll. 16–18), drawing on Rom 7:14 and 2 Cor 3:18 (François 2006, 153 n. 72). And in his commentary on the prophet Hosea: "In the ⸢explanations⸣ of all the prophets," he says, "we need the coming of the Holy Spirit, so that they may be opened by the revelation of him by whose prompting they were written."Jerome, *Commentarii in Osee*, prologue (CCSL 76, p. 1 ll. 1–3) (François 2006, 153 n. 73).The print has *In epla.na-tionibus*, apparently an abbreviated *In explanationibus*, "in the explanations". And on Micah, chapter 1: "In expounding the Scriptures we always need the coming of the Holy Spirit of God."Jerome, *Commentarii in Michaeam* 1.1.10/15 (CCSL 76, p. 430 ll. 296–297) (François 2006, 153 n. 74).

Moreover, the things that belong to the contemplative life are needed: namely prayer, meditation, and leisure or quiet, above all away from the whirlwinds of this world. For whoever longs to make progress in the sacred letters must pour out frequent prayers to God, in the manner of the Psalmist, who often begs God to teach him his statutes.*doceat iustificationes suas*: the refrain of Ps 119 (Vulgate 118), e.g. vv. 12, 26, 64. Accordingly Jerome says to Paulinus: "To the one who asks it is given, to the one who knocks it is opened, the one who seeks finds."Jerome, Letter 53 (to Paulinus), echoing Matt 7:8. He must, I say, meditate continually on the law of the Lord, like the righteous man of whom the psalmist says: "But his will is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he will meditate day and night."Ps 1:2. Jerome also urges ⸢Paulinus⸣ to this when he says: "I beg you, dearest brother, live among these things, meditate on them, ⸢know nothing⸣ else, seek nothing else." He must also enjoy holy leisure and […], above all *intraria* (so the print; perhaps "inward [quiet]").Text lost in this copy (paper damage). On the contemplative conditions, and Holeczek's remark that Sutor thought monks best fitted for Scripture, see François 2006, 153–154. For ⸢whoever⸣ wants to give himself fittingly to theological leisure must be stripped of ⸢worldly⸣ cares and business, and of the disturbances that distract the mind.

Finally, a simple heart and a sincere intention are needed. A simple and humble breast is needed so that everything contained in the sacred letters is believed to be true, even if not everything is understood. "We must therefore see to it," says Augustine in a certain letter to Jerome, "that the man who comes to the knowledge of the divine Scriptures is one who thinks of the holy books so holily and truthfully that he would not wish to take pleasure in any part of them for the sake of helpful lies (*officiosa mendacia*), and would rather pass over what he does not understand than prefer his own heart to that truth."Augustine, Letter 28 (to Jerome), 4 (CCSL 31, p. 95 ll. 90–94), where the usual text reads *per officiosa mendacia* (François 2006, 154 n. 78). Likewise a sincere intention is needed, so that the sacred letters are learned not for the sake of benefices, not for passing honours, nor, finally, to acquire bare knowledge, but so that one gains a sound, savoury and fruitful understanding of them that leads to right living.

But when, I ask, will these things I have described be found among the simple and unlearned rabble? How, I say, can the crowd itself readily and generally possess what is scarcely to be found in a few candidates in theology? So, all things carefully considered, it is utterly inept to set out the Bible in the vernacular to be read, since this is neither sound nor necessary, but on the contrary rash, dangerous, and wholly useless and inept, as we have now proved enough and more than enough.François 2006, 154.

But someone will say: "Granted that the simple people cannot give continual attention to the study of Holy Scripture, they can still do so on feast days, when they are free from work. For there seems to be nothing to which they could apply themselves at such a time better or more fittingly than sacred reading." The answer is, first, that study so broken up and snatched in spare moments carries no weight, since it is not enough for attaining an understanding of Holy Scripture, which demands the whole of one's time and the whole man. Indeed, those who apply themselves continually and vigorously to this business of businesses can scarcely, in the end, gather the rich fruits of a labour that is relentless, but pious.*improbi, sed pii laboris*: cf. Virgil, *Georgics* 1.145–6, *labor omnia vicit improbus*. *Improbus* ("relentless", but also "wicked") is set against *pius*. What fruit, then, can be hoped for from study so slack that it seems to have lapsed rather than slackened?

Indeed, in the end they will get as much fruit as schoolboys usually get who go to school only once a week. "Then what," you ask, "will the people do on feast days?" First, of course, they will give more careful attention to examining their conscience, thinking over how they have lived in the time past. Likewise they will attend the divine sacrificeThat is, the Mass. and spiritual things reverently and devoutly the whole morning; they will pour out prayers, turn over God's benefits with an attentive mind, and give thanks to God the giver. After that they will go to the sermon or preaching, to learn how they should live. For they will learn more from an hour's preaching than if they spent the whole day in study or reading. "What," you say, "if there is no preaching?" Let the simpler folk apply themselves to other pious works: let them visit the sick, comfort the desolate, give alms. "What," you say, "if none of these comes their way at the time?" That is very rare. If it does happen, however, they must turn to pious meditations. And it would be far more tolerable to take some honest recreation, fittingly and at a suitable time and place, both to avoid idle leisure, the parent of evil thoughts, and to refresh limbs wearied by the week's labour, than to apply themselves to presumptuous business of this kind. Pious stories may also be read by those who are fonder of reading. For the deeds of the saints, piously read, kindle devotion and are wonderfully good for the simple people.On the feast-day programme, and Holeczek's comment that Sutor would sooner allow any idle pastime than open the Bible to all, see François 2006, 154–155 and n. 82.

But some little devout person who does not know Latin says: "I too would like to draw something on holy days from the purest spring of the sacred letters, but I cannot unless they are poured into the mother tongue." We answer that the Bible must not be translated into the vernacular for his sake, since there are enough other pious occupations with which illiterate and devout people can occupy themselves on feast days. Nevertheless, to answer his wishes more fully, we say that the Epistles and GospelsThe lectionary readings of the Mass. François suggests that the *devotuli* are lay devout bound to associations such as the Brethren of the Common Life, that "draw … from the purest spring" echoes the Devotio Moderna and Erasmus, and that the concession of a pericope book is meant for them alone (François 2006, 155–156; François 2009, 121). The Paris Faculty later made the same concession (François 2009, 134). that are usually chanted publicly in church and set out and expounded by preachers may be poured into the vernacular with a fitting and faithful explanation. With this translation the simple people ought to be fully content, and they should not desire a vernacular translation (*traductio*) of the whole Bible. The whole Bible could not everywhere be set out with a fitting exposition, and without explanation it would do more harm than good. For many injuries and dangers would come of it, as has been proved at sufficient length.

But someone says: "The same evils, or at any rate a great many dangers, can come from the Latin Bible too. Why then do you grant that the Bible may soundly be turned into Latin rather than into the vernacular?" Because, of course, the Latin Bible is reasonable, useful and necessary to the Christian Church, whereas the Bible poured into the vernacular is, on the contrary, rash, useless, dangerous and superfluous. Yet I would not deny that many injuries can come from the Latin Bible incidentally (*per accidens*). But the Bible itself does not cause this of itself (*per se*); the abuse of its readers does. There are, I admit, petty grammarians, little rhetoricians, Greeklings, sophists, philosophasters, pettifoggers, theologisers and other smatterers of that kind, vain and presumptuous men, who handle the sacred letters arrogantly and unworthily, interpret them perversely, and teach and flaunt what they have never learned. So great is their rashness that they think it lawful for them, as it is for true theologians who have spent their whole lives in theological study, to dispute about the lofty mysteries of the Bible itself, and finally that the Bible and divine theology befit everyone, just as the catholic faith does. They do not understand that there is a great difference between the faith itself and theology, and that it does not immediately follow that because someone is a believer he is therefore a theologian.This sentence is translated in Rummel 1996, 197 ("if someone is a believer it does not immediately follow that he is a theologian"), and quoted from Rummel in Bedouelle 2008, 133. François 2006, 156–157, discusses the list of smatterers as aimed at the humanists. I admit, then, that very many injuries befall such presumers and a great many spiritual dangers threaten them, though they themselves do not know it, or even suspect it. Nevertheless, because of their abuse the Latin Bible must be neither picked at nor withheld from public use,François takes *vellicanda* as "discredited" (François 2006, 157). since it is useful to many and necessary to the Christian Church as well. But it is not so with the Bible published in the vernacular, as we have sufficiently proved. But enough of this now.

In closing, we would gladly warn the translationists themselves to come to their senses and sing a palinode.*palinodiam canere*: to make a formal retraction, to take back publicly what one has said (from the Greek *palinōidia*, a poem recanting an earlier one, as Stesichorus did for Helen). We would warn them to remove their translations from circulation, and either to suppress their paraphrases or at least hand them over to learned men for correction, so that they might at last look to their own salvation and to Christendom, which has been thrown into turmoil by new inventions of this kind. But the lyre is played to little asses in vain.Proverbial: the ass and the lyre (cf. Erasmus, *Adagia*, "Asinus ad lyram"). For they seem so stupid, so perverse, and in short so blinded, that they refuse to take anything in good part. They refuse, I say, to listen to the wisest men; thinking themselves by far the most learned of all, they set little value on others' advice. So, dismissing these men at last as hopeless, I warn the pious reader to be wholly content with the common Bible, long since approved by the Church. He should neither desire nor admit any other, but drive out utterly those new ones, produced by a hellish spirit. Nor should he in any way read or touch the annotations or commentaries, or more truly paraphrases, of the theologasters themselves,*theologastri*: sham theologians (*theologus* plus the contemptuous suffix *-aster*, as in "poetaster"). Erasmus used the word against the Paris theologians; Sutor turns it back on the humanist translators, meaning Erasmus and Lefèvre. unless he is so steeped in theological letters that he can tell heresies from catholic truths. Learned theologians, I admit, who know how to separate gold from mud, may also read through heretical books, since no danger threatens them from reading of this kind.François 2006, 157.

For Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, as Eusebius reports in the seventh book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, asserts that he was in the habit of reading the treatises of heretics. One of the brethren and fellow presbyters tried to forbid him, lest he be polluted by heretical reading as by the stench of some filth. Then a vision was sent to him from God, and words like these were spoken to him: "Read everything that comes into your hands, for you are able to test and discern each thing."Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History* 7.7.1–3, quoted almost word for word from Rufinus's Latin (GCS 9/2, p. 643; François 2006, 158 n. 93). So, by this example if by no other, sufficiently learned theologians may read books teeming with errors. Others may not, who do not know how to distinguish between what is to be approved and what is to be rejected. For those who presume to do such things expose themselves to great dangers. Therefore we warn again and again those who are not theologians enough to abstain entirely from reading books of this most dangerous kind.

Finally, we exhort everyone in common to follow the ancient and well-trodden footsteps and to rest in the traditions of our forebears. Above all, they should not, under cover of new translations and mad inventions, move in any respect the boundaries set by the fathers.The pun runs through the rest of the chapter: *transferre terminos*, "to move boundaries", uses the verb behind *tralatio/translatio*, "translation" (cf. Prov 22:28, "the ancient landmarks"). CWE 79 reads the peroration the same way (Begley and Begley 2025, xxxiv–xxxv). François, following Holeczek, takes the *termini* as the Vulgate's fixed theological terms, and *translati* as "translated" (François 2006, 159–160; François 2009, 121, 123). For this is what the sacred letters tell us and warn us of. The Lord commanded through Moses in Deuteronomy 19 that the boundaries which the men of old fashioned are not to be moved, and in chapter 22 whoever moves his neighbour's boundaries is cursed. And in Job, chapter 24, those who have moved boundaries are rebuked. Finally, in Proverbs 22 it is said: "Do not pass beyond the ancient boundaries which ⸢your fathers⸣ set."Deut 19:14; Deut 27:17 (Sutor's "chapter 22" is an error); Job 24:2; Prov 22:28. Sutor's *finxerunt* (Vulgate *fixerunt*) is also the reading of the Leuven copy (François 2006, 159). ⸢By these⸣ sayings, therefore, we are warned, according to the mystical sense, not to transgress the rules, definitions of living and constitutions of the fathers who went before us. We are warned not to abandon catholic doctrine and bring in superstitions and new sects, not to fall away from the bosom of holy Church, and finally not to carp at or abandon what is well trodden and everywhere approved. If you hesitate over this exposition, read the glosses, consult the doctors, and you will recognise that we interpret truly. Since, then, the divine oracles warn us so earnestly, we certainly ought not to move the boundaries which our fathers established.

But alas, in this wretched age the boundaries set by the fathers have for the most part been moved.*translati*: the same verb that gives *tralatio* / *translatio*, "translation". Sutor is playing on Prov 22:28, "Do not move the ancient boundaries", quoted just above. Indeed, if you survey everything carefully, you will see that the boundaries of the Catholic faith have in large part been moved. You will see that the boundaries of Holy Scripture have been shifted. And you will see, finally, that the boundaries of the Christian religion and of uprightness have been all but displaced. How far the boundaries of the Catholic faith have been moved, there is hardly anyone who does not know. For in the last ten years more heresies have been stirred up than in the five hundred years before. Almost all the old heresies, which were thought dead, have been revived in this age, and new ones have been devised as well.François 2006, 159–160; Begley and Begley 2025, xxxiv.

Alas, many people of this age, such is their madness, put more faith in these than in the old, sound and everywhere approved rudiments of the faith that our forebears handed down. I cannot wonder enough at this: why do people believe two or three forerunners of Antichrist rather than the ancient doctors, the holy popes, the general councils, the universal Church and the whole world? Let those who are like this tell me, I beg them: by what authority, by what reason, by what right, in the end, do they do it? Are they, with their utterly lost heresiarchs, wiser than all who are now alive or who have gone before us? O madness utterly to be loathed! Yet most of them follow these heresiarchs not for their beautiful eyes, so to speak,The idiom (cf. French *pour ses beaux yeux*) means "out of disinterested admiration". but because the heresiarchs indulge their vices and freely lay down as true whatever suits them.

That the boundaries of Holy Scripture have been moved in this age is already clear enough from what was said above. And yet I wonder how so many utterly frivolous people have dared to throw aside the common Bible and follow the ravings and hellish renderings of these translationists. Are these sacrilegious translations divine? Are they authentic? Are they approved? Are they more certain or sounder than the common translation approved by the Church? And who is so mad as to think that the judgement of two or three fools and masters should be preferred to the ⸢examination⸣ of all the doctors who are and who have been, and indeed to the ⸢verdict⸣ of the whole world? Let them look to it, then, those very people who have become such beasts that they are not afraid to give their assent not only to such trifles but to horrible impieties as well. What in the end will they say, what will they do, what account, finally, will they render before God?

Finally, experience itself declares how wretchedly the boundaries of the Christian religion and of uprightness have been moved everywhere. For ceremonies are rejected as useless, and ceremonies are spoken of with contempt. Prayers are despised, and the undevout even call them "little prayers". Fasts are counted for nothing. Continence is rejected. The secular state is made equal to the religious life or even put above it. Good monks are carped at by runaways,*refugi*: monks and friars who had left their orders. and good morals are everywhere made a laughing-stock. Almost everything sound is despised. Theologians are set at nought by little rhetoricians and smatterers. Solid disciplines are looked down on, and almost the only things held in esteem are the arts of futility, which these petty grammarians call the humanities and good letters.François 2006, 160, reads this as aimed at the humanists' criticism of the Church and at their *bonae literae*.

Not only are good things cast away and spurned. O the outrage! Unheard-of crimes are committed as well. Unprecedented exactions bear witness to it, and floods: not floods of water, which the vanity of the astrologers had foretold,Astrologers had widely predicted a universal flood for February 1524, from the conjunction of the planets in Pisces. It did not come. On this paragraph see François 2006, 160. but floods of purses and money, and to suck these up no device of cunning is left untried. The burning of cities and villages, set off by more than hellish tricks, also shows clearly how unhappily and perversely the boundaries of uprightness and humanity have been moved.

Who would ever have believed that such fraud, treachery, malice and cruelty could be found in human hearts as we recently experienced in the burning of the city of Troyes?The great fire of Troyes, which began on 24 May 1524 (Begley and Begley 2025, xxxiv; François 2006, 161, gives 25 May) and destroyed much of the upper town. Sutor was prior of the charterhouse of Preize near Troyes and finished the book there; he evidently believed the rumour that the fire had been set deliberately (Begley and Begley 2025, xxxiv; François 2006, 161). O heaven, O earth! What is impious, what is execrable, what is diabolical, if not this: to want to destroy a commonwealth that deserved nothing of the kind, so wretchedly and so treacherously, with no law of war observed, by abominable and unheard-of fires and by treachery worse than an enemy's? Who will think there is anything of humanity or of Christianity in these barbarous hearts? Who would not rather believe them to be the cruellest of beasts, or at any rate the worst of demons lurking in human form? And certainly the monstrousness of the crime, the barbarous and unaccustomed way of acting, and the kind of death these incendiaries meet seem to show that those who attempted so atrocious a crime are not men but evil demons. For they are not put to an ordinary death, and they ⸢refuse⸣ either to ⸢confess⸣ anything or to look to their own salvation. What else ⸢can⸣ be thought than that, ⸢not⸣ truly penitent, they pass from the temporal fire by which they are ⸢burned⸣ alive ⸢into⸣ the fires of Vulcan? But leaving aside this most wretched ⸢calamity, which no one⸣ could properly grasp unless he had seen it with his own eyes, let us ⸢show⸣ further how wretchedly the ⸢limits⸣ of piety ⸢and⸣ decency have been moved.The damaged end is supplied from François's transcription of the Leuven copy: *…nisi coram viderit), missam facientes ostendamus adhuc quam miserae sint pietatis, ac honestatis limites translati* (François 2006, 160 n. 102). Note *limites* here and *fines* in §45, beside *termini*.

Indeed, the soldiers or retainers, whom you might rightly call the most villainous of brigands (some of them, not without reason, called themselves devils), committed such impious, obscene and inhuman acts against heaven and against mortals, and in the years just past so harassed the commonwealth, above all the French one, with unaccustomed oppression, that even to tell of it strikes horror. No age is thought ever to have seen such abominations in the Christian commonwealth. Who would not shudder to hear that an utterly lost scoundrel, when he had grown tired of denying God, paid a comrade to deny him in his place? Who would not tremble to go over the blasphemies uttered with sacrilegious mouth against Christ and his blessed mother, which it is a crime even to repeat? Who would not turn pale on hearing that these brutes ran through holy and venerable images with swords and daggers? Who would not be amazed to turn over in his mind those obscenities which these most shameless dogs most foully committed to satisfy their lusts? Who, finally, would not be stunned to reflect on the unheard-of excesses with which these bloodthirsty beasts afflicted the simple people?Erasmus answered that he was not responsible for "wars or soldiers" (Begley and Begley 2025, xli, citing LB IX 746D).

For they raged with such madness that it was not enough for them to gorge on delicate dishes until they vomited. They also either carried off their hosts' goods openly, as if they were their own, or forced them to buy them back. Nothing was so securely shut that it was not opened or broken. And if anything happened to turn up that could neither be carried away nor was the host willing to redeem, it was thrown on the fire. In a word, hardly anything inhuman or wicked can be thought of that these demons did not devise.

And because they lived like demons, many of them also died like demons. One of them had said that he wanted to die a devil, and after his death on the gallows he appeared all black and horned.

See how strangely and wretchedly the bounds of Christian uprightness have been moved!Here *fines*, not *termini*. And, what is the height of evils, ⸢these and⸣ very many other things of the kind, which it would be tedious to pursue, are committed so ⸢freely⸣ and with such impunity that they are not rebuked even with a word. Now no one dares to utter a murmur. There was a time when wise men and fools dared to speak the truth and to denounce vices. There was also a time in which only those who played the jester in masks were allowed to say what was true. But the time has come in which neither the wise nor ⸢fools⸣ dare speak out the truth.

May the ⸢most merciful God⸣ deign to take thought for ⸢affairs⸣ so afflicted, and mercifully turn aside the vengeance ⸢he⸣ has already ⸢begun⸣, above all from [our realm, which]Text lost in this copy (paper damage). Words in square brackets are conjectures. is thought [to stand] in its condition as long as [it keeps the faith] ⸢sincere⸣, ⸢as⸣ [was revealed] from heaven to Saint Remigius when he washed Clovis, the first ⸢Christian⸣ king of our nation, in ⸢holy⸣ baptism.Remigius, bishop of Reims, baptised Clovis, probably in 496 or soon after. The prophecy about the kingdom enduring while it kept the faith goes back to the later Remigius legend (Hincmar's *Life of Remigius*). May God grant, then, that it ⸢remain⸣ in the faith, and not be scattered and divided into pieces, as ⸢barbarous⸣ and neighbouring peoples, driven by envy and ambition, have tried to bring about. May he grant, I say, that the most Christian peopleAn echo of the French king's title, *rex christianissimus*. be not led astray by new heresies and new rash acts. May he grant, finally, that piety be restored and uprightness mended.François 2006, 161, paraphrases the prayer as asking God to spare France above all and keep "the most Christian nation" from heresy. Erasmus parodied the peroration and blamed its logic (Begley and Begley 2025, xlviii–xlix).

But now let this be the end of the whole business, in this twenty-second chapter. For we deliberately made twenty-two chapters in this work. The sacred letters were written first among the Hebrews, and last among the Latins, in twenty-two letters or characters (the Greeks, who come in between, have twenty-four letters).Cf. Jerome's preface to Samuel and Kings (the *Prologus galeatus*), which ties the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In the same way, we would examine the translations of those divine letters in twenty-two chapters, and at the same time condemn the new recklessness of the versions, to the praise of almighty God, who is blessed for ever. Amen.