Volume 1

A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood.

Date:
[between 1890 and 1899?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    1037/1096 (page 1017)
    was living in the East (Epist. 7 [al. 43] ad Chr&in. p. 18). Even in Britain after the time of Agricola the upper classes adopted to some extent the Roman language and customs (Tacit. Agric. c. 21). When Latin was so generally diffused, it could not fail soon to become the vehicle of public worship. When public prayer was first offered in Latin in Rome itself we cannot tell, but it is an obvious conjecture that when the “ old Italic” version of the New Testament came into use in Rome, prayei’s and thanksgivings were also said in the Latin tongue. That at an early date Latin became the liturgical language of (at least) much the greater part of Italy, of Gaul, and of Spain, admits of no doubt whatever. The “ clerks ” and officials everywhere spoke Latin throughout the Western empire. And even when Christianity was introduced into regions where little or no Latin was spoken, as Britain and Ire- land, there is no evidence of vernacular services; the early evangelists of Britain, St. Patrick and his followers in Ireland, the Roman missionaries to the Angles and Saxons, alike seem to have re- tained the Roman language in the offices which they introduced. Probably it would have seemed a kind of profanation to translate sacred phrases into the “ gibberish ” of barbarian tribes. Indeed it came to be maintained that a certain sacredncss attaches to the three languages, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, of the inscription on the Lord’s cross (Hilary of Poitiers, Prol. in lib. Pss. c. 15; Honorius of Autun, Gemma Animne^ 1-92), and that these tongues alone—Syriac being taken to represent the ancient Hebrew—are fit vehicles for the public prayers of Christians. Hilary further elevates Latin to a dominant position among the three tongues, as the language of Rome, “ specialiter evangelica doctrina in Romani imperii, sub quo Hebraei et Graeci continentur, sede consistit.” Ulfilas did indeed giv^e the Goths a vernacular version of the Bible, but even here there is no trace remaining of Gothic offices. That the Latin of the service-books was often, even among the so-called “Latin” races, a tongue “ not understanded of the people ” seems scarcely doubtful. In Italy, for instance, where even at this day the peasantry speak several dialects neither mutually intelligible nor intel- ligible to those who only understand the literary Italian, we cannot suppose that the language of Leo and Gregory was everywhere understood. The same may be said of Spain and Gaul, and still more of Britain and Ireland. Provision was no doubt made for instructing the several races in their own tongues wherein they were born, and there is no reason to doubt that the nature of the several offices v/as explained to the faithful; but the offices themselves seem to have been invari- ably said in Latin. Whatever may be the case with the Syriac or other Eastern offices, in the districts where Greek and Latin were the eccle- siastical languages the gulf between the tongue of the church and the tongue of the people was always widening; the dialect of the streets came to differ widely from the unchanging idiom of the church, even while it retained the same name. In the eighth century this divergency became so marked that it was recognised by authority. A council at Frankfort in the year 794 (c. 52, Concc. Germ. i. 328; Baluze, Capit. Reg. Fr. i. 270) expressly repudiated the theory of the three sacred languages, on the ground that God heareth prayer in every tongue; and Charles the Great, insisting (^Capit. v. 161, in Baluze, i. 855) that all men should learn the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, makes provision for the case of those who know none but their mother tongue: “ qui aliter non potuerit vel in sua lingua hoc discat.” The same monarch fur- ther directs (Capit. vi. 185; Bal. i. 954) that every presbyter should teach men publicly in his church, in the tongue which his hearers under- stand, ti'uly to believe the faith of Almighty God in Unity and Trinity, and also those things which are to be said to all generally; as of avoiding evil and doing good, and of the judg- ment to come in the Resurrection. He who cannot do this of himself is to get a proper form of words written out by some more learned person, which he may read; and he who cannot even do this must exhort the people in the words, “ Re- pent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Herai'd (Capit. 55, Bal. i. 1289) ordered that no man should be admitted to be a godfather who did not understand the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer in his own tongue, and the nature of the covenant made with God. A council at Rheims, A.D. 813 (c. 15), enjoined bishops to preach in the dialects of their several dioceses, and in the same year a council at Tours (c. 17) ordered bishops to translate their homilies into the rustic-Roman or the Teutonic tongue. So the council of Mayence (c. 2) in the year 847. At a still earlier date the council of Lestines, A.D. 743 (Concc. Germ, i: 51; Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, p. 22) had ordered the Renunciations and Professions in baptism to be made in the vernacular—which is given in the canon—of the Teutonic converts. These instances shew that, while care was taken to in- struct the faithful in the cardinal truths of Christianity, the offices in general were in the ecclesiastical tongue, Latin. When the Slavonic races were converted in the 9th century, pope John VHI. (a.d. 880) not only permitted but recommended that the divine offices and liturgy should be said in their ver- nacular. It is interesting to notice that he expressly repudiates the theory of three sacred languages and no more, saying that Scripture calls upon all nations and all peoples to praise the Lord, and that the apostles spoke in all tongues the wonderful works of God (Epist. 293, ad Sicen- topulc. Migne, 126, p. 906). Nor is it (he con- tinues) in any way contrary to sound faith and doctrine to say masses in the Slavonic tongue; or to read the gospel, or lessons of the Old or New Testament, well translated or interpreted; or to sing other hour-offices in it; for He who made the three chief tongues (linguas principales), Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others to His honour and glory. The pope howev^er makes this reservation, that the gospel, to give it the more honour, should always be read first in Latin, and afterwards translated into Slavonic. Swentopulk and his judges may, if they please, hear mass in Latin. The Russian church retains to this day its A^er- nacular services. The following are instances of provision being made for the wants of a district where several languages were spoken. Theodosius the archi-