Sanctuarium profanis occlusum, sive, de ss. bibliorum prohibitione in lingua vulgari seu vernacula tractatus

of sacred Scripture; finally, in all pages, I show that this study does not pertain to the trivial common people, nor is it fitting that any kind of person be introduced into this Sanctuary. In the second part, I ascend to the origin of Holy Scripture, and I seek proofs of our doctrine from the mouth of Moses himself, who wrote the first books of the Holy Bible, and who never permitted it to be common to the promiscuous rabble; preserving the oral tradition as a rule and guide for the Hebrew people, while the volume of the Law was closed in the side of the Ark and carefully guarded by the Levites. From Moses I pass to Ezra, who was the restorer of the Law, and who first founded Academies and Schools; nevertheless, he wrote the holy books in a language other than the one vernacular to the Jews, in which they remained until CHRIST the LORD, who is so far from having condemned the custom of barring the rude common people from the reading and understanding of the Scriptures that He rather confirmed it with His own authority and word; and the Apostles, following the example of their Master, wrote epistles in a foreign and by no means common language to those to whom they directed them. Whence the occasion was given to the primitive Church and the ancient Fathers to conceal the Holy letters as a mystery, and not to make them common; and if it happened anywhere that the study escaped to workmen and simple women, it was not except through an abuse, which the Saints always condemned, and which they only tolerated when they could not prevent it. I explain next some places of St. Chrysostom, which occur in that great multitude of books composed by him, and which seem to some extent to conflict with this truth that I defend, although in reality he brings forth nothing that could prejudice it. And even if this were so, one or another passage of some Doctor, who was speaking about matters from a particular sense, or following a present occasion, cannot have force against the universal sense of the Fathers and the practice of the entire Church; nor should they be held as a Rule of Faith or of Ecclesiastical discipline. In the third and last part, I undertake to show, this persua-