The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. IV. That in the Antient Church everyone prayed in his own Tongue.

WEE have already alleged in the first Chapter, many Ancients that deride the Superstition of those, who think that prayers in a Barbarous tongue have more virtue.

Origen in the 1 Book against Celsus The Grecians in their prayers use Greek words, and the Romans Roman words, and so everyone prayeth to God according to his own Language, and praiseth him as he can. Observe, that he saith, not only his own opinion, but represents the custom of the Christian Church.

Chrysostom Hom. 35. upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians If one speak only in the Persian Language, or some other strange Language, not knowing what he saith, he shall be barbarous unto himself, and not to another only.

Jerome in the 18 Epistle to Marcella In the whole village of Christ there is none but country people. But for Psalms there is a silence among them. Which way soever thou turn thyself, the Labourer holding the plow sings Praise ye the Lord; and the Reaper sweating caseth his labor with Psalms; and the Husbandman with his crooked pruning hook pruning his Vine, sings something of David.

That neither is done nor can be done among the common people of the Roman Church. As for singing Latin Psalms at their Plough or in their Shop, how can they since they understand them not? And to sing them in French or another common Language, is in their Church a mark of Heresy.

The same Father in the Epitaph of Paula saith, that in the Funeral of Paula, Hebraeo, Graeco, Latino, Syroque sermon Psalmi in ordine personabant; One might hear Psalms sung in order in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin and in Syriac; each singing according to the tongue of his Country.

And that I may not tire the Reader about such an evident thing, Thomas himself the Angelic Doctor, whom the Pope hath Sainted, in his Comment upon 1. Cor. 14. in the fourth Lesson hath these words, It is certain, that he that prayeth and understands what he saith, profits more then he that prayeth only with his tongue, that is, he that understands not what he saith. For he that understands is fed both in his mind and affection; but the mind of him that understands not, is without fruit of refection. In the same Lesson he acknowledgeth that the ancient Church prayed in the vulgar Tongue, but that it was altered since.

It would be a recreative conceit to imagine the Virgin Mary or her Cosen Elizabeth, saying their hours in a Barbarous and unknown Language, turning their beads or Rosary, according to the custom of the Roman Church, where the people say their hours, turning the grains of consecrated beads. Good wives will rub these beads against the feet of an Image. Chest-fulls of blessed grains, consecrated by the Pope are brought from Rome, and they are sold dearer, as having more virtue. Cardinal du Perron returning from Rome, brought a cloak-bag full of such superlative blessed grains, that one of them being put among beads got a hundred years of pardon every time it was kissed. But that privilege was for the French only. It is ordinary to see women say their Pater Noster in Latin going to market. The Spaniards speaking of businesses, turn the grains of their beads gently, saying upon every grain a Latin Prayer, which is fifty times repeated, mingling Pater's with Ave's, and saying five Ave's for one Pater. For in our days the virtue of the Prayer consisteth in an iterated number of the same words not understood; And the simple people saying the Ave, think that they pray to the Virgin Mary, whereas they pray for her. All this practice is defended with saying It is the Church, and It is an Apostolical Tradition. For this word Church is become a cloak to cover a multitude of errors.

CHAP. V. That the Public Service in a Language not understood, is contrary to the Word of God, and to Reason.

I. THe abuse in the public Service is more pernicious then in private devotions, because they make use of God himself to help the abuse; for they make him Barbarous unto men, and his Word not intelligible, as if they would frustrate God of his intention, which is to speak to us to instruct us; As if Christ had descended from Heaven purposely to speak unto men, so that he may not be understood. For in the Mass you have not only prayers unto God, but Texts of Scripture in which God speaks to men.

For Prayers in an unknown Tongue they use this impertinent excuse, That God understands all Languages, as if we spake with our mouth that we might be understood of God. But here where it is question of God speaking to us, that excuse can have no place. For when God speaks unto men, he will be hearkened unto and understood. And indeed when they bring that excuse, that God understands all Languages, they presuppose that he to whom they speak, must understand that which is said to him.

II. Wherefore Scripture tells us, that when God is angry with a people, he makes their ears heavy that they may not hear, and that their heart may not understand; as God himself saith by his Prophet Isa. 6.10.

III. And it is one of God's curses whereby he punisheth men's unthankfulness, and the contempt of his Word, when he speaks unto a people in a Language which they understand not, as the Apostle teacheth, 1 Cor. 14.21. where he alleged God speaking thus by his Prophet Isaiah, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and thus they shall not hear me saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. This threatening is fulfilled in the Roman Church, in which God punisheth the hardness of men, by speaking to them in a tongue which they understand not.

IV. In this matter this Maxim taken from the nature of man, and the intention of the Creator, must be laid for a ground, that the tongue was given unto man to be the interpreter of his thoughts, and the messenger of his conceits. Whence it follows, that to use the tongue for a contrary end, and to speak that one may not be understood, is overthrowing nature, and as far as in us lieth, frustrating the Creator of his intention, changing man's speech into an useless sound, and a voice beating the air. And if that be true in him that speaks to others in a Tongue which they understand not, it is yet more true in him who is neither understood by himself nor by others.

V. From the same Maxim it follows, that when the Priest speaks Latin in the Church, he ought to speak to be understood of some. Let our Adversaries tell us whether he speaks to be understood by the assistants, or by himself, or by God; for there is no fourth. He speaks not to be understood by the assistants, since he speaks low and in a Language which the people understand not; and in private Masses he speaks alone and without assistants. Neither doth he speak to be understood by God; for God understands us without our speaking, and before we open our mouth. It cannot be said also, that the Priest in the Mass speaks that he may understand himself, for he knew his own thought before he spake. Speech was given unto man, not to make him know his own thought, but to make it known unto others. That man is altogether senseless, who speaks to himself that he may understand himself.

VI. To this add, that in many places of the Mass the Priest speaks unto the people, saying Oremus, and Orate pro me fratres, &c. and many the like passages, in which the Priest commands the people to ask of God such and such things, and to join their prayers with his. But the people is far from obeying that command, not knowing what the Priest commands them. The people might say to him with good reason, Make thyself understood to us, if thou wilt be obeyed.

VII. Wherefore in the Church of the Old Testament all the public Service was done in the vulgar tongue; and the Prayers which Aaron and his Successors made for the Hebrew people were in Hebrew, which tongue being altered since the Captivity of Babylon, yet was understood by the people, as we will show hereafter.

VIII. The Lord Jesus instituted and celebrated the holy Communion among his Disciples in the vulgar tongue, intelligible to the assistants. He commanded them that as often as they eat this bread and drink this cup, they should announce the Lord's death till he come. To obey that command, they must so speak that they may be understood when they announce the Lord's death; for a thing is not announced when it is propounded in an unintelligible tongue.

IX. To the same end he gave to his Apostles the gift of divers Languages, that in all Nations they might establish the Service of God in the Language of the Country, and that in every tongue God might be served. So that the diversity of Tongues, which in the building of Babel was a curse, in the building of the Church became a blessing.

X. The Apostles followed their Masters example; For St. Paul writing to the Corinthians, who were Grecians, giveth them in their Tongue the Form of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11.

XI. Is it like that Christ who is the light of the World, came to pour darkness upon the World? And since God spake to his People by Moses in an intelligible tongue, would he now delight to propound his Word, and give his Sacraments in a barbarous and strange Tongue?

XII. But the strongest weapon in this combat, and the sword that cuts the knot, is the Apostles Authority, who employeth the 14. Chap. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians wholly almost upon this matter, even to condemn the use of strange Languages not understood in the Church. If (saith he v. 8.) the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise you, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? but ye shall speak into the air. And v. 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me. And v. 16. When thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing be understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. Whence he concludeth, v. 19. In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown Tongue.

Cardinal Du Perron answers, that St. Paul speaks not of an unknown tongue ordinarily used in the Church, but of infused and miraculous tongues; and that St. Paul by tongues, signifieth unknown tongues. This I readily grant, for it increaseth the strength of the Text, against the ordinary service in an unknown tongue; for these miraculous gifts of tongues were rare, and given unto some Christians for a short time, to make God's virtue to appear: And by consequent the use of them in the Church brought a benefit, which the Mass in Latin cannot yield. Yet the Apostle forbids them to use that miraculous gift in the Church, without expounding presently, because he will have nothing said in the Church that is not understood. How much more doth he condemn strange Language in the ordinary Service, where that extraordinary evil, which the Apostle will avoid, becomes ordinary? The Apostle forbids not the use of an unknown tongue in the Church, because it is miraculous, but because it is not understood, and because he that speaketh becomes barbarous unto him that heareth, and because that which is said is not understood; and because speaking thus is beating the air, and because the people cannot say Amen to a thanksgiving which they understand not, and because the hearers are not edified: Which are true reasons, whether he that speaks an unknown language in the Church, hath learned that language by miracle or study. Here the question is not of the manner, how a man hath learned a tongue, but of the instruction of the people. St. Paul had learned Hebrew without miracle, yet he would not have celebrated the Lord's Supper at Corinth, or at Rome, among the Gentiles in the Hebrew Tongue. Upon the whole matter he giveth two general rules without exception; the one, that it is better to say five intelligible words in the Church, then ten thousand unintelligible: The other, that it is a curse of God, when he speaks to a people in a language which they understand not.

XIV. Others try another way to escape. They say, that St. Paul speaks not of the ordinary service which was said in the Church, but of certain hymns and spiritual songs. By speaking thus they will persuade us that such hymns were to be pronounced in a tongue understood of all, but that the rest of the service was spoken in a language not understood by the Corinthians; which they know to be most false; for it is a thing known that in Greece the public Service was always done in Greek, and so is done to this day. If those hymns and spiritual songs were to be pronounced in a known tongue, much more the ordinary prayers, and the reading of God's word, from which the people receiveth more edification.

XV. But it is easy for us to prove that the Apostle in this Text speaks of other things then hymns and spiritual songs: for when he saith that strange tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to Infidels, and puts this among the threatenings and curses of God, when God threatens to speak to a people in a strange language that he may not be understood, it is clear, that he speaks not of hymns and songs in which men speak to God, but of the word of God directed unto men.

XVI. And when the Apostle saith, that he had rather speak five intelligible words in the Church to instruct others, then ten thousand in an unknown language, it is evident that he speaks of all that is pronounced in the Church.

XVII. And these words, If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaks a Barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me, are as true, no doubt in respect of him that reads Scripture in public, as of him that pronounceth hymns; for all those are held barbarians whose language is not understood: Which is that which Ovid saith of himself, exiled among the Getes:

XVIII. Also when the Priest pronounceth prayers in the Mass, where the people understands nere a word, may we not, and indeed ought we not to apply unto him the sentence of the Apostle, How shall the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Chrysostom expounding this Text, understands it as we do; for he personates the Apostle speaking thus, Unless I say that which may be intelligible to you, and that may be evident, but show you only that I have the gift of tongues, you shall go away without any benefit from that you have heard of unknown tongues. For what benefit do you get by a voice which you understand not?

Ambrose in his Comment upon this place understands it so. If (saith he) you assemble yourselves to edify the Church, such things must be said as the hearers may understand. For what good doth it when a man speaketh a tongue which he alone understands, that they that hear may get no good by it? And a little after, The Apostle saith, I choose rather to speak five words in the Church according to the Law, that I may edify others also, then to make a long speech with obscurity.

Jerome in his Comment upon the same place Every discourse which is not understood, is judged barbarous. And in the same place, If any speak to others in unknown tongues, his mind is made unfruitful, not to himself, but to the hearer; for he understands nothing of that which is said.

Basil in his Asketicks is very express upon that, in the 278. answer of his brief definitions; He asketh, How is it that the Spirit of a man prayeth, but his understanding is without fruit? Then he answereth, This was said (by the Apostle) concerning those that make their prayers in a tongue unknown unto them that hear: For, he saith, If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is fruitless: for when the words of the prayer are unknown to the assistants, the mind of him that prayeth is unfruitful, doing no good. But when the assistants understand the prayer, which may profit them that hear it, then he that prayeth hath this fruit, the bettering of those that have got profit thereby. The same is in all declarations of the word of God: for it is written, if there be some good words for the edification of faith. This holy man understands this Text, not only of the hymns and songs, but of any prayer, and of any reading or pronouncing of the word of God.

Upon that, we have a Law of the Emperor Justinian, in the 123. Novel, in the Greek Editions, in these words, We command that all Bishops and Priests celebrate the holy oblation, and the Prayers added to the holy Baptism, not with a low, but with a clear voice, which may be understood by the faithful People, that thereby the minds of the hearers be raised with a greater devotion to set forth the praises of the Lord God. For thus the Apostle teacheth in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. This Imperial Law is found in the Greek exemplaries of Haloander, and is alleged at large by Cassander a Divine of Collen, and is acknowledged by Cardinal Bellarmine in the 2. Book of the Mass 12. chap. Wherefore the fraud and perversity of those that have rased it out of the Latin versions of the Novels of Justinian, is to be detested.

To this Law Bellarmine answereth, that it belongs not to an Emperor to give Laws concerning sacred things. But if that Novel is not received for a Law, at least it is a witness of the custom of the Church in the Roman Empire, until the time of that Emperor, who died about the year of Christ, 565.

Bellarmine saith also, that this commandment was made only to the Greek Churches: but Bellarmine could not be ignorant that the City of Rome, and the Bishop of the same were at that time under the subjection of the Emperor Justinian: which appeareth in the same Novel, in which the Bishop of Rome is taxed by the Emperor in four thousand crowns for the entry of his charge, and the other Patriarchs in three thousand; for in those days the Bishops of the principal Sees paid the Annuat unto the Emperor: And the same Emperor created two Bishops of Rome, Sylverius and Vigilius.

Truly this text of St. Paul of 1 Cor. 14. whereby he condemneth the use of strange languages in the Church, doth so vex our adversaries, that some of the most conscionable among them freely condemn their cause in this point.

Nicholas de Lyra in his Notes upon this chapter speaks thus, Here consequently the Apostle showeth the same of public prayer, because if the people understand the prayer or blessing of the Priest, he is the better brought unto God, and answereth Amen more devoutly. Again, If the Priest blesseth in Spirit, that is, not being understood by the people, what good doth that to the simple people that understand not?

Anselmus whom the Pope hath Sainted, in his Exposition upon this chapter, That which thou sayest is good; but another is not edified by thy words which he understands not. Wherefore since you meet in the Church for edification, things must be said in the Church which may be understood by men, and that bring edification to the hearers.

Thomas, the Prince of Schoolmen, in his Comment upon this first Chapter of the Apostle, in the fourth Lesson is brought to such a perplexity about this Text, that in the end he is brought to say, that this command of the Apostle was good for the Primitive Church, but that now it is practiced no more, because the faithful are better instructed: Why (saith he) are not the blessings given in the vulgar tongue, that the people may understand them, and conform themselves better unto them? His answer is, that perhaps it was done so in the Primitive Church; but after that the faithful have been instructed, and know the things which they hear in the ordinary Service, the blessings are done in Latin. In the fifth Lesson he saith, that in the Antient Church it would have been a folly to pray in a Language not understood, because then men were rude, but that now all are instructed. Wherein he is very wide of the truth; for never was the people more ignorant then it was in the Age of Thomas, and the two following Ages. Even in our Age, in which Scripture is brought to the sight of the world, and human Letters are flourishing, scarce of a hundred men in the Roman Church ten are to be found that know what is contained in the Mass, or that do so much as to inquire about it. Harding in the 3. Article of his Dispute against Jewel in the 30. Section, hath followed the impiety of Thomas, speaking thus, As for that it seemeth that St. Paul condemneth the custom of praying in [unknown] Language in the Church, as being void of fruit and edification, and referreth five words or sentences understood, whereby the peo • le be instructed, unto ten thousand pronounced in an unknown and strange Language; all these things must be referred to the condition of those times which is far different from the condition of the Church in our days. Mark the impiety and audaciousness of the man which cuts down the authority of God's word at the root. For if it be permitted unto men to say, This Law was in the beginning, and so they taught in the Apostles time, but now it is altered, and the Church being better instructed doth otherwise; What remaineth but to alter wholly the word of God, and to give unto the Pope the authority of abrogating Divine Laws, and pulling God from his throne to raise the Pope above God.

Cardinal Cajetan was ashamed of that; for in his Comment upon the 14. chap. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians he speaketh, as wishing that Latin were banished out of the public service, and that the Service were made in the vulgar tongue. By this doctrine of St. Paul (saith he) it is gathered, that it is better for the edification of the Church to have the public prayers (which are said in the hearing of the people) said in the common tongue, both to the Clergy and the peo le, then said in Latin. This is indeed a notable confession, from a Cardinal so eminent, and of such authority in the Roman Church.

CHAP. VI. The same is proved by the example of the Church of the Old Testament.

BY all that we said of this question it is evident, that we have the word of God, reason, and the confession of our Adversaries on our side. To which we must add the example of the ancient Church, both of the Old and the New Testament, which must be our rule.

I. To take the matter from the beginning, God gave his Law in an intelligible tongu • , and the form of prayers and blessings which God prescribed unto Aaron to use in public, were in the vulgar tongue of God's people. Such prayers and blessings we read, Numb. 6.23. and in the following verses, and in the 10. ch. ver. 35. and 36. And the form of thanksgiving in the offering of the first fruits, Deut. 26.3. And the form of prayer after the paying of the tithes in the third year, Deut. 26.13. In a word, all the public prayers which were done by the Priests, or by the people, were done in a tongue understood by the people. And David gave Psalms unto the people, which were sung in the Temple with instruments of Music in Hebrew, the vulgar tongue of Israel.

II. Under the captivity of Babylon, the Hebrew tongue degenerated from its purity. Yet that alteration was not so great, but that Hebrew in which Moses and the Prophets have written was understood by the Jews. Not only because the people exercised themselves in the reading and hearing of these books both in private houses, and in the Synagogues every Sabbath; but also because the corruption was not so great, but that the common people understood Hebrew easily, because of the proximity between Hebrew and the vulgar Jewish tongue. Wherefore also in the New Testament, the Jewish tongue is often called the Hebrew tongue, as Matth. 27.33. where Golgotha, which is a word of the Jewish tongue, is said to be an Hebrew word: whereas the right Hebrews said Golgoleth that is, the skull: And Joh. 19.19. It is said that Gahbatha, in Hebrew, signifieth Pavement, although Gabbatha be a Syrian word. That the Jews after their return from the captivity of Babylon understood Hebrew, and the text of the books of the Law, it appears by the 8. chapter of Nehemiah, in the 2. verse, where it is said, that Ezra the Priest brought the Law before the congregation of men and women, and of those that were capable to hear. And it is added that Ezra read in the book before the men and the women, and those that could understand, and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the Law. The vulgate version agreeth to this, Et legit in libro aperte, in platea, &c. & aures omnis populi erant arrectae ad librum. And a little after, Et legerunt in libro legis distinct & aperte ad intelligendum, & intellexerunt cum legeretur, that is, They read in the book of God's law distinctly and openly to understand it, and they understood the reading. That is not done in the Roman Church, in which the Deacon reads the Gospel, and the Sub-Deacon the Epistle, in Latin, before women, peasants, and tradesmen, who understand nothing in it, and by consequence cannot be attentive unto it.

The exposition which the Levites added unto that reading, of which the following Texts speak, was not to expound the terms of the Law in another tongue, but to expound the sense, as Nicolas de Lyra acknowledgeth upon Nehem. 8. Ezra read in the Book, openly, that is intelligibly, declaring the things which seemed obscure.

III. Josephus in the 12. and 16. Ch. of the Book of the Empire of reason, describeth the martyrdom of the seven brethren, and of their mother by the cruelty of King Antiochus Epiphanes, and saith that the mother exhorteth her children, the youngest especially, to die constantly for God's Law, and that she spake to them in Hebrew, that she might not be understood by Antiochus who was a Grecian. And since she spake so to the youngest, it appeareth, that then among the Jews, women and children spake Hebrew.

IV. Luke 4.16, &c. the Lord Jesus being in the Synagogue of Nazareth, takes the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, and reads before the People a long Text of that Prophet; Then he adds, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears; which words show, that the assistants had well understood the words of that Text. Is it credible, that in the Synagogues of the Jews they read Scripture in a language not understood, seeing that in the Scriptures God speaks to the people that he may be understood?

V. Acts 22.2. The Apostle Paul makes a speech to the Jews in Hebrew, And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kep, the more silence, Which they had not done if they had not understood it. And the Apostle would not have spoken to the common people in a language which they understood not. As also the rest of the Chap. the 12 verse especially, showeth that the Jews understood it very well.

CHAP. VII. That the Antient Christian Church over all the world used an intelligible tongue in the public Service.

HEre we have all the ancient Church on our side. It is a thing out of question and testified by the Ancients, that every Country and Nation, even the most barbarous, had the Holy Scripture translated in the Vulgar tongue, that the people might get instruction by the reading of the same: Chrysostom 1. Hom. upon John speaks thus. The Syrians, the Egyptians, the Indians, the Persians, the Ethiopians, and other infinite Nations, having translated in their tongues the doctrines propounded by this [John], being barbarous, have learned to discourse like Philosophers.

Theodoret in the fifth Sermon of the way of correcting the indispositions of the Grecians, Hebrew was not only translated into Greek, but also in the tongue of the Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Indians, Amenians, Scythians, and even of Polonians; and in a word, into all languages which Nations use in our days.

Jerome hath translated the Bible into the Dalmatick tongue, as himself testifieth in the Epistle to Sophronius.

Austin in the Book of Christian Doctrine, ch. 5. Whence it came to pass that the holy Scripture which is the cure of so many sicknesses of men's will, having begun to be set forth in a tongue which might opportunely be dispersed over all the World, was spread far and wide, and made known to the Nations unto salvation, by the means of the several languages of Interpreters.

Ulfilas a Goth Bishop, translated the holy Scripture into the Gothic tongue, as Sozomenus witnesseth in the 6 Book of his History, ch. 37.

It appeareth, that the holy Scriptures were very common among the common people, since Jerome in his Epistle to Laeta, exhorts her to exercise her daughter Paula to read the holy Scriptures; And commendeth Fabiola for her assiduity in the lecture of sacred Books, especially the Prophets, the Evangelists, and the Psalms. Thus Chrysostom in the 3. Hom. upon Lazarus, and 2. Hom. upon Matthew, and in the third Homily upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, and in many other places exhorteth the Tradesmen, the women, and the unlearned to read often and carefully the holy Scriptures.

The Epistle to the Virgin Demetrias which is the 141. among Austin's Epistles, ch. 23. So read the holy Scriptures, that thou remember always that they are the Word of God.

Athanasius in the second Tome, pag. 249. saith that Heretics dissuade the People from the Scriptures, saying that they are not accessible; But in effect, that they may avoid to be convinced by them.

All that presupposeth that Scripture in the vulgar tongue was in the hands of the people; for otherwise the exhortation to read it would have been vain and unsincere. Scripture was then read in the Church in a language understood by the people, as it appeareth by those frequent words in the Homilies of Greek and Latin Fathers, As it was read to you this day. It would have been a great absurdity to call upon the people to remember the reading of words which they understood not.

Sulpitius Severus relateth, that one called Defensor, opposed the reception of Martin into the Office of Bishop, saying that he was a nasty base fellow; But that one day in the Deacons absence some of the people taking the Psalter began to read in the Church the 8. Psalm, where it is said, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. What we translate the avenger, the Latin version then read in the Church calls the Defensor. At the reading of that word Defensor, the whole people did shout aloud against Defensor, Martins adversary, as if that place of Scripture had been intended and read against him by God's providence.

Our Adversaries themselves acknowledge, that in the Church of the Apostles, and many Ages after, the Service and the Prayers were made in a language understood by the people. Lyranus upon 1 Cor. 14. In primitiva Ecclesia benedictiones & caetera omnia fiebant in vulgari. In the Primitive Church the blessings and all other things were done in the vulgar tongue. We heard before how Aquinas and Harding acknowledge, that in the ancient Church they prayed in a language that was understood; but (say they) that use was good for that time, and that custom was altered since because men are better instructed.

Lactantius in the third Book of Divine Institutions, ch. 20. laughs at the Pagans hiding their mysteries unto the people, for fear of being laughed at if their fopperies were known. Hence it is, saith he, that crafty men have instituted a sacred silence to be kept in the sacred Service, that the People may not know what they worship.

When we pray (saith Austin) there is no need of words, that is, of sounding words, unless it be perhaps as Priests do, to express their mind, not that God, but that men may hear them.

In the Council of Lateran held under Innocent the III. in the year 1215. in the ninth ch. this constitution is found Because in most places in the same City or Diocese Nations of divers languages are mingled, having under the same Faith diverse ceremonies and customs; we strictly command that the Bishops of such Cities or Dioceses provide fit men to celebrate unto them Divine Service, according to the diversity of ceremonies and tongues, and administer the Sacraments of the Church, instructing them by word and example. Here is a Council which our Adversaries put among the Universal, authorzed by the presence and approbation of such a famous Pope, which not only permitteth but also commandeth, that divine Service be celebrated in another language than Latin among Nations of divers languages. And note that he speaks of Nations divers in Langague, but agreeing in the Faith. That one may not think that he speaketh only of the Grecians and Latins, which then were already of different belief and separated in communion. And that not only in some few places, but in plerisque partibus, in most places.

Isidorus in the first Book of Ecclesiastical Offices, chap. 10. Readi • g is not of small edification to hearers; Wherefore when one saith the Psalter, all must say the Psalter; when prayer is said, all must pray; when the Lesson is read, all must hearken with silence.

Yet to this day in the Roman Church the Order of Reader is conferred by the Bishop pronouncing these words, Study to pronounce the Words of God, that is, the sacred Lessons distinctly and openly to the intelligence and edification of the faithful, without any untruth of falseshood. And a little after, so that you may teach your hearers both by word and example. This is found in the Pontifical reformed by Pope Clement the VIII. in the Chapter of the Ordination of Rtaders. That Form of Ordination is more ancient than the abuse which came since; and I wonder why that Pope having corrected many things in the Pontifical, did not cause that Clause to be put out, which driveth the Readers of the Roman Church into a perjury; for they are obliged in their ordination so to read, that the faithful may understand their reading, and that they may edify their Readers. For by making them read Scripture in Latin, they take away from them the means of fulfilling the promise which they made unto God.

Wherefore John Belet, as Cassander relateth in his Sum of Divine Offices, after he hath praised the custom of the ancient Church, in which it was not permitted to say anything in the Church in unknown language without giving the interpretation, addeth, What must be done then in our time, when none is found, or very seldom, that either readeth or heareth that which he understands, or that seeth or doth that which he perceiveth? Now the Prophets saying seems to be fulfilled, The Priest shall be as one of the people. It seems then that it is better to be silent then to sing, and rather hold ones peace then to dance. So he derided the singing and the gesticulations of the Priest.

All the Churches of the World that are not subject unto the Pope, and some also that are subject unto him, are for us in this point. For in Greece the Service is said in Greek; and for a thousand years after Christ and more, the tongue of the Liturgy was the vulgar tongue. Now that by the domination of the Turk and the putting down of Schools the language is altered, yet the vulgar Greek is not so corrupted but that the Greek of the Liturgy is intelligible unto the people. And though it were otherwise, yet the example of antiquity, for the space of a thousand years and more, is more considerable then the corruption happened of late.

Cassiodorus who writ about the year 520, or 530. hath an excellent passage upon this Subject upon the 44. Ps. Let us carefully search why the Church of God is praised for her raiment of divers colors, whereas all simplicity and unity is convenient to her. But this signifieth the variety or multiplicity of tongues, because all Nations say the Psalter in the Church according to the language of their Country, to show to the author of virtues a most beautiful diversity.

Harding acknowledgeth, that the Muscovites, Armenians and Ethiopians, had always their public Prayers in their vulgar tongues; And that to the Russians and Moravians and other Nations, it was permitted six hundred years ago to have the Service in the Dalmatick tongue.

The Abyssine or Ethiopian Churches have their Service in the Ethiopic tongue, as Francis Alvarez a Portughes Monk testifieth, who lived seven years in the Court of the great Neguz of Ethiopia; Then he consecrateth in his tongue with our very words, and makes no elevation. He doth the same of the chalice, and doth not elevate it; And saith upon it our very words in his tongue. Cassander in his Liturgica translated these words of Alvarez into Latin.

The same Cassander in the fifteenth ch. of the same Book alledgeth the Commentaries of Sigismundus Liber de rebus Muscoviticis, speaking thus The Muscovites have but one Altar in every Temple, and think that one celebration of the Sacrament must be done every day, and the whole Service or Mass useth to be done among them in the vulgar tongue.

Shortly, no Church and no Nation hath Divine Service in Latin, but such as are subject unto the Pope. Yea some Churches that acknowledge him, yet would not in this point conform themselves unto the example of the Roman Church.

Bellarmine in his recognitions of the Books de verbo Dei confesseth, that among the Muscovites, Armenians and Maronites, there are Roman Catholcks that have not the public service in Latin.

The custom of the Antient Church both in the East and West, was, that the Priest and the People answered one another, the Priest saying Lift up your hearts, and the people answering We have them unto the Lord. The Priest saying The Lord be with you, and the people answering And with thy spirit, and everywhere answering to the Prayers of the Priest with a great noise like a thunder, as it may be seen in the Liturgies attributed to Basil and to Chrysostom. Jerome in his Preface upon the second book on the Epistle to the Galatians saith, that at Rome the Amen of the People did sound like a thunder from heaven. Which Bellarmine acknowledgeth in the sixteenth chapter of the second book of the Word of God, Then (saith he) because Christians were in small number, all sung together in the Church, and answered one another in divine Offices. But since that time the people growing, the Offices were more divided, and it was refered unto the Clerks only to celebrate in the Church the Common Prayers and Praises. This he saith with his wonted truth; For he knew that the most populous Churches that ever were in the World, were the Churches of Constantinople and Rome in the fourth and fifth Ages, in which these answers of the people were used as well as in the small Churches, and where the whole service was done in the vulgar tongue. Neither was that dividing the Office or service when the Romanists brought the people to silence, and suffered none to speak but the Clerks.

I say then, that these answers of the people are an evident proof, that the people understood what the Pastor said; for how could they have answered words which they understood not? But this custom ceased in the Roman Church, when the people lost the intelligence of the divine Service. The Priest being become a Barbarian unto the people, the people also is become dumb and deaf unto the words of the Priest.

Hereupon it is good to consider the words of the Jesuit Salmeron, in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 14. Lest that the Priest giving the blessing say, I understand well what I say when I give thanks in a strange tongue, the Apostle answereth, but another is not edified thereby, that is, no edification thereby accreweth unto the Church, which ought to have been considered before all things. For then all things used to be done for the edification of the Church, as the Apostle teacheth; so that he will not have any Prayer to be done in the Church in a language altogether unknown. If such was the Apostles constitution, as this Jesuit acknowledgeth, who hath given power to the Pope to break it, and to prohibit the saying of divine service in vulgar tongues? as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, that it is forbidden to read or sing the Scriptures in the Church in a vulgar language. But if in the time of the Apostles all public Prayers were to be said in a known tongue, because (saith Salmeron ) all things were to be done for the edification and consolation of the Church, have we not the same necessity in our days? and should the Pastors of the Church be less careful of the edification of the Church?

Wherefore when the Council of Trent in the ninth Canon of the 22. Session doth thunder out Anathema's upon all that say, that the Eucharist which they term Mass, ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, do they not involve the Apostle St. Paul, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, and the whole Ancient Church within that excommunication?

Sixtus Senensis in the sixth book of his Library, in the 263. Annotation, to confute Cardinal Cajetan, who saith, that public Prayer ought rather to be said in a known language then in Latin, alledgeth Ambrosius de Compsa who saith, that this tradition was invented by Luther, or rather by the Devil, who spoke in Luther. And yet Luther taught no other thing in this point, but what the Apostle himself taught, by the confession of our very Adversaries, as we proved before.

But Polydorus Virgilius a Learned man among our Aversaries, complaineth of the abuse practiced in the Roman Church, saying, Our singing men make a noise in our Temples, so that nothing is heard but the voice, and the by-standers being contented with the harmony of such voices wherewith their ears are warmed, care not for the sense of the words; and so far we are gone, that among the people the whole Divine Service seems to consist in those singing-men; and that most people come to the Church to hear them as if they came to a stage for plays.

Yea Sixtus Senensis, in the forealledged place, after Ambrosius de Compsa, acknowledgeth, that very often in the Roman Church the Priests themselves understand not what they say. Not only (saith he) they that supply the place of the ignorant, understand not for the most part that which is said in the Prayer, but even the Priests themselves, or the Deacons that pray or read, very often understand it not, which is an abuse, &c. Cardinal du Perron could not dissemble this, saying, that if there be Churchmen that want learning or understanding, the fault lieth upon them that ordain them. For he know well enough that the Country is full of Priests that can hardly read, and are far from understanding Latin.

Estius a Doctor of Dovay in his Comment upon the fourteenth chap. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, defends with all his strength the use of an unknown tongue in the public service. Yet this Confession comes from him. In itself it is a good thing that Divine Offices be celebrated in a language understood by the people; for this serveth of itself unto the edification of the people, as it is well proved by thr Text of St. Paul. Wherefore Cajetans opinion being formally and abstractly considered, is true.

CHAP. VIII. Two causes that move the Pope and his Clergy to maintain the celebration of the Mass and of the ordinary Service in the Latin Tongue.

POpery is a bulk of doctrines and ceremonies built up with marvelous art: All the deepest craft of human prudence was set on work to contrive and maintain it. No wonder then that the Apostle calls the structure of the Kingdom of the son of perdition, the mystery of iniquity.

In the point we have in hand, the Pope and his Clergy proposed to themselves two ends. The first is, to keep the people in ignorance, and use them to believe without knowing, to follow their leaders with blindfolded eyes, and to obey without inquiring. This is evident, in that the leaders of the Church were afraid that even the Latin should be too intelligible, and therefore they would have the principal parts of the Mass to be said with such a low murmur, that the voice of the Priest cannot be heard. To the same end tends the prohibition of reading Scripture, and the Images, and the implicit Faith, and that Maxim that the Pope cannot err in the Faith. For in effect his Empire is grounded upon the blindness of the people, and the ignorance of the people is his strongest prop.

The second end of the Pope in establishing the Latin tongue in the public Service, was, to plant the marks and standart of his Empire among the Nations which he had conquered. The custom of great Monarchs is to give their tongue to the Nations brought under their power, to tame them and inure them to their dominations. So did the Romans in Gauls and in Spain. And the King of Spain obligeth the Indians to speak Spanish; and those Indians being become Spaniards in language, become also Spaniards in affection. The Pope doth the same, giving to the Kingdoms which he hath subdued his tongue with his religion. The simple people believe that their Religion must be Roman as well as the tongue which is used in Religion, and that both Christian Faith and the Language come from the same place.

CHAP. IX. A third cause why they will not have the Mass to be understood by the people. Some clauses of the Mass which would offend the people if they were unstood.

BUt the chief cause why the Pope will not have the Mass to be understood by all, is that the Mass contains many things which would either instruct or offend the people, if the people understood them.

For the Mass is full of Clauses, some of which are contrary to Popery, and are conformable with our Religion; Some evidently contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, and some contrary to common sense.

I. For example, the People might be taught not to believe Merits, if they understood the words of the Mass which condemn them, when the Priest prayeth that God receive us into the company of the Saints, non aestimator meriti, sed gratiae largitor, not weighing our merits, but granting us pardon.

II. Also the people being instructed to pray for the Souls of the dead that are frying in Purgatory, would be amazed to hear the Priest praying for the dead in these words, Lord remember thy servants and handmaids that went before us in the sign of Faith, and are sleeping in the sleep of Peace. He that hath given money to a Priest to recommend one of his friends in the Memento of the Mass, would say, I had given money for a soul which I thought to be tormented in a burning fire; but now I learn that my friends soul is laid down in a peaceable sleep. I will take heed another time of giving my money for a soul that is sleeping quietly.

III. Likewise the people being taught to believe, that after the consecrating words, the bread is transubstantiated into the Lord's body, and that the thing which the Priest holds is no more bread, but the natural body of Christ, would be amazed to hear the Priest saying these words over the consecrated Host, Per quem [Christum] haec omnia Domine semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis & praestas nobis. By which [Jesus Christ] O Lord, thou createst always all these goods, and sanctifiest them, and blessest them, and affordest them unto us. For they should find it very strange, that the Priest calls the body of Christ, all these goods. And that the Priest saith, that God createth always Jesus Christ, seeing that God createth only those things that were not before they were created, and that God createth no more the glorious body of his Son Jesus Christ. And that it is a great abuse to say that God creates always a thing that is always in its perfection. They would wonder that God quickeneth Christ always, as if God at every moment did raise him from the dead. Scruples would arise in the minds of the people, hearing the Priest saying these words unto God, Per Christum haec omnia bona creas & praestas nobis, Thou createst and affordest these goods to us by Christ. For he that hath some liberty of Judgment, would reason thus in himself, It must needs be acknowledged that these goods which the Priest hath before him, are not Christ himself, since God giveth them unto us by Christ. Neither doth God create and quicken Christ by Christ. Upon that any person of good sense would say, No doubt but that this prayer was said by the ancient Church in another sense; for every word is fit and proper to be said over a quantity of bread and wine set upon the Table, but not over the body of Christ.

IV. Neither would the people be less amazed, seeing the Priest offering unto God the consecrated Host in these words Upon which things be pleased to look with a propitious and serene face; For a man that hath his wits about him, would say, How comes this to pass, that Christ's body, which is but one, is called, these things, as if Christ had many bodies? And what an abuse is this, that the Priest prayeth, that God will look upon his Son Jesus Christ with a propitious and serene face; as if he was afraid that Christ should not be acceptable unto his Father? or as if Christ had need of our recommendation to God to be accepted of him. For note that the Priest by these things, understands the Host which he hath in his hand, not the faith or the devotion, or the prayer of the people; as it appears by the words next before, where he saith, that he offereth unto God an immaculate Host, a holy bread, a cup of perpetual salvation; Then he addeth, Upon which things, &c.

V. The people would not take less offense at the following words Upon which be pleased to look with a propitious and serene face, as thou wert pleased to accept the presents of thy righteous son Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriach Abraham. For they would inquire what those presents were which Abel offered unto God; and finding that it was a Lamb or a Calf, they would be angry at the heart to hear that comparison whereby Christ is compared unto a beast; and whereby the Priest asketh of God, that the body of Christ be as acceptable unto him as a Bullock or a Lamb offered by Abel; for we have already shown that by these things he understands the consecrated Host and Cup, which he compareth with the presents of Abel, not our faith and devotion with that of Abel.

VI. The like matter of scandal should be found in the following words, in which the Priest addeth, We humbly beseech thee Almighty God, command these things to be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel, to thy high altar, in the presence of thy Divine Majesty. This indeed is sufficient to offend a mind that hath some clearness of judgment. What? (may he say) Do we ask of God that the Angel come and take the Host from the Priests hands? Must the eternal Son of God be presented to his Father by an Angel? Doth he stand in need of the mediation of Angels to be acceptable unto his Father? Or if the Priest pray that the Angel come, and take the Host from his hands, why doth he eat it presently after these Words? Why doth he not stay for the Angels coming? He seemeth to be afraid to have his prayer granted. Besides when he calls Christ these things, he speaks manifestly against his knowledge and intention; for Christ is not these things, but one person.

And here one may have here again the same thought as before; That these prayers are good, being said over Alms, and over a quantity of bread and wine not transubstantiated, laid upon the table according to the custom of the ancient Church; but are absurd being spoken of Christ. Doubtless thes • prayers, more ancient then the doctrine of Transubstantiation, have lost their first signification by the change of the doctrine.

VII. The following words give the like subject of offense, when the Priest addeth, Ut quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sumserimus, That as many of us as shall take by the participation of thine altar the sacred body of thy Son. For to what purpose is that language when nobody participates? Seeing that in most Masses the Priest eats alone, and in all Masses drinks alone? and that in private Masses nobody is present? and yet the Priest speaks as if many had received.

VIII. Also the words, whereby they hold that the consecration is made, might give offense; for they are said only recitative, that is, in a form of relation, as when an History is related. As Gabriel Biel observeth in the 48. Lesson upon the Canon of the Mass, saying, that the Priest pronounceth these things, non enuntiative sed recitative, not by form of enuntiation, but of relation. Whereas the Roman Church will have these words to be said effectively, as if God by them declared that he will have this bread to become flesh. When God said, Let the light be, and let the earth bring forth herbs, &c. these words were effective and operative, and brought forth light and plants; But he that relates that God said, Let the light be, doth not bring forth light. Yet the Priests words are but a bare relation of that Christ said: The Priests words are these Who (that is Christ) the day before he suffered, took the bread in his holy and venerable hands, and lifting up his eyes unto thee, his Father Almighty, giving thee thanks, blessed, brake, and gave to his Disciples, saying, Take, and eat of it you all; For this is my body. All that is but a bare relation which cannot have any effective virtue: Which is confirmed by these words, Accipite, manducate: whereby it is evident that the Apostle expresseth not what he doth, or will do, but only what Christ hath done; for ordinarily when the Priest pronounceth these words, there is nobody that takes or eats after the Priest, and private Masses are without Communicants.

IX. Perhaps also someone of the people more curious then his fellows, having made bold to look into the holy Scripture, might observe, that the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 11.24. affirmeth that Christ said, This is my body which is broken for you, and upon that by a curiosity, which is now held the way to heresy, would inquire why the Priest leaveth out these words, which is broken for you; For they are words that decide the difference, It being evident that as the Lord's Body in the Eucharist is not really broken, but Sacramentally; also the Lord's body is not really but Sacramentally in the Priests hands. No reason can be given why these words, which is broken for you, should be a Sacramental and figurate expression, and the words, This is my body, should be taken otherwise; for it is certain, that the bread of the Sacrament is in the same manner the body of Christ, as the body of Christ is broken in that Sacrament. Now the body of Christ is not really broken in it; then the body of Christ is not really in the same. But Satan did labor to stop that window, by which such a clear light comes unto us, having taken away that word out of the Bibles of the Roman Church, where instead of frangitur there is tradetur: instead of is broken, they have put, shall be delivered.

X. From the bread the Priest comes to the cup, and relates the words of the Lord, saying that Christ having taken the Cup, said, Accipite, Bibite ex eo omnes, Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni Testamenti, mysterium fidei; that is, Take, drink all of it; for this is the cup of my blood of the New and eternal Testament, a mystery of faith. Here also there are many subjects of offense: For since the Priest witnesseth, that Christ said, Drink ye all of it: why is it the privilege of Priests and Kings only to drink the Cup? If to Kings and Priests only that word drink is directed, the same must be said of the word eat; for these words are directed unto the same persons. By that reason none but Priests and Kings must eat in the Sacrament. Besides, the Apostles being in Christ's Company, did not in that action keep the rank of Pastors, but of sheep and disciples. Wherefore the Apostle will have the people of Corinth to examine themselves, and so eat of this bread, and drink of this cup.

XI. In this especially these words give matter of offense, that the words of the Mass are found neither in Saint Paul, nor in any of the Evangelists. St. Paul relateth that the Lord said, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, do this in remembrance of me: Excellent words; For these words, This is my body, and these, This cup is the New Testament, must be understood in the same manner. Now neither a Cup, nor that which is within it is really a Testament, but Sacramentally, and in signification; no more then is the bread (which they call the Host) really the body of Christ, but Sacramentally, and in signification. Wherefore that this might not be perceived, the words of the Lord were changed in the Text of the Mass: For instead of these words, This cup is the New Testament, the Priest saith, This is the cup of my blood of the New and eternal Testament.

XII. To the same end, instead of these words, Do this in remembrance of me, the Priest saith, a mystery of faith, which is a strange depravation, done purposely because the word remembrance expounds these words, This is my body, namely that the bread is called the Lord's body, because it is the remembrance of it, according as Scripture nameth signs and commemorations, with the name of things signified.

XIII. Here is another subject of scruple and scandal which the people should receive, if the Mass were said in a known tongue: For long before the words, which they call consecrating words, there are prayers in the Mass, in which the bread not consecrated is called the sacrifice, and the immaculate Host offered unto God for the sins of the living and the dead in these words, Receive this immaculate host, which I thine unworthy servant offer unto thee my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, and offenses, and negligences, and for all that stand about me, but also for all the faithful Christians, both living and dead: The like things he saith over the Cup, not consecrated. All that is full of difficulties; for the bread not consecrated, is not the same Host as that which is consecrated, which they say to be the true body of Christ. By this means two Hosts of divers nature, and two sorts of sacrifice are in the Mass; and that which is most strange, and of hardest digestion, is; that the Priest offereth bread not consecrated unto God in Sacrifice for satisfaction for his sins, which is giving a piece of bread for payment for our sins, and for the price of our redemption.

Bellarmine in the second Book of the Mass, 17. chap. seemeth to be angry with these Collects; for he saith, that they are not very ancient, and that before five hundred years, they were not said in the Roman Church. Now there are five Collects or Prayers together of the same nature in that part of the Mass which they call the Offertory, which this famous Cardinal made bold to accuse of novelty, and observeth that Innocent the third, who writ of the Mass in the year 1214. makes no mention of them.

That by these prayers the Priest maketh an oblation, and offereth a sacrifice of bread not consecrated, Bellarmine doth acknowledgk it in the 1. Book of the Mass, 27. chap. saying, We must not deny that bread and wine are in some sort offered in the Mass. This appeareth first by the Liturgy itself. For when we say before the Consecration Suscipe Sancte Pater hanc immaculatam hostiam, Receive O Father, this immaculate Host, this word Hanc sensibly demonstrateth that which we hold in our hands: Now it is bread that we hold. In the Liturgy (so he calls the Mass) there are many sentences which show manifestly that bread is offered. Here is then in the Mass an Host offered in Sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, which is not the body of Christ, but bread not consecrated.

But as for that Bellarmine saith, that these prayers are new, and brought in since five hundred years, he saith true in some sort. It is true that it is a very late custom to sacrifice bread not consecrated unto God for the sins of men; but to call the bread and wine of the holy Communion which the people brought, and which the Pastor offered unto God, Sacrifices and holy oblations, is a very ancient custom, and a prayer conformable unto the word of God, which calls Alms and Prayers, and all holy actions, sacrifices.

The Fathers of the first Ages speak so. Thus Irenaeus in the fourth book, 32. ch. saying, that the Church offereth unto God a sacrifice of his creatures, that is, bread and wine. And in the Sermon of Alms, rebuking rich women that brought no bread to the Church for the consecration, he saith to them, Thou rich and wealthy woman that comest to the Lord's Supper without a Sacrifice, that takest part of the sacrifice which the poor hath offered. Where it is evident that by the Sacrifice he understands the Sacrifices of not consecrated bread and wine, brought by the people; As the same Cardinal freely acknowledgeth in the same place.

But that which is most express in this matter, is, that the Priest upon Christmas day addeth, O Lord, sanctify by the new birth of thine only Son the gifts which we have offered unto thee. He speaketh of an oblation ready made, and yet this is said before the consecration.

The title of the 24. Canon of the third Council of Carthage is such That in the sacrifice nothing be offered but the bread and the cup. And there is in the Text of the Canon; In the Sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, let nothing be offered but what the Lord himself hath instituted, that is, bread and wine mixed with water. And that nothing more be offered in the Sacrifices, but that which comes out of grapes and corn.

XV. That which followeth, would make as deep an impression in the minds of the people, as anything that we spake of before, and would lay open the errors of the Mass, were it pronounced with a loud voice, and in the vulgar tongue. The Priest beginning the Mass, saith his Confiteor, which runs thus, I confess unto God Almighty, to the blessed Mary, always Virgin, to the blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you brethren, that I have sinned too much in thought, word and deed: My fault, my fault, my most great fault. Wherefore I beseech thee Blessed Mary, always Virgin, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and you brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God. In this Confession, the Priest confesseth his sins to the dead, contrary to all the examples of prayers and confessions that are found in Scripture, which are all made unto God alone. For God alone we have offended. Tibi soli peccavi, Psal. 51.6. Against thee, thee only have I only sinned. Wherefore God alone can forgive us our sins; And he alone heareth the prayers of the heart, because he alone knoweth the hearts of men, 2 Chron. 6.30. Observe that by the 23. Canon of the III. Council of Carthage it is expressly forbidden to address any prayer in the Eucharist to another then the person of the Father, permitting not so much as to pray to the Person of the Son. Much less then would those Fathers have suffered that in the Eucharist Prayers should have been offered unto Saints and Angels.

XVI. But that which is worst in that Confession, is, that the Priest calleth upon the Archangel Michael, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul, &c. to be his intercessors towards God, without speaking one word of Christ's intercession, who yet ascended into heaven purposely to make intercession for us; the Apostle teacheth us, Rom. 8.34. and we learn of St. John, 1 John 2.1, and 2. that we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins. Thus in the Litanies they say to every Saint Ora pro nobis, but to Christ Miserere nobis, depriving him of the Office of Intercessor.

XVII. If the Mass were said in French or Spanish, should not the people be offended, hearing the people saying in the beginning of the Mass, We beseech thee Lord by the merits of the Saints whose relics are here, that thou be pleased to pardon all my sins? What? (might the people say) Must the Lord's Table be changed into a Sepulcher? Is the Mass said over dead men's bones? And why do they ask salvation by the merits of Saints, as if Christ had not satisfied enough for us? or as if to obtain remission of sins there was need that men, that were sinners and stood in need of pardon, should deserve for us the remission of our sins? To what purpose is that payment for debts already paid, and for which Christ hath fully satisfied? If the Saints have merited anything, God by giving them eternal salvation hath more then sufficiently paid them for their merits. It is unjust to require that the same money serve to make two purchases, when it was hardly sufficient to make the first. Besides, we were told that the Saints are not Mediators of redemption, but only of intercession; but now we see that the Mass speaks of them as of mediators of redemption, affirming that they have merited for us salvation and remission of sins.

XVIII. Did the people know that among those Saints whose bones are set under the Altar, and to whose merits the Priest hath his recourse, there are many whose holiness is very doubtful, although the Pope hath put them in the list of the Saints, with a command to bestow invocation upon them; that most part of those relics are false and supposititious; And that many of those Saints never were men, but imaginary persons and forged at pleasury, as we have shown in other places; I say, could the people see all this abuse which is kept hid in the dark, they should be amazed at their religion, and would groan under the yoke of their hard captivity.

XIX. Also they should have a just subject of offense in the Priests saying in private and solitary Masses, Orate fratres, &c. Pray brethren. For who are these brethren that he speaks to being alone? Pope Innocent the III. in the second book of the mysteries of the Mass, ch. 25. answers, that these brethren are Angels. But the following words contradict that, Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours be acceptable unto Almighty God; for this Sacrifice is not made for Angels nor by Angels. Besides, if these words Brethren pray, are addrest unto Angels, these words also take eat, are addrest unto them, and we must believe that in solitary Masses Angels are present to eat.

XX. But what would the people say hearing these words of the Canon of the Mass, Communicantes & memoriam venerantes imprimis gloriosae semperque Virginis Mariae, Communicating and venerating, in the first place, the memory of the glorious Mary always Virgin? Why should the Priest say communicating in the plural number, when nobody communicates? But who can suffer that the Communion of the holy Sacrament be done in the first place to honor the memory of the Virgin Mary, seeing that the institution of the Lord's Supper by Christ himself showeth expressly, that it was instituted in memory of Christ, who saith Do this in remembrance of me? It seemeth they would have Christ to have said, Do this in the first place in remembrance of my Mother. We must speak of the holy and blessed Virgin with all respect and reverence, but we must not alter for her the nature of the Lord's Supper, nor turn it from the true end of the same; For it was instituted to announce the Lord's death, not to announce the death of the holy Virgin, seeing that she did not suffer for our redemption.

XXI. It would have been some comfort to the hearers, if the Priest having said that the Communion is done in the first place to honor the memory of the Blessed Virgin, had added, that it is also in memory of Christ. But that he omitteth; for these are the Priests words; Communicating and venerating in the first place the memory of the glorious and always Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, but also of the holy Apostles and Martyrs, Peter, Paul, &c. Linus, Cletus, Clemens, &c. Cosme and Damian, and of all thy Saints. By whose merits and Prayers we beseech thee, that in all things we may be fenced with the help of thy protection by the same Jesus Christ our Lord. He makes indeed mention of Christ, but saith not that this Communion is done in memory of him. Only he saith, that in the first place he celebrates the memory of the Virgin Mary, and next that of the Saints, among whom he puts in many Popes. It is not enough for him that the prayers of the Saints do us good, unless they have also merited the grace of God for us.

XXII. Towards the end of the Mass the Priest having taken the Host and the Cup, prayeth for himself, Let thy body Lord which I have taken, and the blood which I have drunk, stick to mine entrails. He ought rather to have prayed with the Apostle, that Christ would dwell in his heart by Faith, Ephes. 3.16. And that his body might be a temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 6.19. For as St. John saith, 1 John 4.13. Hereby do we know that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. But to imagine that the body of Christ sitting at the right hand of God sticks to the guts and entrails of a Priest, it is with dishonoring Christ, defiling a man's soul with carnal thoughts.

To which though our Adversaries give way, teaching that the wicked, yea and beasts also eat the Lord's body; so it will follow, that the glorious body of the Son of God sticks in their entrails, and that it stuck to the entrails of Judas after he had received the Sacrament. Pope Innocent the III. in the fourth book of the Mysteries of the Mass, ch. 16. moveth an important question; If (saith he) one having nothing in his belly but the consecrated Host and the Blood of the Chalice, is taken with a lask, which and of what nature are his excrements? The solution is, that they are accidents and humors. But he doth not solve the difficulty, whether Christ remains sticking to his entrails.

XXIII. It were infinite to represent all that may be found in the Mass of all the year, and in all the public Service of the Roman Church, which might scandalize the people if it were spoken in a vulgar Tongue. As that which is said upon good Friday, Behold the wood of the Cross upon which the Salvation of the World was hanged. God have mercy upon us, Evohe: That word Evohe is a word of triumph which the Bacchants, mad and drunken women, used in the honor of their god Bacchus. Then the Priest puts off his shoos to worship the wood of the Cross barefoot.

Then also this Anthem is said, We worship thy Cross O Lord, and praise thy resurrection. And speaking to the Cross, Faithful Cross, the only noble among trees, No forest brings forth so much in leaf, in flower, in bud. The sweet wood bears sweet nails, and a sweet weight. While these words are said, everyone worshippeth the Cross. And when they lift up the Cross they say, Ave lignum triumphale, &c. Hail triumphal wood, which is manifestly spoken to the wood. And upon this most part of the Doctors maintain that the Cross must be worshipped with adoration of latria, which is the highest adoration.

XXIV. Upon the Saturday before Easter the Mass is said in Violet, in which Mass they bless incense, and give it virtue to expel Devils, and all the candles of the Church are put out, and lighted again with blessed fire. The Deacon beareth three wax lights on a staffs end, then sets five grains of incense in the figure of a Cross upon a wax light, upon which wax light this blessing is said with singing in a style, the impiety whereof is absurd, and the terms ridiculous. These are the very words,

XXV. Upon the same Saturday they bless the Fonts filled with water for Baptism, in these words.

XXVI. Thus when they consecrate Salt, The Bishop or Priest saith, I conjure thee creature of Salt, &c. And speaking to the salt, as if the salt understood, he giveth virtue to it against evil spirits.

In the Missal to the use of Paris, in the Mass of the Holy Virgin Mary, there is a Prose or Prayer in these terms, O felix puerpera, nostra pians scelera, jure Matris impera Redemptori. O happy child-bed-woman, who expiatest our sins, Command our Redeemer by right of mother.

XXVII. Could all these things and the like, wherewith the Roman Service is full, be pronounced in French or another vulgar tongue; without amazing and alienating the spirits of the hearers, and moving some of them to loath, some to deride, some to execrate the grossness of the abuse offered unto Christian Souls? Who would not laugh hearing the Priest saying in the Introit of the Mass, Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam, Unto God that makes my youth glad, Although the Priest have a hoary head.

Truly the whole body of the Roman Service, especially the Canon of the Mass, is so composed, that I make no doubt but that the Popes would gladly alter many things in it, were it in their power; and would do the same with it as they have done in the Masses of the Saints, out of which Pius V. and Clement VIII. Popes have razed many Proses and Prayers to the Saints, which still are extant in most part of the Missals. That which is most displeasing to our Adversaries in the Canon of the Mass, is, that there are many clauses in it contrary to merits, to Purgatory, to Transubstantiation, to private Masses, to the Communion in one kind only, and to the unknown language. Also that it is evident that almost all the Prayers of that Canon were made to be said over alms, and over bread and wine, not over Christ's body. But they dare not take in hand the amendment of these things, because the Council of Trent in the XXII. Session pronounceth Anathema against any man that will say, that anything ought to be mended in the Canon of the Mass. They have tied their own hands with that Law. This only remedy remains to them, to keep the people from understanding the Mass, using for that a barbarous tongue, a low mumbling, and a confused and inarticulate tone.

CHAP. X. Examination of the reasons of our Adversaries, of Card. Du Perron especially.

UPon the Prayers of private men in a language not understood by the very person that prayeth, our Adversaries yield the bucklers, and abandon their cause. Only they say, It is the Church; for this word Church is a covering for all sorts of abuses, and a plaster for all sores. This they oppose to the Word of God, and to the whole Antiquity, and to reason, and to common sense, which in this point are contrary to the Roman Church of our age.

But as for the public Service in a tongue not understood, they bring some few small reasons, which must be examined.

I. They say, that the title of the Cross was written by Pilate in three Languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. They will acknowledge Pilate who was a Pagan Judge, for a Law-giver that gave this Law to the Christian Church. For being a man of great prudence, it is to be presumed, that he took care that the Mass should be sung in a convenient Language. Thus the authority of Pilate carrieth it above that of the Word of God, and against the examples of Christ, the Prophets, and the Apostles. And if according to the custom of the Romans the title of the Cross had been written in one tongue only, by their reason the Mass should be sung in one tongue only. Or if Pilate had written nothing, the Mass ought not to be sung at all.

II. Neither is their reason better when they say that it is expedient, that the divine Service be celebrated in all Countries in the same language, that strangers may understand it. This second reason contradicteth the first. For if it be expedient that the divine Service be done everywhere in the same language, we must not stand upon the inscription of the Cross in three languages, and divine Service must be celebrated in one language, over all the Universal Church.

For the same reason Sermons ought to be preached everywhere in the same tongue in the behalf of strangers. Certainly the Service in Latin is no ease to the strangers that are in France; for of those strangers there are three for one at the least that understand no Latin; and for one that understands Latin, there are ten that understand French. And those strangers that understand Latin, cannot understand the Mass, a great part whereof is pronounced with such a low voice, that they that stand by the Priest cannot hear him. But is there any shadow of equity in this, that in consideration of a few strangers that are in great Cities, the whole French Nation must be deprived of the intelligence of the divine Service? especially all the inhabitants of Villages and Market-towns, where there are no strangers? whereas the true way to gratify strangers in a great City like Paris, should be to establish for the Italians a Church, where they might have the Service in Italian, and the like for other Nations. By this means every Nation should have the Service in Paris in their natural language.

III. They add, that having the same tongue everywhere, is a sign of union and concord in the Universal Church. By speaking so, they declare that it should be expedient that the Service should be neither in Greek nor Hebrew, which tongues nevertheless they affirm to have been authorized by the inscription of the Cross. But the Union which God recommendeth in his Word, is not the Union in the same language but in Faith and charity, which Union may be between men diverse in language; Whereas persons of the same language many times disagree in the Faith. God is glorified when he is purely and unanimously served and called upon in diverse languages; as God himself saith, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow unto me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Wherefore God gave unto his Apostles the gift of diverse tongues, that in all tongues God might be served and called upon.

IV. They presuppose that the Divine Service was not instituted for the instruction of the people, but only to glorify God by Prayers and Thanksgivings, and that the people by his presence may give his consent to that which is done in the Church, and partake of the fruits which the Church obtaineth of God by the Liturgy. And upon that presupposition they say, that the people that understand not, lose not these fruits, nor the ends for which the Divine Service was instituted, because the authority of the Church is unto them a sufficient security, and that it is enough that their Pastors understand for them.

But by those very ends for which they say that Divine Service is instituted, it is easy to convince them. For persons assembled to glorify God by Prayers and Thanksgivings, must know what they ask, and what they thank God for. These Doctors will have the people to ask, and not to know what; to give him thanks, and not to know for what. And whereas the people assembleth to give consent to that which is said and done in the Church, how shall they give their consent and approbation unto things which they understand not? And if they be assistant to be partakers of the benefits which the Church receiveth by the public Service, they are then assistant to be instructed and comforted; for it is one of the fruits for which Divine Service is instituted. And whereas in the Mass the Priest speaks unto the people, in vain doth he speak unto those that do not understand him. Also since in the Mass Chapters of Scripture are read, in which God speaks unto men, we must not hinder that God be understood by men. The Apostle, Rom. 10.17. saith that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God; not then by a presence without understanding that which God propounds to us in his Word. The same Apostle speaking to the people of Corinth, will have them to announce the Lord's death as often as they eat the bread, and drink the cup of the Lord's Supper; Which cannot be done by persons that are present and understand not what is said. Such as are assistant to a service which they understand not, are deprived of the benefit thereof.

V. As for that the Cardinal saith, that the Church is a security to the people, as if the Church were to answer for the people in God's Judgment, I say, that to that Church which beareth herself for a security, there is need of another security to assure us that she doth not err, and that God accepteth of her security. Truly in the day of Judgment the Pastors shall not answer for the people. That man shall be deceived that will in that day give his Parson for a security. Those Pastors especially shall not be receivable, who to raise their authority by leading the ignorant which way they would, have kept the people far from all intelligence. But why cannot the Greek Church be a security as well as the Roman? seeing that it is more ancient then the Roman, and that the Roman Church is her daughter, and hath received Christian Religion from her? For the Greek Church boasteth also, that she is Catholic, and hath the chairs of St. Peter and of many Apostles.

VI. But (saith the Cardinal) if to profit at the Mass it was necessary to understand it, the deaf and they that stand far from him that officiateth, should receive no profit by it. If this reason be worth anything, it will follow that we must preach in an unknown tongue. For if it were necessary to preach in an intelligible tongue, the deaf and the persons that stand too far from the Preacher, should receive no benefit thereby. I answer then, that when the defects of Nature keep us from hearing that which is said, we are not accountable for it before God; for God imputes not to us as a crime, that which himself hath done. But we are accountable unto him of the hindrances which we bring ourselves unto the understanding of his Word. God supplieth the defects of Nature by the ways which are known to him: But man after he hath done evil, cannot (but seldom) bring a remedy to it. If the light of the Sun be useless to the blind, it followeth not therefore that the eyes of them that see must be put out. Likewise if one or two are deaf, we must not therefore deprive the rest of the people of intelligence. And he that stands far from him that officiates speaking in a known tongue, might have profited more if he had been nearer, and he may draw near another time.

VII. He objecteth also the strangers in England, that are present at the English Service and understand no part of it. To which I say, that such strangers go to that Service perhaps once or twice out of curiosity, not devotion; and that if they understood English they might be more edified. Also that the French have at London and in other Towns their Service in French.

VIII. He saith also, that in the time of Christ and his Apostles, the Jews had their ordinary Service in their Synagogues, in which they understood nothing; Which we have already shown to be false. For Hebrew was then intelligible among the people of Judea. It is not the same of the Jews called Hellenists, in the sixth of the Acts, who were Jews transported into Egypt by Ptolomeus Lagus, who also were called Babelim, and were spread in very great number over all Africa. They were so called, because they were descended from the people that had been transported into Babylon. Those Jews read in their Synagogues the Greek Version of the Septuagint. Wherefore also the Apostle to the Hebrews, writing to them, alledgeth the Scripture unto them according to their Version. Of those Jews was Philo a Jew of Alexandria, a Learned man in Greek, but ignorant in Hebrew. For in Alexandria the Greek tongue was so common, that the Bishops as Athanasius, Cyrillus, Theophilus and others, preached there unto the people in Greek.

IX. It is without reason, that the Cardinal objecteth unto us the example of the Priests of the Law, interceding for the people in the Temple, while the people was without in the Court, and by consequent could not hear what the Priest said. For here it is question of the Priest speaking to God in the Mass in the presence of the people, and speaking to the people. Also of the Mass, in the which Chapters of Scripture are read, All that in a tongue which the people understands not. Yea there are many Priests that understand not their Mass. It is then nothing to the purpose, to bring us here the example of a Priest that spake not to the people, and spake not unto God before the people while he was in the holy place, and read to the people no Text or Chapter of God's Law. Neither do we find in Scripture, that the Priest spake or pronounced any Prayer with his mouth while he made propitiation for the people in the Holy place, or in the Sanctuary. I verily believe, that if that Priest coming out of the Temple unto the people attending in the Court, had spoken to the Congregation in a barbarous and strange tongue, the people would have stoned him.

X. These Doctors confess, that by the unknown language the people is deprived of instruction and comfort: But that defect (say they) is supplied by Sermons, in which the Contents of the Mass are expounded. Suppose that it is so; Is it not a great abuse for one to make wounds that he may apply plasters? It were better that the Priest should so speak to the people in his Mass as to be understood, then to make the poor people to hope that within some years they should learn the exposition of it in some Sermon. But it is most false, that in their Sermons they expound the Mass, either for the words or the matter. Take me a Peasant or a Tradesman, who hath heard the Mass fifty years, you shall find him altogether ignorant of that which is said in the Mass. Do they make the people understand in Sermons why the Priest praying for the dead, saith that he prayeth for those that sleep in the sleep of peace? Or why the Priest presenting the consecrated Host unto God, which Host they say to be Jesus Christ, asketh of God that he would accept of that gift as he did of Abel's Sacrifice, which was a calf or a lamb? Or why the Priest prayeth in the Mass, that the Angels may take Christ with lieth upon the Altar, and carry it up to the heavenly Altar? Or why the Priest calls the body of Christ these gifts, these presents, which God always createth and quickeneth? Or why the Priest in his Confiteor confesseth his sins unto God, to the holy Virgin Mary, to Michael the Archangel, and to St. John the Baptist, without speaking one word of Christ? Or why in the Mass the holy Virgin is preferred before Christ, in these words, communicating, and celebrating in the first place the memory of the Virgin Mary, although the Lord's Supper be instituted for the remembrance of Christ only, and to announce his death?

XI. Cardinal Du Perron finds, that the incommodity which is in the Service not understood by the people, brings this benefit, that the merit of the endeavor and exercise of the Faith of the people is thereby the greater. He thinks, that the less knowledge there is in Faith, the more merit; and that he that hath less intelligence, is he that hath more Faith, and that meriteth more. Harding saith much the same thing, That the people indeed understands not the Latin of the Mass, but that their pious affection is so acceptable unto God, that no understanding of words can be compared to it. By that reckoning there is merit in want of knowledge, and ignorance must be numbered among the blessings of God. Grant that once, we must no more instruct any man in the true knowledge of God, for fear of diminishing the merit and price of his Faith. Yea if this Doctrine may be currant; that Faith consisteth in ignorance, not in knowledge; and that Faith is opposed to science, as Cardinal Bellarmine told us before: Truly this Maxim is a great prop of the Papal dominion, and of the authority of the Clergy; since it teacheth to believe without knowing, and to follow the Pope and his doctrine, blindfolded, without inquiring of the will of God or of his Word, which is a light that God presents unto us, that we may ourselves know the right way. Truly although incurable ignorance diminish the fault, yet it is an evil; as being born blind excuseth going astray, yet going astray is evil. But to study to be ignorant, To fear to learn, To be willfully blind, and to think that there is merit in willful ignorance, it is, besides folly, a headstrong obstinacy, and a full purpose to reject the knowledge of God's will. And I cannot comprehend that great endeavor and exercise of Faith, which the Cardinal saith to be in them that believe without understanding, seeing that there is no labor in not believing, knowing nothing and refusing to learn.

XII. The same Prelat insisteth very much upon the danger of translating the Liturgy into a vulgar tongue, saying that the alteration of one syllable or one letter only in the the mystery of the Church, may bring an alteration in the Faith, as in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Arians. That one could not translate Divine Service without running into that danger. That the Phrases of old French should be ridiculous in our time, as it may be seen in the Romances; and that Marot 's traduction of the Psalms a hundred years hence will appear rude, silly and ridiculous.

If that objection hath any weight, it should have with more reason hindered the traduction of the holy Scripture into Latin, and into the vulgar tongues, for fear that some depravation in a word or in a syllable alter the doctrine of Salvation; for the Text of Scripture is far more important then that of the Mass, seeing that changing a word in Scripture is a crime; but the text of the Mass hath received a thousand alterations and additions, as our Adversaries acknowledge. Yet that fear did not hinder the Ancients to make many versions of Scripture both in Greek and Latin, The multitude whereof was so diverse, that Jerome saith that there was almost as many diverse versions ae copyes of the Bible. And Austin saith, that the multitude of Latin Interpreters was almost infinite. Our Adversaries confess, that the vulgar Latin version is much different from the Hebrew and Greek Texts; but they acknowledge not, that this diversity hath caused in the Church of Rome any alteration in the Faith. That fear did not hinder Jerome to translate the Bible into the Dalmatick tongue, nor Ulfilas to turn it into the Gothic tongue, nor every Nation of the Church to translate it into their own. And the versions into vulgar tongues were so far from altering in any respect the truth and authority of the Greek and Hebrew Originals, that the World may thank the Churches that have now Divine Service in their vulgar language, for restoring to the Western Church the purity of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, for bringing the Hebrew and Greek Originals to the public sight, and for the restitution of the integrity of the version of Scripture, which the Roman Church had disfigured in the vulgar version.

But why doth the Cardinal apprehend a danger in the translation of the public Service, and finds no inconvenience in so many alterations that were made in Christ's institution; so many new pieces being sowed up to the Mass unto which several Popes have added some clauses? Hath not Pius the V. reformed the Missals, and put out many Prayers, Proses and Sequences, which were in the old Missals, whereby Priests are put to great trouble?

And to what purpose doth he allege that inconvenience, to which (if one may believe our Adversaries) they have a ready remedy, since they say that the Pope and the Roman Church cannot err in the Faith. For whensoever the Pope will examine and approve the Mass translated into French, that Translation shall be authentical among our Adversaries, and shall be without exception after his approbation.

As for that he saith that the French terms in two or three hundred years would become ridiculous, the like may be said of Latin and Greek, and of any other tongue. Whence it would follow, that the Mass must never be said in Latin, for fear that by the lapse of time the terms of the Mass become ridiculous. The words which by the established form of the Divine Service were preserved, never become ridiculous among them that approve that Service. In the public Service of the Roman Mass there are words truly ridiculous, and such as never were good, as Evohe, Miserere nobis, and Stabat mater dolorosa; and many like these, which yet are not ridiculous in the Roman Church, because they are authorized by the Divine Service. And these words Alleluja and Hosanna are long since become vulgar, and yet are not ridiculous when they are pronounced in the reading of Scripture or in the public Service.

XIII. Finally, the Cardinal objecteth, that if the Service were no more done in Latin, there being no more common language, Universal Councils could be held no more, and so all means should be taken away of deciding the points of Faith with infallible certainty, and the ancient Decrees and Canons should be abolished. This Objection is confuted by experience; for the Greek Church and the Roman had not in old time, and never had a tongue common to both, and yet they celebrated Councils together. They chose in Italy some Deputies that understood Greek; for then the Latin Church did accommodate herself unto the Greek, because the Emperors lived in Greece, and that by their command the Bishop of Rome sent his Deputies to the Universal Councils; None of which Councils was held in Italy, although the Bishops of Rome desired it; and were humble petitioners for it to the Emperors.

If to hold Councils in the West, it is necessary that the Latin tongue be common everywhere; So many Academies and Colleges where Latin is taught are sufficient to preserve the Latin tongue, although the public Service be in the vulgar tongue: as it is seen in Countries, whence Popery is banished, though they have Divine Service in their own language. There also the Councils and the ancient Canons are carefully preserved. It is a gross abuse, to think that the barbarous Latin of the Mass, serveth for the preservation of the Latin tongue, or that the text of the Mass serveth to understand Virgil or Livy, or to speak in Tully 's style. Yea though the Latin of the Mass were as elegant as it is rude and barbarous, it would be but a weak help to preserve the Latin tongue. The pure Greek of the Greek Liturgy did not hinder the corruption of the Greek tongue, when the Turks had once put down Schools. And the Liturgy of the Armenians which is in the Armenian tongue, and the Liturgy of the Ethiopians which is in the Ethiopic tongue, have not hindered the corruption of the old Armenian and Ethiopic languages.

As for grounding Christian Faith upon the decision of Councils which contradict one another, the late Councils being contrary to the old, and the Pope approving nothing but that which is fit for his turn, opposing himself often to Universal Councils, it is another question which is not for this place. The clear Texts of Scripture which need no interpretation, are sufficient unto Salvation. Who so beareth himself as an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture, sets himself above God, for he makes God to speak according to his will; He may alter Scripture undet a pretence of expounding Scripture, and hath a way open to build an Empire to himself. Such a man hath need to be free from all vice, lest he bring an interpretation that serve to color vices, feed his covetousness, or maintain his ambition.

Such are the reasons of our Adversaries, which are but shifts and human considerations, without, yea against the word of God, and they are confuted by experience and by common sense.

CHAP. XI. Examination of the proofs that the Cardinal brings out of Antiquity, for the Service in a strange tongue.

IF the reasons of our Adversaries were weak, their allegations out of Antiquity are no stronger. Cardinal Du Perron is he that hath most contributed to the gathering of those allegations.

He saith that in the time of the ancient Fathers, the Service was never celebrated in the Christian Religion but in two tongues, Greek and Latin. This he affirmeth without proofs, and against truth, and we brought before many proofs to the contrary. Himself in the beginning of the ch. acknowledgeth, that the Syrian Churchs have their Service in old Syriac, the Armenian Churches in old Armenian, and the Ethiopian Churches in old Ethiopic. He ought then to have proved, that the Armenians and Ethiopians had sometimes their Liturgy in Greek or Latin, which shall not be found. The same I say of the Indian and Persian Churches, who never made use in their Liturgy, no more then in the civil commerce, of the Greek or Latin tongue; but only in this last age in some corners of the East Indies, where the Jesuits have brought in the Roman Service.

Next he alledgeth the Jews who use Hebrew in their Synagogues, a tongue which is not vulgar in any Country of the World. So he defends his cause with the authority of the sworn enemies of Christ, whose example if we must follow, we must also be circumcised and renounce Christianity. But we acknowledge in that practcie of theirs the fulfilling of God's curse upon that people, 1 Cor. 14.21. With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this People, and so they shall not understand me. For as for the Jews of the time of Christ and his Apostles, we have proved in the sixth ch. of this Treatise, that the people then understood Hebrew.

The Cardinal makes use of the very Pagans and Mohammedans, holding that the Roman Church hath wisely done to follow their example. He showeth sufficiently that he finds no help in the Word of God, since he hath recourse to such authorities. He saith then that the Turks and Persians celebrate their Service in the Grammatical Arabic, not in that which is vulgar to the Turks and Persians; that the Verses of the Salians in which the ancient Service of the Roman Commonwealth was contained, were hardly understood by the Priests. He might have said also, that the Magicians will add barbarous and unintelligible words unto their conjuring. If in this question the Devil, who seduced the Pagans, and now blindeth the Mohammedans, must be taken for Judge, we must speak no more of God's Service or Gospel. That must needs be a desperate and forsaken cause that makes use of such proofs. Note by the way, that this Prelate while he goeth about to show his learning in History, betrayeth his ignorance. For the Arabians, who make well nigh one half of the Mohammedans, have their Service and the Alcoran in their vulgar tongue. And the Verses of the Salians contained but a small part of the Roman Pagan Service, namely the Service of Mars and of Quirinus, for they were Priests of Mars. But the body of the Roman Religion was contained in the Tuscan discipline, brought in by Numa.

He saith also, that in the Eastern Church the Service was in Greek only, which we have convinced of untruth. The ancient Churches of Armenia, Persia and India never had their Service in Greek. And it is without doubt that the Church of Jerusalem in the Apostles time-celebrated the Sacraments in the same language as Christ instituted them, which was understood by the People. Durand in his Rational, in the fourth book, ch. 1. saith that in the Primitive Church the mysteries were celebrated in Hebrew; but that in the time of the Emperor Adrian they began to be celebrated in Greek in the Eastern Church of the Christians, understanding by the Eastern Church that which was subject to the Roman Empire in the East, namely Syria, Judea, Natolia or Asia Minor, to which also we may add Egypt. In all those Countries wheresoever the Service was done in Greek, there also Sermons were done in Greek. An evident proof that the Greek tongue was there the most vulgar, though it differed from the ancient vulgar tongues. Thus Athanasius and Cyrillus and Theophilus preached in Greek to the people of Alexandria. And Cyrillus of Jerusalem preached in Greek at Jerulem. And Eusebius in Cesarea of Palestine, and Chrysostom in Antioch the capital of Syria, and Basilius in Cesarea of Cappadocia, and Gregory Nazianzen at Nazianza, and Gregorius Nyssenus at Nyssa. Tully in his Oration for the Poet Archias saith, that Greek is read almost over all Nations. For the Empire of the Grecians successors of Alexander, had planted the Greek tongue in Syria, in Egypt, in Silicia, in Cappadocia, and Galatia, and had made it so familiar, that the vulgar tongues used before the reign of the Seleucides and the Ptolomees were less familiar then the Greek; for always Sermons must be accommodated to the ears of the plain people. Thus in the Reformed Churches of Gascoigne and Languedoc Sermons and divine Service are in French, though it differ from the language of the Country; But French is so well understood there, that the people prefer French before their Gascon dialect, and understand it with the like facility. The Cardinal was not ignorant of that, Which he showeth by maintaining only that in the East Greek was not the vulgar tongue, but he maintaineth not that Greek was not understood there. So he wanders out of the question. For our difference is not whether the public Service must be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, but whether it must be celebrated in a language understood by the people.

Jerome in his Preface of the second book upon the Epistle to the Galatians, saith, that the language of the Galatians was like that of the Gauls of Triers. But there he speaks of the tongue which the Galatians had brought to the Country of Galatia, not of the tongue which they had learned in it. Yet the Cardinal makes use of that passage of Jerome to prove that in Galatia Greek was not the vulgar language. But he falsifieth that passage according to his custom; Whereas the passage is altogether against him. Jerome 's words are these, Galateas accepto sermon Graeco quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam candem linguam habere quam Treviros. That the Galatians besides the Greek languge which all the East speaketh, have a proper tongue like unto that of Triers. This passage plainly affirmeth, that the Greek tongue was currant in Galatia as in all the East. But the Cardinal alledgeth Jerome in these words, The Galatians tongue was like that of the Gauls near Triers. The falsification is evident. But St. Paul writing to the Galatians in Greek presupposed that they understood Greek. The Lycaonian language mentioned, Acts 14.11. was rather a dialect then a diverse tongue. And though they had a diverse tongue, yet it is evident that Greek was understood by the Lyconians, since Paul and Barnabas spake to the common people in Greek.

CHAP. XII. How Latin was brought into the Divine Service in France and Spain.

FRom the East the Cardinal passeth to the West, and saith that over all the West the Service was celebrated in Latin. But this toucheth not the question. For in all places where the pubick Service was in Latin, Sermons were also in the same tongue, and Latin was understood by women and children. It cannot be found in the ancient History that ever the Latin Service was used in any place where Latin was not understood. Thus in Gauls the Service was celebrated in Latin, because Latin was become more vulgar among the Gauls then their ancient tongue, which wore away by little and little; so that the Gauls were called Romans, and are so called by Gregory of Tours, and by that name distinguished from the Franks and Burgundians, who were strangers. The language of the Country was called Roman, whereas the language of the Court was Dutch, such as they spake in Guelders and Gulick. The difference remained yet in the time of Charlemagne. For in the third Council of Tours held under his Reign, in the year of Christ 812. in the seenteenth ch. every Bishop is commanded to have Homilies or Sermons in two languages; In the Roman rustic tongue, that is, in the tongue of the common people, and in the Theotick or Tudesk, that is, in Dutch, that all might understand the Sermons. Now this was the time when the Gallicane Church by the violence of that King began to receive the Roman Service, notwithstanding the resistance of the Clergy, whereas they had before the Ambrosian Service, and were in nothing subject to the Bishop of Rome,

Under the Empire of Marcus Aurelius about the year of the Lord 168. Christian Religion began to spread in Gauls, and then first began Martyrdoms, as Sulpitius Severus saith, (who was a Gaule, and lived near that time) in the second book of his Sacred History. Under Aurelius son of Antoninus the fifth persecution was moved; and then first Martyrdoms were seen in Gauls, the Religion of God having past very late over the Alps. In that time the Latin tongue was so familiar in Gauls, that it it was more used then the old language of Gauls, so that the language of the Country was called Roman, and the Gauls Romans, as we said before. It is like that the Latin of Gauls was neither so polite nor so congruous as that of Rome. Wherefore Pacatus in a Panegyric to Theodosius, excuseth himself for not speaking so good Latin as those that were born in Italy. Then the Contracts, the Pleas, and all the acts of the Law were done in Latin. The Gotthick Laws which were observed from the Streight of Gibraltar to the River of Loire, abbreviated from the Theodosian Code by the Visigoth Kings, were Latin, as Fauchet teacheth, who of all the French Antiquaries is the most learned. In the year of Christ 252. under the Emperor Decius (as Gregory of Tours observeth in the first book of his History) Gratian came to Tours, to preach the Gospel among the Pagans, Saturninus to Toulouse, and Dionysius to Paris, where he was Bishop and suffered Martyrdom. This is he who is falsely named Dionysius or Denis the Areopagite. Saturninus also was cast down from the Capitol of Tolouse. The language of these men being Latin, and the people which they preached to, speaking Latin, it is no wonder that they instituted a Latin Service, and yet it was not after the Roman way, but with divers ceremonies according to the necessity of the time, and the exigence of the places, to tame the Pagans. Which diversity continued till the Ambrosian Service was received in Gauls, which was observed there until the time of Charlemagne, who brought in the Romon Serviee.

The Franks being entered into France, and having subdued it as far as the River of Loire (for the rest as far as the Pyrenees was under the Visigoths until the time of Clovis, who left no part of France to the Visigoths, who reigned also in Spain, but the low Languedock, which the Romans called Septimania, and a little part of Guienne ) the Latin or Roman tongue was corrupted and fell from its purity; Yet not so, but that the Latin Divine Service was intelligible still. We heard before the testimony of Sulpitius Severus in the life of St. Martin, relating that one of the People having taken the Psalter in the place of the Reader then absent, began to read the eighth Psalm, where there is ut destruas inimicum & defensorem, at which word defensorem, the people cried out against one Defensor, who opposed Martin 's election to the Episcopacy.

Prosper Aquitanus writ about the year of Christ 450. In his first book of Contemplative Life, ch. 23. he prescribeth that the Preachers language sit simplex & apertus, etiamsi minus Latinus, disciplinatus tamen & gravis, be simple and plain, though it be not very good Latin, yet that it be orderly and grave, that it may hinder nobody, though ignorant, to understand it. Now he speaks of the people of Guienne.

Almost in the same time lived Sidonius Apollinaris Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, who had married the daughter of the Emperor Avitus, by whom he had children. This man who writ all his Epistles in Latin, preached also in Latin. In the tenth Epistle of the second book he complaineth, that in his time among the vulgar the purity and property of the Latin tongue decayed, and degenerated into barbarousness. And in the Epistle to Pope Perpetuus (for then all the Bishops that were a little more respected then the ordinary Bishops, were called Popes) there is a Latin Sermon made by the said Sidonius unto the People of Bourges, a certain proof that the people of Bourges understood Latin.

Now although the mixture of Visigoths and Franks among the people of Gauls had altered the Latin tongue, yet the Latin could not be rooted out of the land. And the Frank Kings whose language was Dutch of Guelders, to comply with their people learned Latin, as Fortunatus witnesseth, speaking of King Aribert,

But by the lapse of time Latin being corrupted in Gauls, and the Tudesk language abolished, the Roman was so altered that it became another tongue the Latin. And already in the time of the second race of our Kings the tongue of the Country was no more Latin. And yet through the negligence of Bishops and the ignorance of the people, no care was taken to put the Divine Service in the vulgar tongue. We find that then the study of Bishops was to adorn Churches, lay up relics, and provide Singing men with strong and clear voices to sing the Service with Art, and fill the vaults of the Quires. Images were not yet received in France, nor the celibat of Clerks, nor Purgatory, nor Roman Indulgences. But the Wars of the French in Italy against the Lombards in the time of Pepin, and of his son Charlemagne, caused a strict League of the Kings of France with the Bishop of Rome, who was a mortal enemy to the Lombards. Whence it came to pass that Pepin, and after him his son Charles, and Lewis the Meek son of Charles, made great presents unto the Bishops of Rome, and gave him all the Lands and Possessions which the Pope now enjoyeth in Italy, yet reserving the Sovereignty to themselves. Charles addeth to his liberalities this favor, that at the request of Pope Adrian the I. he banished the Ambrosian Service out of his Kingdom, and established in France by force and against the will of the French Clergy the Gregorian or Roman Office. By this change the Latin tongue in the public Service was fully established. For that which was done before only by the negligence of the French Bishops, was done since that time by a Law, as the bondage increased from age to age. It would be now a crime of Heresy, and a manifest rebellion against the Papal Sea, to call for the Divine Service in another tongue then the Latin or Roman. And I know not whether it was by hazard or by conjecture, or by inspiration, that Irenaeus in this word Latin found the name of Antichrist and the number of 666.

The like things happened in Spain, where the Latin tongue was become so frequent and so familiar, that in the time of the Emperors Domitian and Trajan, and long after them, it was as familiar in Spain as at Rome, saving only in Aragon, and in the Cantabrian mountains, (now Bescay ) and in Gallicia. Seneca and Quintilian and Martial excellent Authors of the Latin tongue, were Spaniards. Martial 's Parents were Fronto and Flacilla, which are Roman names, as also the names of Martial and Quintilian; an evident sign that the language of the Country was Roman. No wonder then that when Christian Religion was received in Spain, the ordinary Service was Latin. Which yet was not after the way, nor by the order of the Bishop of Rome, who indeed was respected there for the dignity of the City, but yet had no power or jurisdiction in Spain.

In the year of Christ 408. Genceric King of the Vandals conquered Spain over the Roman Empire, and soon after left it, to pass into Africa, quitting the place to the Visigoths, who reigning before in Aquitaine made themselves Masters of Spain, in the year of Christ 417. The Laws of these Visigoths were Latin, and though their language was Gotthick, they were well acquainted with Latin. Wherefore also their Councils and general Assemblies spake Latin. The ordinary Office or Service of the Orthodox Spaniards (for the Visigoths were Arians at the first) was called the Mozarabick or Toletan Office, of which an abridgement is extant in Isidorus in the book of Ecclesiastical Offices. This Isidorus born at Sevil, writ about the year of Christ 630.

In the year 713. the Saracens abolished the Kingdom of the Goths in Spain, killed their King Roderick in battle, and banished Christian Religion out of most part of Spain. They held Spain for many ages, till the residue of the Christians which were fled into the mountains, having taken vigor again, in the end expelled the Moors, restored Christian Religion to Spain, and set up many little Kingdoms. Their Service was still Latin according to the ancient form, although by the Mixture of the Saracens with them, they had lost the ordinary use of the Latin tongue. Their Office was the old Mozarabick Office which remained in Spain till about the year of Christ 1080. when King Alphonsus to please Pope Gregony the VIII. did with open force and against the will of the States of the Country establish the Roman Office in Spain. Then the Latin tongue which before was used by custom, was established by a Law, And so remaineth to this day.

CHAP. XIII. Of England and Germany, and how the Roman Service and the Latin tongue were received in those Countries.

LEt us pass into England, in old time called Britain. Harding in the first Section of his Treatise of Prayers in a strange tongue saith, that about nine hundred years ago public Prayers began to be made in some Countries in a language not understood; And that the said custom began then in England. That Doctor well read in Antiquity finds not the use of the Latin tongue in England more ancient then nine hundred years since, wherein he saith true.

We must know that England received the Christian Religion before any Churches were set up in Gauls. Nicephorus in the second book ch. 40. saith that Simon Zealots the Apostle carried the Doctrine of the Gospel into the West Sea, and to the Britanick Islands. Gildas an English Author who lived in the sixth Age, and Polydorus Virgilius in the second book of his History, say, that Joseph of Arimathea was the first that preached the Gospel in Britain. Baleus in his first Century alledgeth many other witnesses. Tertullian who writ about the end of the second Age, in the seventh ch. of the book against the Jews, saith, that

Jerome in his Epistle to Oceanus speaks of the Scots as of a People that had women common in his time, which was above 200. years after Eleutherius. In his second book against Jovinian he saith, that he had seen Scots eating man's flesh. And Galfridus in the second ch. of the third book of his History speaks of them as of Pagans.

Besides, the Christians of Britain celebrated the Passover upon the fouteenth day of the Moon of March precisely, contrary to the constitutions of the Roman Church. Which they would not have done, had they been brought to Christian Religion by the Roman Church.

Britain remained under the domination of the Romans Pagans till the year of Christ 286. in Diocletians time, when the Roman Senate sent Caransius to repress the incursions of barbarous Nations. But Caransius made a league with the Britons, expelled the Romans, and made himself King. And from that time, sometimes the Romans prevailing, sometimes the Natives, the Island was but weakly possessed by the Roman Empire.

In the year of Christ 307. Constantine, son of Constantius and Helena a Christian woman, was Governor of the Island for the Romans. Being Pagan, he took the title of Roman Emperor, past into Gauls, thence into Italy, and made himself an absolute Emperor. Then turning Christian, he gave peace and prosperity to the Churches of Britain.

In the year 383. Maximus a Christian and Orthodox Prince governed Britain; for then all that part of the Island which was subject to the Romans was Christian. This Maximus invaded Gauls with an Army and conquered it, and took the title of Roman Emperor against Gratian son of Theodosius.

In the year of Christ 434. the Empire being fallen in the West, and torn by the Goths, Franks, Vandals, and Burgundians, the Romans forsook the Isle of Britain. Which moved the natives to defer the Kingdom to Constantine brother to the King of Armorick Britain, as one descended from their Nation, and a Christian virtuous man.

In the year 446. according to the calculation of Westmonasteriensis, the Pelagian Heresy spreading in the Isle of Britain, the Bishops of the Land being assembled in a Synod, sent into France, and writ to German Bishop of Auxerre, and to Lupus Bishop of Troyes in Champagne, men famous for their doctrine, and besought them to come and assist them with their help and counsel, which they did, and with success, God pouring a blessing upon their holy endeavor. This Historian saith not that the Pope sent them, as some untruly affirm, but that they came upon the request of the Britons.

In the year of Christ 449. three Ships of Anglosaxons came from East Friseland into the Isle of Britain and made way for others that came four years after in great number. They were a Dutch and Pagan Nation, serving Saturn, Jupiter, and Mercury. Being once landed, they could never be expelled out of the Land, and subdued the South and the East of the Island, and planted Paganism in it, dividing the Country into many little Kingdoms. But besides the Christians that lived under the dominion of the Saxons, all the West part of the Island, that is Cornwall, and Cambria now called Wales, was Christian. Scotland had already received the Christian Religion, so that the Island was half Christian.

In the year 596. Pope Gregory the I. judged the conjuncture of English affairs to be a fit time for him to raise the authority of his See. For the Christians of England being not fit to give instruction to the Pagan English Kings by reason of their continual wars; and those petty Kings being brutish and easy to be led, and the Christians of the Island living under other Laws and other ceremonies then the Roman Church, he sent Austin a Monk of St. Benedict (the only order of Monks that was then in the West) into England, an industrous politick man, to work two ends. The one to reduce the Christians of the Island to the form and service of the Roman Church, and induce them to acknowledge his See. The other, to draw if he could some of those Pagan Kings to the Christian Religion.

This Austin came into England with an attendance of forty persons, and presented himself to one of those Kings called Ethelbert King of Kent, who received him honourably. Shortly after having insinuated himself into the Queens favor, he persuaded her to embrace the Christian Faith. The Queen persuaded her husband to the same. And he was followed by a multitude of Pagans. From this King Austin got leave to have communication with the Christians of the West part of England, whom he exhorted to join with him, because (saith Westmonasteriensis) sanctum Pascha et alia perplura unitati Ecclesiae contraria faciebant. They did the Passover and many other things in a way contrary to the unity of the Church. These Christians before they communed with him, consulted a man famous for his wisdom and holiness, one that led a solitary life; and asked him, whether at the suasion of Austin they should leave their ancient customs. The good man answered them, If he be a man of God, follow him. But (said they) how shall we discern whether he be a man of God? He answered them again, You shall know it by his humility, and if he induceth you by his example to bear the Cross of Christ. They then having met with Austin in a Synod appointed for that meeting, Austin received them with contempt, and would not so much as rise from his seat when they came in. They also repaid his contempt with contempt, and contradicted all that he propounded, taxing him of pride. And although Gregory had sent him the Pallium, and had named him Archbishop, yet they declared unto him that they did not acknowledge his authority, and would not obey him in anything. At which Austin incensed, threatened them that the Anglosaxons would avenge him; And he made his word good; for Ethelfrid King of Northumberland, though a Pagan, took his quarrel, and whether out of goodwill to Austin, or out of hatred to Christians, he made of them a great slaughter. They had at Bangor a great Monastery of about twelve hundred Monks, all poor Tradesmen, getting their living by their labor; Of them this Pagan▪ King made a Massacre and a Sacrifice unto Austin.

But as for the Saxon Christians converted by Austin from Paganism, they received the Roman Service such as Austin would give them, and subjected themselves unto Austin, sent by the Bishop of Rome about the year 600. of Christ; Which is the time that Harding marketh unto us, saying, that since 900. or a thousand years the Service was celebrated in England in a language not understood, acknowledging that it was this Austin who with the Roman Service brought also the Roman tongue, which since that time remained in the public Service of England till the time of the Reformation. Every age since that time hath added some piece to the Religion, so that if this Austin had risen from the dead seven or eight hundred years after his death, he should have found in England and at Rome quite another religion then that he had preached. That which we have said of this Austin and his entry into England and his behavior, is found in Beda, in the second chap. of the second book of the History of the Anglosaxons, in Galfridus Monumetensis, in the fourth chap. of the eighth book of the History of the two Britain's. And in the flower of Histories of Matthew of Westminster.

Beda in the fourth book of his History saith, that in the year of Christ 668. one Steven by Sirname, taught the people of Northumberland to follow the Roman singing in the public Service. In that time the Roman Service was not yet received in France nor in Spain. The same Austin passing through France and finding there the Service different from the Roman Liturgy, asked counsel of his Master Gregory how he should behave himself in that diversity; Gregory answered him, that he should follow that which he thought best, and should comply with the Churches where he should happen to be. This is found in the said Austin 's Interrogations added in the end of Gregory 's Works.

As for Germany, Christianity came very late to it. In the year 700. Radbod King of the Frisons was a Pagan, and Franconia did then but begin to receive the Gospel. And the Saxons against whom Charlemagne made so many wars, in the year 775. and the following years, were Pagans, and were beaten to Christianity by the sword, as also the Frisons.

Suibert in the years 704, 705. and the following years, did very much advance Christianity about the Rhine and in the Country of Brandenburg; But it appears by no History in what tongue he established the Service.

In the year 719. Winefrid an Anglosaxon Sirnamed Boniface, began to preach the Gospel to the Germans Pagans, being sent by Pope Gregory the II. the great Patron of Images. This Winefrid being altogether wedded to the advancement of the Papal See, I make no doubt but that he gave to the Germans newly converted from Paganism, the Service in the Roman both form and tongue.

CHAP. XIV. Of AFRICA, and how the Service in the Latin Tongue came to it.

OF Africa M. Du Perron speaks thus, St. Austin affirmeth, that

This Prelat doth according to his custom, which is to prove a thing which is not in question. He saith that the Latin tongue was not vulgar in Africa, but that is not the question. We dispute not here of the vulgar tongue, but of the tongue understood by the people. It is not material whether Latin was or was not vulgar in Africa; the question is, whether it was understood. In that part of Africa which he marketh, the Liturgy was said in Latin, because it was there more common and better understood by the people then the Punic language, which was the old vulgar tongue. It is much already that the Cardinal grants that Latin was the vulgar tongue of Carthage, the capital City of Africa. The same he confesseth of the Cities of Africa that were Colonies. Now the vulgar tongue of the capital City of the Country being Latin, where the Court of the Proconsul was, and the Imperial Officers, where the causes were judged in Latin, and where an innumerable multitude of people resorted; many other Towns besides being Roman Colonies, and over all the Towns those whom the Romans called Curiales, the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and which they call in France les gens du Roy, the Kings men, being Latins, it is no wonder if all the people of the Country used themselves to speak Latin, and if Latin was more familiar with them then their old vulgar Punic tongue. Wherefore as in Carthage, so in Bona, and other Towns of Africa subject unto the Romans, not only the Liturgy, but the Sermons were in Latin. It was in Latin that Cyprian, and Aurelius, and Austin preached.

Austin being born in the Town of Thagasta, or Tegesta in Numidia, where the people were half barbarous and remote from Carthage, yet saith that he had learned Latin among the caresses of his Nurses, because his Father was a Curial and an Imperial Officer; as Posidonius relateth in Austin's life. Wherefore also in Austin's Books there are many passages whereby it appeareth, that the African people understood Latin better then Punic. As in the 26. Sermon of the words of the Apostle he speaks thus to the people,

By all these instances it is made as clear as the bright day, that the ancient Church in Greece, Egypt, Asia, Armenia, Ethiopia, Africa, subject to the Romans, Italy, Gauls, Spain and England, Divine Service was said in a tongue understood by the people: Which M. Du Perron doth tacitly acknowledge; for he doth not say that in those Churches the Service was said in an unknown tongue, but only affirmeth that it was said in another tongue then the vulgar: Which yet is false of Italy, of Greece, of the most part of Natolia, of the City of Carthage, and of all the Roman Colonies of Africa. But it is true of all Churches without exception, that their Sermons and their Liturgy were in the same language.