CHAP. I. That false religions love obscu­ritie: But the true Religi­on setteth forth to the view her doctrine, & holdeth nothing hidden.

IT is an opinion commonly re­ceived, that ig­norance is the [Page 2] mother of devotion. In the matter of Gods service, men admire most, what they un­derstand least; and obscuritie augments reverence, and herewith fareth it as with beauties; the which when men doe nothing but stand at enterview and at gaze, they kindle and inflame the more concupiscence.

Negligence and propha­nesse contribute to this evill; For men having no naturall inclination to bee instructed in the knowledge of God, they uoluntarily disburden themselves of that care upon them that make profession to instruct them; rather then they will take the paines to learne, they had rather be­leeve without knowing, and follow others without any [Page 3] further inquisition to informe themselves; and this affected ignorance cloketh it selfe with the specious title of re­spect towards the Church, and of quicknesse of appre­hension; if there be question of putting forth a mans mo­ney, there men will be sure to enquire out the best securi­ties, and men are in this point full of diffidence and distrust: but when the point of salvati­tion falleth into debate, they referre themselves to rely on the faith of another, and blindfold their owne eyes with a uoluntarie ignorance.

Satan that seaseth on men by naturall handels, snares and nooses, useth this inclina­tion to seduce them, it being easie for him to make them goe astray out of their way [Page 4] that shunne the light. He it is, that hath taught Magici­ans and coniurers to insert and blend in their coniurati­ons, barbarous and sustian termes not to be understood. He it is, that instructed the Pagan Priests to cover and keepe close their misteries un­der a religious silence: and to keepe aloofe off at a distance the prophane, who now a daies are termed the lay-peo­ple or the laiques. Thus Hetrusca disciplina. the Toscane discipline, wherein was contained the old religion of the Romanes, Quintilia­nus lib. 1. Carmina Sa­liorum vix sacerdotibus suis satis in­tellecta sed quae mutari vetat religio. and the verses of the Salique Priests sung by those Priests of Mars, were coucht in rude and barbarous termes, and such as were not understood of the people. Epiphanius in the heresie of the Ossenians, [Page 5] [...] saith that the hereticks taught to pray with obscure words, forbidding to enquire after the interpretation of them. Saint Augustine in his 16. Chapter, Quod vult Deus, affirmes the same of the Heracleonites. And Clemens Alexandrinus in his first booke of Tapisseries, saith that [...]. men hold that prayers pronounced in a barbarous tongue have more efficacie. Hierome in his Epitaphe Barbaro simplices quosque ter­rent sono, ut quod non intelligunt plus miren­tur. of Lucinius Andalusien: they affright the simple with a bar­barous sound, so that they ad­mire most what they under­stand least. The Mahume­tans, Turks, and Persians have their service in the Ara­bick tongue, which the peo­ple understand not. And the Iewes, whom God hath gi­ven [Page 6] up to reprobate sense, do read in their Synagogues the Law and the Prophets in the Hebrew tonge, whereas the most part of their people have but little or no under­standing thereof.

They that have the charge to guide and instruct the peo­ple, have beene carefull to fo­ment and increase this evill; for they endevour to keepe the people in ignorance, with-holding from them the key of knowledge, as our Sa­viour Iesus Christ saith, Luk. 11.52. and hindering others from ente­ring in. By this meanes they make themselves respectable and of account, as such that are onely capable of under­standing divine matters the things that belong to God, and having onely and alone a [Page 7] familiar communication with God. And by the selfe same meanes, they themselves take sanctuary, and hinder, that there can no cleare inspecti­on be made into their affaires; and gaine the liberty to ac­commodate religion to their owne profit, and to carve and shred it at their pleasure. Dea­ling as theeves do, that blowe out the candells for feare of being discride; for they are afraid, least the things which men admire a farre off, being knowne and better taken no­tice of at a nearer distance, should become contempti­ble and vtterly out of request: Like unto painted women, who would not willingly bee uiewed neere at hand; ha­ving learned by experience, that there is trouble to lead [Page 8] the ignorant; and that it is easiest diving into a blinde mans purse, and that every man that would be informed in the reason and originall of things is not easily perswa­ded.

Hence commeth it that they withdraw the people from reading of the Scrip­tures, and that they hinder the translating of them into the vulgar tongue. Hence commeth it, that they labour so much to cast an aspersion upon the Scriptures, and to make them to be suspected by the people, as a dangerous booke; and that the reading thereof is the cause of here­sies. Hence came in Images, which serve to amaze, and to holde at gaze the eyes whilst they blinde their understan­dings; [Page 9] and to afford them recreation, whilst they with­draw and bereave the of in­struction Hence came that heape of Ceremonies, which are shaddowes, which growe apace, and stretch out them­selves in length, when the night of ignorance is neere at hand. Hence came that implicit faith, which relyeth on the faith of another, and which beleeveth that which the Church of his countrey beleeveth, without ever knowing that which the Church ought to beleeve: and which serveth God by custome, following the thronge, and involveing themselves in the multitude. Hence came in the Liturgie in a strange tongue, and not understood; as if the english [Page 10] tongue were too base and tri­viall for divine service. Hence came in the custome of pray­ing to God without knowing what they asked of him; as if they were affraid to under­stand themselves. Hence came it to passe, that as in the publique reading of the Scriptures; God is a barba­rian unto men, so also in pub­lique prayers the Priest is a barbarian to the Assembly, and in the prayers of particu­lars, every one is a barbarian to himselfe.

The occasions and the change of affaires, have here­vnto often contributed: For the vulgar tongue of a coun­trey comming to be abbaster­dised by laps of time, or being suddenly changed by the con­fus'd medley, the blending, [Page 11] and invndation and uiolent breaking in of strange peo­ple, the Pastors and leaders of the people have not beene carefull to accommodate the publique service unto the un­derstanding of the new inha­bitants, and to the tongue in vse: So that the Liturgie be­came in lesse then fiftie yeares, not to be understood by the people And this came to passe in Italie, where the Latine was the vulgar in the time of the Apostles, and ma­ny ages after: But the Latine being corrupted by the inun­dation of the Goths, Lum­bards and French, and by the extinguishing & abolishing of good letters and learning; the Bishops still retained the service in the ancient tongue, and suffered the people to [Page 12] loose the understanding of it: The like happened in France and in Spaine, as we shall see hereafter.

True religion taketh a quite contrary way. It resists this naturall inclination of men, by which they flie in­struction, fearing to learne the will of God, least there­by they should oblige them­selves to follow it: thorow the brightnesse of the Gos­pell it dissipates the kingdome of the Prince of darknesse: For the people ought to bee clearely instructed in the do­ctrine of saluation; seeing they have as great a share in salvation as the Pastors. Who shall not answer for the peo­ple, at the day of iudgement: if the blinde leade the blinde, Matth. 25.24. they will both fall into the ditch. [Page 13] The Prophet Habacuk tells us, Habac. 2.4. that The iust shall live by his faith, and not by the faith of another. He which beleeves in God by proxie, or attornie, deserves that another should bee saved for him betweene the false and the true religi­on; there is as much diffe­rence, as betweene two Tem­ples; the one whereof hath his windowes and lights shut and stopt up, the other recei­veth in lights on all sides; in the one, the people make pro­fession of a blinde obedience; in the other, the people de­mand instruction. The one setteth forth to the view the Lampe of Gods Word; the other suppressing this spiritu­all light, lighteth up candells at high noone: And like as the light which struck Saint [Page 14] Peter on the side when hee slept in prison, Acts 12. made the irons to fall off from his hands, and opened him the prison: even so the light of the true do­ctrine breakes asunder the bands of superstition, & sets a man at libertie; according to that which our Saviour Iesus Christ teacheth in the 8. of S. Iohn. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Wherevpon also God said in the 5. Chap­ter of Esay. My people are led captive, because there is no knowledge; and Iesus Christ in the 22. of S. Matthew said to the Sadduces, You erre, not knowing the Scriptures: Wherevpon he also said to the Iewes: Iohn 3.39. Search the Scrip­tures; which is a commande­ment, which is not made to [Page 15] the people by the Church of Rome. And God himselfe by his Prophet Ieremie, in his Chapter 31. promiseth a hap­pie time, wherein every one shall not teach his brother, say­ing, Know yee the Lord, for, saith the Lord, they shall know me from the least to the grea­test. God reiecteth a Zeale without knowledge, Rom. 10.2. and the Apostle desireth that the charitie of the Phi­lippians might be with know­ledge and all understanding. Philip. 1.9. This is the condemnation of the world (SAITH THE LORD) that light is come into the world, Iohn 3.19. but men love darknesse better then the light. Matth. 10.16. God indeed would have us to be simple and innocent, but withall, he will have us to be prudent and wise, he forbids [Page 16] curiositie in things hee hath concealed from us; but it fol­loweth not thence, that wee must bee ignorant of things necessarie, and which he hath manifested to us in his Word.

For these causes have wee taken away images out of our Churches, which speake not, and have set in their pla­ces the holy Scriptures, wherin God speaketh unto us, these images are fallen downe to the ground before the doctrine of the Gospell, as Dagon before the Arke of the Covenant, 1. Sam. 5.3. and wee have brought in the Scripture in the vulgar tongue; and have established againe the service of God in words understood: for teaching no other do­ctrine, then that which is con­tained [Page 17] in the holy Scriptures; we are not ashamed of our re­ligion; and we do desire that our doctrine might bee knowne of every one, and examined by the Scriptures, Iohn 10.38. Iohn 17.8. Rom. 10.17. having learned by the holy Scriptures, that faith consi­steth in knowledge; and that Iesus Christ will, that men know before they beleeve; and that faith is by hearing of the Word of God: whence it followeth, that we must heare the Word of God, and be therein instructed, be­fore we can have faith: we re­iect the counsell of our adver­saries, who would have men beleeve before they choose the way of salvation, in stead of that, they must know to the end to choose aright: Can there a greater abuse [Page 18] then to make the faith of Christians to consist in igno­rance, Bellar. lib. 2. de iustifica­tione cap. 7. § Iudicium. Fides distin­guitur contra scientiam, & melius per ignorantiam quàm per notitiam de­finitur. Du Perron in his booke a­gainst the King of great Bri­taine. lib. 6. ch. 1. pag. 1080. as Cardinall Bellar­mine doth, who saith, that faith is distinguished against knowledge, and is better defined by ignorance then by know­ledge. Wherevpon likewise the Cardinall du Perron thinks, that the greater igno­rance is, the greater is the me­rit of faith; saying, that when as any one understands not the publique service, for that the Priest speaketh in an un­knowne tongue, and not un­derstood, that defect is recom­pensed by the merit of the ende­vour and greater excercise of faith. Which is a new kinde of merit, to endevour to know nothing, and an ende­vour of faith which consists in negligence; and a faith [Page 19] which consists in having none at all, seeing that faith commeth by hearing of the Word of God; for it is not to heare the Word of God, to heare a sound without un­derstanding; the Apostle then by this reckoning, was destitute of reason, when he gave thanks to God, for that, that the Corinthians were rich in all knowledge. 1. Cor. 1.5. And that wish he made, that the Philippians might abound in knowledge and understan­ding, was very inofficious and unkinde; seeing that by that knowledge the endevour of their faith slackned and en­feebled, Coloss. 3.16. and their merit di­minished. Hereon we have an excellent passage of Saint Chrysostome in his Homilie, 61. upon Saint Iohn, wherein [Page 20] after he had in many words reprooved the people, and re­proched them too for their ignorance, and for their inca­pacity and disabilitie to de­fend the cause of God, and to render a reason of their faith, and had layd before them the Apostles commandement, that willeth that the Word of God should dwell plentifully in every one of us in all wis­dome; Col. 3.16. he askes [...]. What an­swer herevnto make those per­sons more unprofitable then drones? They say that the soule is blessed which is simple, and that hee which walkes in simplicitie, walkes with affi­ance: That this is that which is the source and fountaine of all this evill, to wit, that amongst the people, there are but very few of them, that [Page 21] could in time of need alleadge any testimonies of Scriptures. This complaint of this good Doctor, was at this day ridi­culous: for the people would answer him, how should wee be able to alleadg the Scrip­tures, whereof you have for­bidden us the reading? And indeed there is not extant any approved and allowed tran­slation in the vulgar tongue. It is now adaies a badg of an heresie to reade carefully the Scriptures and to alleadg them.

CHAP. II. Two differences betweene us and the Church of Rome, touching an unknowne tongue.

COncerning an unknowne tongue; when we speake unto God, or when God spea­keth unto us; wee have two sorts of differences with the Church of Rome, the one con­cerning the prayers of parti­cular persons, the other tou­ching the publique service: For in the Church of Rome the people use to pray with­out understanding them­selves, and to speake unto God and unto the Saints in a tongue, which he that pray­eth understandeth not, as if [Page 23] it were suspected to them­selves, or they were afraid to understand their own prayer: thinking that the Latine hath something in it that's more holy, and that barbarous termes have more efficacie, and that prayer in Or in any other tongue then Latine. En­glish is lesse acceptable to God.

The very same abuse hath intruded it selfe into the pub­lique service, which is perfor­med in Latine, where the people of France, Germany and Spaine, understand no­thing. Wherevpon also the people vse to say, let's goe heare a Masse; but not, let us goe observe the words, or under­stand the Masse, they might say farre better if they said, let us goe see the Masse; for they goe to it, as unto a shew, and [Page 24] not as unto an instruction; and as if it were not enough that the Masse is said in La­tine; a great part of the Masse is pronounced ex­ceeding lowe, and with a deepe silence: the rest is said in confused termes, and with quivering of an inarticu­late voice: whereof their Doctors render us the rea­son, namely, for that She­pheards in hearing of the Masse having learned the words of consecration, Durand. Rat. lib. 4. c. 35. Cum quidam pa­stores Cano­nem in agro canta [...]ent, & panem su­per lapidem posuissent, ad verborū ipsorum pto­lationem panis in car­nem conuer sus est, ipsi tamen divino iudicio igne coelitùs misso percussi sunt. Prop­ter quodsancti Patres statuerūt verba ista sub silentio dici. pro­nounced them over the bread of their meale, which was incontinently transubstantia­ted into flesh: wherevpon withall they were strucke with thunder from heaven. This Historie is recited by Durand in his 4. booke of his [Page 25] Rational chap. 35. and by Pope Innocent the III. in his third booke of the misteries of the Masse, chap. 1.

CHAP. III. Of prayers of particular per­sons in a tongue not under­stood by themselves that pray.

I. PRayer is a request or supplication, which man presenteth unto God, forwarded and suggested by the sense and feeling of our want and necessitie, it is a kinde of almes which man asketh of God. Whence it followeth, that hee that prayeth ought to pray ac­cording to his feeling, and [Page 26] to apply his prayer accor­dingly unto his necessitie; this cannot be done by him that prayeth without under­standing himselfe, and who by custome sayeth a prayer in terms not understood: very of­ten it falleth out, that the par­tie which hath an intentiō to aske of God something, saith in his Latine prayers things farre from his owne inten­tion: Thus Courtizans and women, that understand the Latine iust as much as the Greeke, doe say in Latine their seaven Psalmes; Psal. 38. & 143. where­in David being sicke, com­plaineth that hee halteth as he goeth, and that his raines were enflamed, and speaketh as one shut up in a darke Cave, whither Saul had brought him: is it credible, [Page 27] that a silly woman pronoun­cing these things in Latine, once thinkes of asking salva­tion or the forgivenesse of sinnes?

II. The Apostle Saint Iames in his 1. Chap. wil­leth, that when we aske any thing of God, wee aske it in faith, not doubting at all. Now it is impossible to aske of God any thing in faith and in full assurance, when the thing is not knowne which is asked of God, for faith implyeth and bringeth knowledge. Wherevpon al­so our Saviour Iesus Christ conioyneth ordinarily know­ledge with faith, as in the 10 of Saint Iohn, ver. 38. That you may know and beleeve that the Father is in me: and in the 17. Chap. ver. 8. They [Page 28] have knowne and beleeved that thou hast sent me. Wher­fore insteed that Saint Paul so often saith, that we are iu­stified by faith. Esay in his 53. Chap. ver. 11. saith, that wee are iustified by know­ledge.

III. One cannot accuse a man in plainer tearmes to bee out of his wits, then in saying to him; You know not what you say. But all things which in civill conversation would bee esteemed absurd, in the Romish religion are held for good: as if reli­gion served to trouble the wits, or were a receptacle of absurdities; and that which otherwaies is a folly, here is a devotion. God then shall deale iustly to grant nothing to that person, that knowes [Page 29] not what he askes; and by consequent knoweth this, that God hath denied him.

IV. Here experience and necessitie reforme men by force; for they who shall have all their life long, made their prayers in latine without un­derstanding of themselves, in suddaine afflictions and in great griefes will change their language, and will cast forth unto God their fervent prayers in their ordinarie tongue. A man which is in the pangues of death, or that is upon the Iibbet (unlesse he bee utterly brutish) will never say Beati quorum, nor the Pater in Latine.

V. But what good grace can a Latine prayer have, which a poore silly woman saith to S. Mary the Egypti­an, [Page 30] or to S. Magdaleine who never understood the La­tine? And albeit that indeed they had learned their Latine in Paradise, yet so it is, that all that is nothing to under­stand the voice without knowing the heart: it is re­quired that he on whom wee must call, doe know the faith and the repentance of him, that prayeth least he heare an hypocrite. Now the Word of God teacheth us, that God alone knoweth the hearts of men, 2. Chron. 6. ver. 30.

VI. Above all to be pitti­ed is the Latine prayer of a woman, or of an Artizan, which prayeth to S. Vrsula, or to S. Margarite, or to S. Cathe­rine, or to S. Chrystopher, or to S. Martial, or to S. Lōgius, or to S. Lazarus patron of le­pers, [Page 31] or to the elevē thousand Virgins, which are Saints, and yet never were men, and which are placed in heaven, and yet never lived upon the earth, by this meanes he that prayeth, speaketh to a Saint, which hath no being at all, in a tongue which hee him­selfe that prayeth understan­deth not, which is an heape of absurditie. These are not the calves of the lips, but the lips of calves. Osee 14.2. Hi non sunt vituli labiorum, sed labia vi­tulorum, Osea 14.2.

VII. That if unto a man that prayeth in Latine, not understanding that which he saith, any one had given one of Esops fables in Latine, per­swading him, that it is a pray­er to the Virgin Mary: such a man, according to the do­ctrine of the Church of Rome, pronouncing this fable [Page 32] with fervent affection, should not cease to pray in faith, and should not loose the merit of his prayer.

VIII. That if a French man not understanding the Germane tongue, should come and aske something of the King in the high Dutch, the King although he under­stood the high Dutch, would take this discourse for a mockerie, or would thinke such a man to be beside him­selfe.

IX. In this point the ex­ample of Iesus Christ ought to serve us for a rule, who prescribing a forme of prayer unto his Disciples, gave them one in their usuall and ordinarie tongue, saying un­to them, When you pray, say our Father which art in hea­ven, [Page 33] &c. He gave them not this prayer in the Byscane, nor in the Arabian. For he would have them when they prayed, know what they as­ked of God; and what were the things whereof they stood in need.

X. And with such excel­lent art is this prayer framed and composed; that the faithfull speaking unto God, speaketh also unto himselfe, and that every petition is a commandement; for as the commandements of God are the matter of our prayers, and teach us that which wee ought to aske of God; so al­so the petitions which God hath prescribed us containe the commandements. In asking of God that his king­dome may come, we oblige [Page 34] and binde over our selves to labour for the advancement of this kingdome. In asking and praying that the name of God may be hallowed, wee are advertised to hallowe it our selves; and we are taught by this prayer, not to covet another mans bread, and to forgive them that have tres­passed against us, and to es­chew the temptations of evill; lessons which cannot be comprised by him, that understands not himselfe, and prayeth in a tongue which hee understands not.

XI. True it is that God understands all tongues; but withall, his pleasure is, that he that speaketh unto him, know what he saith, and that he speake as a man, and a rea­sonable creature, that is to [Page 35] say, with reason and under­standing. God indeed un­derstands thy tongue; but withall, he understands that thou understands not thy selfe; it is a grand abuse to thinke that wee speake unto God, to the end hee might understand our language; for before wee opened our mouthes hee knew our thoughts; and it is bee that puts prayer into the heart of them that feare him: now it is the heart that must move the lips, and suggest to the mouth words conformable to the thought.

XII. Thus prayed the Prophets: David prayed in his owne tongue, and dicta­ted unto the Israelites the Psalmes in a tongue they un­derstood: who whilst they [Page 36] pronounced the Psalmes of David, had this content­ment, whereof the Church of Rome hath deprived her selfe: reading in particular, and hearing read in pub­lique the Psalmes of David without all understanding of them.

XIII. The prodigall childe returning home to his Father and saying; Fa­ther I have sinned against hea­ven and before thee, I am not worthy to be called thy sonne, understood himselfe well: Luke 15.21. Thus prayed the poore Publican, smiting his breast, and saying, O God be mercifull unto mee a poore sinner, Luke 18.13.

XIV. Thus prayed the Primitive Christians for [Page 37] the Apostle to the Colossians, Chap. 3. ver. 16. had taught them to exhort one ano­ther mutually in Psalmes and praises; so prayed the Apo­stle Saint Paul being at Phi­lippi, where the faithfull used to goe forth of the towne, and met together by a river side to pray: Act. 16. verse 13. For Lydia a seller of purple had not been touched either with his pray­ers, or with his exhortati­ons, if hee had prayed, or spoke in a tongue which shee understood not. And none hath hitherto doubted but that the faithfull of the Church of Ierusalem, in the time of the Apostles pray­ed in their vulgar tongue, when they prayed for the deliverance of Saint Peter [Page 38] being prisoner: Act. 12.5. and that the Fathers when they prayed in their families, were un­derstood by their chil­dren.

XV. The Apostle Saint Paul in the first to the Corin­thians, hath a whole Chap­ter upon this subject; name­ly, the 14. wherein he utter­ly condemnes prayers in an unknowne tongue: 1. Cor. 14. If (saith he) I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall bee a barbarian unto me. If he forbid to be a barbarian to another in praying, then how much more to be a barbarian to ones selfe? And in the 15. ver. I will pray with the spirit, verse 11. and will pray with the under­standing also: but this pas­sage [Page 39] shall bee handled hereafter more at large, when wee shall come to speake of publique pray­ers.

XVI. Thomas Har­ding a Doctor of Lovane an English man, the Tar­get of Poperie in En­gland, in his Treatise of prayers in a strange tongue, in the 33. Secti­on, constrained by the evidence of the truth, pas­seth his sentence of con­demnation against it, say­ing, Est op­tabilius ut populus preces pub­licas verna­cula sua lin­gua recita­ret. it were to bee wisht that the people could say their publique prayers in their vulgar tongue; Hardin. Section. 9. Non potest populus fateor, dicere Amen ad benedictionem Sacerdotis aequè ac si Latinam linguam perfectè calleret. and in the 29. Section, hee acknowledgeth that at this [Page 40] day the people cannot so easily say Amen to the blessing of the Priest, as if they understood the La­tine.

CHAP. IV. That in the Primitive Church every one pray­ed in his owne tongue.

WEe have alreadie in the first Chapter alledged many of the Anci­ents, who derided the super­stition of those that thought that prayers in a barbarous tongue have more efficacie in them.

Origen in his 8. booke a­gainst Celsus: [...]. The Greci­ans in their prayers use Greeke words, and the Romans the Romane language, and so eve­ry one according to his tongue prayeth unto God, and praiseth [Page 42] him, as hee is able. Note that he setteth not downe on­ly his opinion, but that hee sheweth forth the custome and practise of the Christian Church.

Chrysostome in the Homi­lie 35. upon the first to the Corinthians: [...], If any one speake onely in the Persian tongue, or in any other strange tongue, not knowing what hee saith, he shall be a barbarian to himselfe, and not onely to ano­ther man.

Hierome in his 18. Epi­stle to Marcella: In tota Christi villa tota rustici­tas est. Ex­tra Psalmos si [...]entium est Quo­cunque te vertetis arator stiuam tenens alleluia decantat: Sudans messor Psal­mis le avocat: & curva attondens vites falce vinitor aliquid Davidicum canit. Thorow out the whole Cittie of Iesus Christ they are all countrey swaines. Without Psalmes there's not a word spoken: [Page 43] which way so ere thou tur­nest thee, the very hus­bandman holding the plough sings praises to the Lord: and the reapers and the sweating harvest-men with­draw themselves aside with Psalmes: and the vine-dressor with his hooked vine-knife shragging his vines, sings something out of David. This is not, nor can­not be done by the common people of the Church of Rome, that have no minde to sing at the Cart, or in their shops Latine Psalmes which they understand not, and where to sing Psalmes in English is a badge of he­resie.

The same Father in his Epitaph of Paula, saith that at the performing of the fu­nerall [Page 44] rites of Paula, Psalmes were by course sung in the Hebrew, the Greek, in the Latine, and in the Syriack tongue, Hebreo, Greco, Lati­no, Syroque sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant. Every one singing according to the language of his owne coun­trey.

And not to wearie the Reader with a multitude of passages in a matter so evi­dent: Thomas himself the An­gelicall Doctor, whom the Pope hath made a Saint, in his Commentarie upon the 14. Chapter of the 1. to the Corinth: in the 4. Lect: hath these words: It is a thing certaine, that he that prayeth and understands what he saith, profiteth more then he, which prayeth onely with [Page 45] the tongue, but understandeth not that which he saith, for he which understandeth is edifi­ed, both in his under­standing and in his affe­ction, but his understan­ding that understands not, re­ceiveth not any fruit whereby to bee edified. And in the same Lect: hee acknowledgeth that the Primitive Church prayed in the vul­gar tongue, but that this course was changed after­ward.

It would be a very plea­sant conceit to bring in the Virgin Mary, or Elizabeth her Cozen, saying their houres in a barbarous tongue and not understood, turning over a chapelet, prayer of beads or Rosarie: according to the custome of [Page 46] the Church of Rome, who say their howres by dropping downe the graines of a con­secrated paire of beads. The good women rub these their beads against the feet of an image; they bring from Rome chests full of hallowed graines, Consecrated by the Pope, which are sold dearer, because they have more virtue. M. the Car­dinall du Perron comming backe from Rome, brought backe with him a budget full of hallowed graines, every of which graines filed on a paire of beads had that vertue, that but kissing of it, one might purchase an hundred yeares of pardon; but this priui­ledge was but onely for the French: one might see silly [Page 47] women saying their Pater-no­sters in Latine, in their way going to market, and the Spanish talking and confer­ring of affaires, turning over faire and softly the graines of their beades, say­ing at every graine a La­tine prayer, which is to bee repeated fiftie times over, blending the Paters with the Aves, and by saying five Aves, for one Pater-noster; for the vertue of prayers now adaies con­sists in number, repeated over in the same words not understood: And the poore people, when they say their Ave thinke they pray to the Virgin Mary; whereas indeed they pray for the Vir­gin Mary. At the end of all this, there is said, It is the [Page 48] Church, &c. and It is an Apo­stolicall tradition. For this word Church is become a cloake to cover a multitude of abuses.

CHAP. V. That publique service in a tongue not understood, is contrary to the Word of God, and to reason.

I. ABuse in the Liturgie and publique service is yet more pernitious, be­cause God himselfe is there­in wrapped up, and made a barbarian unto men, and his word by this meanes be­comes not intelligible: as if men would frustrate God of his intention, which is to speake unto us to instruct us; as if Iesus Christ came downe from heaven of purpose to speake to men without being understood. For in the Masse there are not onely [Page 50] prayers unto God, but also therein are read places of Scriptures in which God speakes unto men. In pray­ers in a tongue not under­stood, there is used this im­pertinent excuse, that God understands all tongues, as if we spake with the mouth; to the end, to be understood by God: But here where the businesse is concerning God speaking to men, this excuse hath no place; for when God speaketh unto men, hee will bee heard and understood: and indeed when for excuse it is said, that God understands al tongues, it is presupposed that he unto whom he speaketh, should understand that which is said unto him.

II. Therefore the Scrip­ture [Page 51] teacheth us that when God is provoked to displea­sure against his people; hee makes them heavie of hea­ring, that they may not heare, and that their hearts may not understand; as God himselfe speaketh by his Pro­phet Esay. Chap. 6. verse 10.

III. Besides it is also one of Gods curses, wherewith hee punisheth the ingrati­tude and the contempt of his word, when he speakes to a people in a strange tongue, that they may not under­stand, as the Apostle tea­cheth in the first to the Co­rinthians, Chap. 14. where he bringeth in God speaking thus by his Prophet Esay. Esay 25.11. I will speake to this people by men of another tongue, [Page 52] and by strange lips, and thus they shall not understand, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a signe not un­to beleevers, but vnto infidells. This threatning is fulfilled in the Church of Rome; where­in God punisheth the hard­nesse of mens hearts by speaking unto them in a tongue which they under­stand not.

IIII. In this matter this maxime taken out of the na­ture of man, and from the intention of the creature ought to be laid for the foun­dation; namely, that the tongue was given unto man to be the interpreter of his thoughts, and messenger of his conceptions. Whence it followeth that to use the tongue to a contrarie end, [Page 53] and to speake to the end to be not understood, is to turne nature topsie turvie and quite to overthrowe her; and as much as in us lyeth to frustrate the Creator of his intention: and to change humane speech into an un­profitable Echo, and into a sound beating the aire. Now if this bee true in him which speaketh to others in a tongue which he understan­deth not, it is yet more true in him which is understood neither by himselfe nor by another.

V. Out of the selfe same maxime, it followeth that when the Priest speaketh La­tine in the Church, he ought to speake to bee understood by some body. Our adversa­ries must tell us, whether he [Page 54] speake to bee understood by the assistants, or to be under­stood by himselfe, or to bee understood by God, for there is no fourth. Now hee spea­keth not to be understood of the by-standers, seeing hee speaketh so very lowe, and in a tongue which the people understand not: and besides, in private Masses hee spea­keth alone and without any assistants: Besides he spea­keth not to be understood of God; for God understands us without our speaking, though we speake not at all, and before wee open our mouthes: nor can it rather be said, that the Priest in the Masse speaketh to the end to be understood by himselfe, for hee knew his owne thought before hee spake: [Page 55] speech was given man not to informe himselfe in his own thoughts, but to the end to make it knowne to another; he is utterly beside himselfe that speaketh to himselfe, to the end, to understand him­selfe.

VI. Add herevnto, that in many places of the Masse, the Priest speaketh to the people, saying unto them, Oremus, &c. and Orate pro me fratres, &c. and many o­ther such like things, where­in the Priest bids the people aske of God such and such things, and to ioyne their prayers with his: but the people have no minde to obey that his commande­ment, not so much as know­ing what the Priest bids them doe; the people might [Page 56] iustly say to him, make us un­derstand thee, if thou wilt be obeyed.

VII. Wherefore in the Church of the Old Testament, the whole publique service was perfor­med in the vulgar tongue; and the prayers which Aaron and his Successors made for the Hebrew people were made in the Hebrew tongue: which after the captivitie of Babylon being corrupted, yet was still un­derstood by the people, as wee will shew hereaf­ter.

VIII. Our Lord Iesus Christ instituted and cele­brated the holy Supper amongst his Disciples in the vulgar tongue, and that which was understood by [Page 57] the assistants; his will was, that when the faithfull shall eat of that bread, and drinke of that cup, they shew forth the Lords death untill he come againe. 1 Cor. 11. ver. 26. Now this is not to shew forth a thing, to propound it in an unknowne tongue, not understood.

IX. To this very selfe same end he gave unto his Apostles the gift of divers tongues, to the end, that in all nations they might esta­blish the service of God in the tongue of the countrey, and that in every tongue God might be served, in such sort, that the diversitie of tongues which at the buil­ding of Babel was a curse, at the building of the Church is become a blessing.

[Page 58]X. The Apostles followed their Masters example; for the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, that were Gre­cians, gave them in their owne tongue the forme of the Celebration of the holy Supper. 1 Cor. 11.

XI. Would Iesus Christ who is the light of the world come to plunge it in darknesse, and to make things more obscure? And God having spoken to his people by Moses in a tongue understood, would hee now wrap and infold up himselfe in darknesse by propoun­ding his Word, and by gi­ving his Sacraments in a barbarous and an unknowne tongue?

XII. But that which is yet of more strength in this [Page 59] matter, and which clearely decides, and fully determins this controversie, is the au­thoritie of the Apostle Saint Paul, who imployed the 14. Chapter of his 1. Epistle to the Corinthians, in a manner wholly to condemne the use of strange tongues, and not understood in the Church. If (saith he) the trumpet give an uncertaine sound, who shall be prepared to the warre? So likewise you, except you utter words which may be un­derstood, how shall it be knowne what is spoken? For yee shall speake unto the aire, and a lit­tle after. Wherefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall bee a barbarian to him that speaketh, and hee that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me: and a little after: If [Page 60] thou blesse with the spirit, how shal he that occupieth the place of the unlearned, say Amen, at thy giving of thankes; say­ing, he understandeth not what thou sayest? Thou verily gi­uest thankes well, but another is not thereby edified. Where­vpon he concludeth, I had rather in the Church speake five words with my understan­ding, that I may teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknowne tongue.

Du Perron against the King of great Brittaine, book 6. chap. 1. p. 109. the word tongue in S. Paul, signifieth an unknown tongue.XIII. Mounsieur du Per­ron answereth, that Saint Paul speaketh not of an un­knowne tongue which was in the Church, but of tongues infused and miracu­lous. This I willingly agree to, for this augments the force of that place against the ordinarie service in an un­knowne [Page 61] tongue. For these miraculous gifts of tongues were rare, and given unto some Christians for a small time; to the end to declare the power of God, and by consequent the use of them in the Church brought with them a benefit, which the Masse in Latine cannot bring. Neverthelesse, the Apostle forbids them the use of this miraculous guift in the Church, unlesse they interpret them instantly; be­cause he will have nothing spoken in the Church which is not understood. How much more condemnes hee a strange language in the or­dinarie service, wherein that extraordinary evill which the Apostle would avoid, would become ordinarie? [Page 62] The Apostle forbids not an unknowne tongue in the Church, for that it is mira­culous: but because it is not understood, and because that he which speaketh is a barba­rian to him that heareth him; & because that is not under­stood, which is spoken, & be­cause it is to speak in the aire, & because y ^e people cānot say Amen to the thanksgiving, they understand not; and be­cause that they that heare are not thereby edified, which are truly reasons of moment: be it that he which speakes in an unknowne tongue in the Church, have learned that tongue by miracle or by studie, the question here is not of the manner by which a tongue is learned, but of the peoples instruction. Saint [Page 63] Paul had learned without miracle the Hebrew tongue; and yet for all that would he not celebrate at Corinth, or at Rome the holy Supper a­mongst the Gentiles, in the Hebrew tongue; in a word he gives two generall rules and without exception. The one it is better to speake in the Church five words un­derstood, then ten thousand not understood. The other, it is a curse of God, when he speaketh to a people in a tongue they understand not.

XIV. Others goe about to escape by another way. They say that Saint Paul speakes not of the ordinarie service which is said in the Church, but of certaine hymnes and spirituall songs. [Page 64] In speaking thus they would perswade us, that such hymnes ought to bee pro­nounced in a tongue under­stood, but that the rest of the service was said in a tongue not understood by the Corin­thians, but this they know to be false. It being a thing well knowne, that in Greece the publique service was ever performed and said in Greeke, and is so said yet to this day. So that if such hymnes and spirituall songs ought to be pronounced in a tongue understood, then much more the ordinarie prayers and the reading of Gods Word, whence the people receive more edifica­tion.

XV. But it is easy for us to prove that the Apostle in [Page 65] this place speaketh of ano­ther matter then of hymnes and spirituall songs. For when hee saith that strange tongues are for a signe, not unto the beleevers, but unto unbeleevers: and ranketh that amongst the threat­nings and curses of God; when God threatens to speake to a people in a strange tongue, to the end, not to be understood; it is cleere that he speaketh not of hymnes or songs in which men speake unto God, but of the Word of God, which is directed unto men.

XVI. And when the Apostle saith, that hee had rather speake five words in the Church understood to instruct others, then tenne [Page 66] thousand in a tongue, it is evident he speaketh of what­soever is spoken in the Church.

XVII. And these words, If I know not what is signified by the words, I shall be a barba­rian to him that speaketh, and he that speaketh shall be a bar­barian unto me; are they not also as true in him that rea­deth the Scriptures in pub­lique, as in him that pro­nounceth hymnes? For bar­barians are all they esteemed, whose tongue one under­stands not: and this is it that Ovid saith of himselfe being banished among the Getes. Ovid Tri [...]i­um lib. 5. Eleg. 10.

XVIII. Moreover, [Page 67] when the Priest pronoun­ceth prayers in the Masse, and the people understand not so much as one word of them; may wee not, and ought we not to apply unto him the Apostles sentence: how shall hee which occupieth the place of the unlearned, say Amen unto thy giving of thankes? for hee knoweth not what thou sayest.

Chrysostome comm [...]n­ting on this place, under­stood it as we doe. For hee brings in the Apostle spea­king thus: Chrys. Hom. 35. in 1. ad Co­rinth. [...]. If I speake not the thing to you, which may bee understood by you, and which may bee plaine and evident unto you: but shew you onely that I have the [Page 68] gift of tongues, when you have heard strange tongues, you shall goe your way from me without any benefit at all thereby. For what profit can there redound to you from a voice you understand not?

Saint Ambrose in his commentarie on this place, hath given it the very same sense. Si utique ad aedifican­dam Eccle­siam conue­neritis, ea debent dici quae intelli­gant audi­entes Nam quid prodest ut quis lo­quatur lin­gua quam solus scit, ut qui audit nih [...]l pro­ficiat? &c. If (saith he) you meet together to edifie the Church, those things must be delivered which the Audi­tors understand: for to what purpose or profit is it that any one speake a tongue which he himselfe onely understands, and whereof hee that heareth can reape no fruit? and a lit­tle after In Eccle­sia volo qumque verba lo­qui per legem, ut & alios aedificem quam prolixam orationem habere in obscuro. The Apostle saith, I had rather speake [Page 69] five words in the Church ac­ccording to the law, that I edifie withall others, then any long and large discourse with obscuritie.

Saint Hierome in his com­mentarie on this place, Omnis sermo qui non intel­ligitur bar­barus iudi­catur. Every word which is not un­derstood is adiudged barbarous. And in the same place, Ibid. Si quis incog­nitis aliis linguis lo­quatur, mēs eius non ipsi efficitur fine fructu, sed audienti: quic quid enim dici­tur ignorat. if any man speake in a tongue not understood unto another, his spirit is unfruitfull, not to him­selfe, but unto his hearer, for he understands not what is heard.

Basil in his Ascepticks is very expresse for this point, in his 278. answer of his briefe definitions. He asks, [...] &c. [...]. what is this that the spirit [Page 70] of a man prayeth, but his un­derstanding is without fruit? Then he answers it. This was spoken [by the Apostle] touching those that make their prayers in an unknowne tongue unto them that heare them; for he saith, if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is with­out fruit. For when the words of the prayer are un­knowne to them that are there present, his understanding that prayeth is without fruit, not profiting at all. But when the assistants understand the prayer, which may profit them which heare, then hee which prayeth hath this fruit, name­ly, the bettering of those that have thereby profited. And so it fareth with ALL, and with whatsoever is delivered [Page 71] out of the Word of God. For it is written, if there bee any word profitable for the buil­ding up of faith. This holy man understands this place of the Apostle, not onely of hymnes or songs, but of all prayer, and of all reading and pronouncing of the Word of God.

And concerning this wee have a law of the Emperour Iustinian which is in Nouvelle 123. in the Greeke Editions in these words, Ad haec iubemus ut omnes Epis­copi pariter & Presbyte­ri non taci­to modo, sed clara voce quae à fide­li populo exandiatur sacram ob­lationem & preces in sancto baptismate ad hibitas celebrent, quo maiore exinde devotione in depromendis Dei laudibus audientum animi efferantur. Ita enim & Divus Apostolus docet 1. ad Cor. epist we will and command that all Bishops and Priests celebrate the sacred ob­lation, and the prayers there­vnto added in holy Bap­tisme not in a lowe voice, but with a lowd and cleare voice [Page 72] which may bee understood by the faithfull people, that there­by the minds of the hearers may be raised up with greater devotion to set forth the prai­ses of the Lord God. For so teacheth the holy Apostle in the first to the Corinthians. This Emperiall law is extant in the Greeke Coppies of Haloander, and is alledged by Cassander the Divine of Cologne, and is acknow­ledged by Cardinall Bellar­mine in his 2. booke of the Masse, Chap. 12. Whence detestable is the fraud and perversitie of those that have rased it out of the Latine ver­sions of Iustinian.

Herevnto Bellarmine an­swers, that it belongs not to the Emperour to give lawes touching sacred matters. But [Page 73] if this N be not received for a law, at the least it serveth for a testimonie of the cu­stome of the Church in the Romane Empire unto the time of this Emperor, who died about the yeare of our Lord 165.

Hee saith also that com­mandement is onely given to the Greeke Churches: This Cardinall could not be ignorant that the Cittie of Rome, and the Bishop there­of were then in the Empe­ror Iustinians Subjection, which might appeare by the same Nouvel; in the which, the Bishop of Rome is taxed by the Emperor at foure thousand Crownes for his entrance into his charge, and the other Patriarchs at three thousand: For then the Bi­shops [Page 74] of the principall Seas, payed first fruits to the Em­peror, and the same Empe­ror created two Bishops of Rome, namely, Silverius, and Vigilius.

In a word, this passage of the Apostle Saint Paul of the 14. Chapter of the 1. to the Corinthians; wherein is condemned the use of strange tongues in the Church, doth so racke our Adversaries, that some of them of better con­science let fall from them a voluntarie condemnation thereof.

Nicholas de Lyra in his notes on this Chapter spea­keth thus: Hic con­sequenter idem o [...]en­dit in ora­tione publi­ca, quia si populus in­telligat ora­tionem seu benedictio­nem sacer­dotis, melius reducitur in Deum, & deuotius respondet Amen. Heere consequent­ly the Apostle sheweth the same concerning publique prayer, for that if the people understand the prayer and [Page 75] blessing of the Priest, they are the more easily caried on to thinke on God, and to answer more devoutly Amen. Also, if the Priest blesse in minde, that is to say, without being under­stood of the people, what benefit reape the simple people that un­derstand him not?

Anselme whom the Pope hath Canoniz'd for a Saint, in his exposition on this Chapter. Bonum est quod Io­queris, sed alter non aedificatur in verbis tuis quae non in­telligit. Ideo cum ad Ecclesiā propter aedi­ficationem conueniatis, ea debent in Ecclesia dici quae intelli­gantur ab hominibus, & praestent aedificatio­nem audi­entibus. That which thou sayest is good, but another is not edified by thy words, which hee understands not; therefore seeing you are assembled together in the Church for edification, there must be nothing spoken in the Church, but what is understood by the people, and may bring edification to the hea­rers.

Thomas the chiefe of the Schoolemen in his commen­tarie upon this very Chapter of the Apostle, in the fourth Lect: findeth himselfe so pusled, that at the last he is faine to say, that this com­mandement of the Apostle was good for the Primitive Church, but that now it is no more in practise, because the faithfull are better instru­cted. Sed qu are non dantur benedictio­nes in vulga­ri, vt intelli­gatur à populo, & con­forment se magis eis? R. Dicen­dum est quod hoc forte fuit in Ecclesia primitiua, sed postquā fideles in­structi sunt & sciunt quae audiunt in communi officio, fiunt benedictio­nes in Lati­no. Wherefore (saith he) are not the blessings given in the vulgar tongue, that the people might understand them, and conforme them­selves the better unto them? His answer is; We must say, that it may be this was done in the Primitive Church, but since, the people were afterward instructed, and knew what they heard in the Common service, [Page 77] the blessings were delivered in Latine. And in his fifth Lect: he saith, that in the Primitive Church, it had beene a follie to pray in an unknowne tongue, because men were rude, but that now all are instructed, wherein he much deceiveth himselfe. For never were the people more ignorant then they were in the time of this Thomas, and in the two hundred yeares following And even now that the Scripture is set forth to the sight, and that learning flori­sheth, scarce of an hundred persons of the Church of Rome, shall there bee found two, that know what is con­tained in the Masse, or that so much as take the paines once to enquire after it.

Harding a great Defen­dor of Popery in England, in his 3. Article of his dispu­tation against Iewel in the 30. Section hath followed the impietie of Thomas, spea­king thus. Hardin. Art. 3. Sect. 30. Quod autem Di­vus Pau­lus morem precandi lingua in Ecclesia tanquam fructus & aedificati­oni [...] ex pertem im­probare videtur, & quinque verba aut sententias intellectas & perce­ptas, ex quibus re­liquus po­pulus in­stituatur decem mil libus pe re­g [...]ino incognito sermone pronuntiatis anteponere, ista om­nia ad illorum temporum conditionem referenda sunt, quae hodierno Ecclesiae statui longè dissimilis est. As for that it seemeth that Saint Paul disalloweth prayer made in the Church in an unknowne tongue, as being fruitlesse, and without edification, and that he preferreth five words or sentences understood where­with the people might bee in­structed, before ten thousand pronounced in a strange tongue and not understand; all things ought to be referred to the condition of those times, which is very unlike to the [Page 79] estate of the Church of this time. Marke this audacious bold­nesse and impietie, which hewes downe the authority of Gods Word even by the very root. For if it bee per­mitted unto men to say, that was the law at the beginning, and so they were taught in the time of the Apostles; but now this is changed, and the Church being better tutored doth other­waies. What remaines there but to change the whole Word of God? And to give the Pope authoritie to ca­sheere Gods lawes, and to plucke God out of his throne to set up the Pope above God?

Cardinall Cajetan was ashamed of this: For in his commentarie upon the four­teenth of the first to the Co­rinthians, [Page 80] hee speaketh as one desiring, that the La­tine were banished out of the publique service, and that it were perfor­med in the vulgar. Ex hac Pauli ùo­ctrina habe­tur quod melius ad aedificatio­nem Eccle­siae est ora­tiones pub­licas quae audiente populo di­cuntur di­ci lingua communi clericis & populo quā dici Latiné. By this doctrine of Saint Paul (saith hee) it is to bee gathe­red, that it is better for the edification of the Church, that the publique prayers which are said in the hearing of the people, were said in a tongue common as well to the Clergie as to the people, then to say it in the Latine. Which is a very notable confession of a Cardinall of so great authority in the Church of Rome.

CHAP. VI. Proofe hereof even by the ex­ample of the Church of the old Testa­ment.

BY what hath beene hi­therto said, it appeareth that in this question concer­ning a tongue not under­stood, which is used in the publique service, we have the Word of God, and rea­son, and the confession of our Adversaries on our side. Wherevnto we must add the example of the ancient Church, as well of the old as of the new Testament, which ought to serve us for a rule.

I. To fetch the matter [Page 82] from the beginning: God gave his lawe in a tongue un­derstood: and the forme of prayers and blessings, which God prescribed to Aaron to make before the people, was in the vulgar tongue of Gods people; as are those prayers and blessings which are read in the 6. of Num­bers, verse 23. and following, and in the 10. Chap. ver. 35. and 36. and then of thanksgi­ving in the oblation of first-fruits, Deut. 26. ver. 3. and the forme of prayer after the payment of Tithes in the third yeare, Deut. 26. ver. 13. in a word, all the publique prayers which were made by the Priests or by the people, were made in a tongue un­derstood by the people. And David dictated to the [Page 83] people Psalmes which were sung in the Temple upon in­struments of Musique in the Hebrew tongue, which was the tongue used in Is­rael.

II. During the captivitie of Babylon, the Hebrew tongue degenerated from it puritie. Notwithstanding the which, the change was not so great, but that the He­brew tongue, in the which Moses and the Prophets writ, was still understood by the Iewes. Not onely for that the people were exercised in the reading and hearing of those bookes, as well in their private houses, as in the Synagogues euery Sabboth; but also for that the corrup­tion was not so great, but that the commō people easi­ly [Page 84] understand the Hebrew, by reason of the proximitie and neare resemblance be­tweene the Iewish and the Hebrew tongue. Whence also in the new Testament the Iudaique tongue is often called the Hebrew; as in 27. of Saint Matthew, verse 33. where Golgotha, which is a word of the Iudaique tongue, is said to be an He­brew word: but the He­brews say Golgoleth, that is to say, scalpe or scull, and in the Chap. 19. of Saint Iohn, verse 19. it is said that Gabbatha in Hebrew signifi­eth pavement, although Gabbatha bee a Syrian word. For that the Iewes after their returne from the captivitie of Babylon, understood the Hebrew tongue, and the [Page 85] Text of the bookes of the Lawe, appeares by the 8. Chapter of Nehemiah, ver. 2. where it is said that Esdras the Priest brought the law before the congregation of men and women, and of all them of hearing; and it is added that Esdras read in the booke in the presence of the men and of the wo­men, and of as many as were capable to understand: and the eares of the people were atten­tive to the reading. This could not bee done in the Church of Rome, in the which the Deacon reades the Gospell, and the Subdea­con reades the Epistle in La­tine before women, peisants, and trades-men, that under­stand them not, and conse­quently cannot bee atten­tive [Page 86] therevnto.

The exposition which the Levites added unto this Lecture, which is mentioned in the Sequell, was not to in­terpret the termes thereof into another tongue, but to expound the meaning and sense of them, as Nicholas de Lyra acknowledgeth upon the 8. of Nehemiah. Esdras le­git in eo aperté, id est intelligi­biliter de­clarando ea quae vide­bantur ob­scura. Iospehus Esdras read in the booke plainely, that is to say, intelligibly, opening and declaring the things which seemed obscure.

III. [...] cap. 12. [...], &c. Iosephus in his 12. and in his 16. Chapter of his booke of the Empire of reason, describes the Martyr­dome of seven brethren, and of their mother, by the cru­eltie of King Antiochus th'illustrious: and saith, that the mother exhorted her [Page 87] children, and especially the yongest to die constantly for the law of God, and that shee spake to them in the Hebrew tongue. It is to be presumed shee spake in He­brew that shee might not bee understood by Antio­chus, who was a Grecian: and seeing shee spake thus to the youngest and least, it appeares that then amongst the Iewes, even women and children spake He­brew.

IIII. In the fourth Chapter of Saint Luke, verse 16. and following; our Lord Iesus being in the Sy­nagogue of Nazareth, ta­keth the booke of the Pro­phet Esay, and reades be­fore the people a long pas­sage of Esay: then addeth, [Page 88] This day is accomplished this Scripture which you heare: which words doe witnesse that the auditors and by-stan­ders well understood the words of that place. Is it credible, that in the Syna­gogues of the Iewes the Scriptures were read in a tongue not understood, see­ing that in the Scriptures God speakes to the peo­ple to the end to be under­stood.

V. In the 22. of the Acts verse 2. the Apostle Saint Paul makes an ora­tion to the Iewes in the Hebrew tongue, which made them the more atten­tive: Which he would not have done if they had not understood it. And this Apostle would not have spo­ken [Page 89] to a people in a tongue not understood: as also the sequell of the Chapter, espe­cially the 22. verse, sheweth that the Iewes understood him very well.

CHAP. VII. That the Primitive Christian Church thorow out the whole world, used a tongue understood in the publique service.

HEre wee have for us the whole Primitive Church. It is a thing with­out all contestation, and witnessed by the Ancients, that every countrey and na­tion, even unto the most bar­barous, had the holy Scrip­tures translated into their vulgar tongues, to the end, that the people might be in­structed by the reading of them. Chrysostome in the [Page 91] first Homilie upon the 8. of Saint Iohn. [...]. The Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations having translated into their tongues, the instructi­ons propounded by him, (to wit by Saint Iohn) being bar­barous people have learned to be lovers of wisdome. And Theodoret in his 5. Ser­mon of the meanes how to correct the indispositions of the Grecians. Theod. Graec. af­fectionum curationis Sermon. 5. [...], &c. The He­brew hath not onely beene tran­slated into Greeke, but into the Latine, into the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, Scythique, yea and even into the Polonian: and to speake in a word, into all languages, which the nations use at this day.

Saint Hierome translated the Bible into the Dalma­tick tongue, as himselfe wit­nesseth in his Epistle to Hieron. Sophro­nio. Quo­rum trans­lationem diligentis­simè emen­datam, olim meae linguae hominibus dederim. Sophronius.

Saint Augustnie in his booke of Christian doctrine Chap. 5. Ex quo factum est, ut etiam Script [...]ra Divina, qua tauti [...] mor bis huma­narum vo­luntatum subvenitur, ab una lin­gua pro fecta, quae opportunè potuit per totum or­bem disse­minari, per varias in­ter pretum linguas longè latéque diffusa innotesceret Gentibus ad sa­lutem. Hence came it that the holy Scriptures which cures such a number of the de­seases of mans will, having be­gun to be set forth in a tongue which might fitly be dispersed abroad thorow the whole earth, was manifested to the nations unto salvation, being spread abroad farre and wide, by the meanes of the divers tongues of sundry interpre­ters.

And Vlfilas a Bishop of the Goths translated the holy [Page 93] Scriptures into the Gothique tongue, Sozom. [...]. as Sozomene witnes­seth in his 6. booke of his historie, Chap. 37.

Wee may bee bould to avouch that the holy Scrip­tures were very common a­mong the common people, seeing that Saint Hierome in the Epistle to Laeta, exhor­teth her to exercise her daughter Paula in the rea­ding of the holy Scriptures, and commends Fabiola Deus bo­ne, quo il­la feruore, quo studio intenta erat divinis volu­minibus. for her diligence in the reading of the holy Scriptures, those sacred bookes especially the Prophets, and the Evange­lists, and the Psalmes. So Chrysostome in his 3. Homily of Lazarus, and in the Ho­mily 2. upon Saint Matthew, and in the 3. upon the 2. to the Thessalonians, and often [Page 94] elsewhere, exhorteth trades­men, women, simple Idiots to the often and carefull reading of the holy Scrip­tures.

The Epistle unto the Vir­gin Demetrias, which is the 142. amongst the Epistles of Saint Augustine, in the 23. Chap. Ita Scrip­turas sanctas lege, ut sem­per memi­neris Dei illa verba esse. Athanas. Tomo 2. p. 249▪ adver. eos qui nec quae rendum, nec loquendum ex Scriptura praecipiunt. Edit. Com­mel. So reade the holy Scriptures, that thou remem­ber evermore that they are the words of God.

Athanasius 2. Tom. page 249. saith, that the Hereticks disswaded the people from the Scriptures, saying, they were not of easie accesse, but (saith he) the truth is; It is because they flie from being reproved by them.

All this presupposeth that the Scripture in the vulgar tongue, was in the hands of [Page 95] the people: for otherwise the exhortation to read them had beene vaine and ridicu­lous.

This Scripture was read in the Church in a tongue understood by the people, as appeareth in these words, [...]. frequent in the Homilies of the Fathers both Greek and Latine, As it was read to you to day, this had beene a great absurditie to put the people in minde of a reading, where­in they had understood no­thing.

Sulpitiue Severus in the life of Saint Martin reciteth, Inter Epis­copos qui affuerant praecipué Defensor quidam no­mine dicitur restitisse, &c. Nam cum fortuitu lector, cui le­gendi eo die officium erat, interclusus à populo d [...] fuisset tur­batis ministris, dum expectatur qui non aderat, unus è cir­cumstantibus sumpto Psalterio, quem primum versum inve­nit artipuit: Psalmus autem hic erat, ex ore infantium, &c. that one called Defensor op­posed himselfe against the [Page 96] receiving of Saint Martin into his Bishoprick, saying, that he was a grosse and sor­did fellow, but when one day as in the absence of the Deacon, one of the peo­ple taking up the Psalter, be­gan to reade in the Church the 8. Psalme, where it is said, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast esta­blisht thy praise, because of thine enemies, to destroy the enemie and avenger. Where­vpon was raised a crie of the people against this Defensor: beleeving that, that Lecture so fell out to be read by the very providence of God.

Our Adversaries them­selves acknowledge that in the Church of the Apostles and many ages after; the ser­vice and the prayers were [Page 97] made and performed in a tongue understood by the people. Lyranus upon the 14. Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, In Primitivae Ecclesia be­nedictiones & caetera omnia fiebāt in vulgari. In the Pri­mitive Church blessings and all other things were done in the vulgar tongue. We have heard before Thomas Aqui­nas, and Harding the En­glishman, who acknowledge that in the Primitive Church men prayed in a tongue un­derstood, but they say, that it was good for that season and time, but that afterwards that custome was changed, because the people are bet­ter instructed.

Lactantius in his 5. booke of divine Institutions in the 20. Chapter, derides the Pa­gans who conceale their my­steries from the people fea­ring [Page 98] to bee mockt, and least their error should come to be knowne. Hinc fida silentia sa­cris institu­ta sunt ab hominibus callidis ut populus ne­sciat quid colat. Hence it com­meth (saith hee) that sub­tile men have taken order that there should bee kept a faithfull silence and nothing should be made knowne of their sacred service, least the people should know what they wor­ship.

Saint Augustine in his booke of the Maister, 1. Chapter. When August. lib de Ma­gistro c. 1. Quare non opus est lo­cutione cum oramus, id est sonanti­bus verbis, nisi fortè si­cut sacerdo­tes faciunt significandae mentis suae causa Non ut Deus sed ut homines audiant. we pray (saith he) there is no need of of words, that is to say, of words which are sounded forth, un­lesse it be as the Priests doe, to make the people understand their minds and conceptions, not that God should heare them, but that men might heare them.

In the Councell of Late­ran [Page 99] held under Innocent the III. in the yeare 1215. in the 9. chapter is extant this ordi­nance or Canon. Queniam in pleris (que) partib in­tra eandem civitatem atque dioe­cesim per­mixti sunt populi di­versarum linguarum habentes sub vna fide varios ritus & mo­ [...]es, distri­ctè praeci­pimus, ut Pontifices hujusmodi civit [...]tum sive dioece­sum provi­deant vi [...]os idoneos qui secun­dum diver­sitatem ri­tuum & ling [...]arum di [...]a of­ficia illis celebre [...], & Ecclesiastica Sacramenta ministrent, instruendo cos verbo pariter & exemplo. For as much as in most parts in one & the same Cittie or Diocese, the people of diverse tongues are blended and mixt together, ha­ving under one and the same faith, sundry Ceremonie and rites we straitly charge & cō ­mand, that the Bishops of such townes or Dioceses provide mē fit, who may celebrate divine service according to the diver­sity of ceremonies and tongues, and administer the Sacra­ments of the Church, instru­cting them both by word and example. Behold here a Councell which our Adver­saries reckon amongst the [Page 100] Generall Councills to bee one of them, authorised by the presence and approbati­on of so renowned a Pope, who not onely permits, but withall commands to cele­brate the divine service in another tongue, then in the Latine amongst people of diverse tongue; and observe that he speaketh of people di­vers in language, but agree­ing in faith. That it might not bee thought, that hee spake onely of the Greeks and Latines, who at that time were alreadie of diverse beleefes, and separated in Communion one from the other, and this not onely in some few places, In plerisque partibus. but in most parts and places.

Isidore in his first booke of Ecclesiasticall Offices, [Page 101] Chap. 10. Est autem lectio non parua au­dientium aedificatio. Vnde opor­tet ut quan­do psallitur, ab omni­bus psalla­tu [...]: cum oratur, oretur ab omnibus. Quando le­ctio legi­tur facto silentio aequè au­diatur à cunctis. Reading is no small edification to them that heare. Whence it is meet, that when the Psalmes are said or sung, they should bee said or sung by all, and when prayer is said, it should be said by all, and when reading is in hand, that it be heard with reverent silence of all.

And yet even unto this day in the Church of Rome, the order of reading is con­ferd by the Bishop, pronoun­cing to him these words: Studete verba Dei, videlicet lectiones sacr [...]s di­stinctè & ane [...]rè ad intelligen­tiam & aedi­ficationem fidelium ab que om­ni me [...]dacio falsitatis profer [...]e, &c. quatenus auditores vestros verbo patiter & exemplo vestro docere possitis. Study you to pronounce the words of God, that is, to say the sacred lessons, distinctly and plainely, to the end, that the faithfull may understand them, and be edified by them, without all error of falshood: [Page 102] And alitle after, In such sort that you may instruct your Au­ditors both by word, and by ex­ample. This is found extant in the Pontificall, deformed by Pope Clement the Eighth, in the Chapt: of the ordination of Readers. This forme of ordination is ancienter then the abuse which crept in af­terward: And I wonder at this, that the said Pope ha­ving corrected many things in the Pontificall, caused not this clause utterly to bee ex­pung'd and put out, which enwraps and infolds in flat periurie the readers of the Church of Rome, who are bound in their ordination to reade in such sort and man­ner that the faithfull may understand their readings, and that they may edifie [Page 103] their hearers: for in making them reade the Scriptures in Latine, they bereave them of the meanes to ac­complish that promise, which they have made unto God.

Wherefore Iohn Bellet in his recitall of Cassander in his Summe of divine Offices, in the Prologue, after hee had commended the custome of the Primitive Church, wherein it was not permitted any thing should be spoken in the Church in a strange language, without a present addition of the interpretati­on thereof; hee addeth: Quid au­tem in no­stris tem­poribus est agendum? vbi nullus vel rarus invenitur legens vel audiens quod intelligat? videns vel agens quod a [...]maduertat? Iam videtur esse completum quod à Prophe­ta dict ur: Et erit sacerdos quasi de populo vnus. Videtur ergò potiù [...] ess [...] tacendum quam psallendum: potiùs silen­dum quam tripudiandum. What cou [...]se must we take [Page 104] in these our times, wherein ei­ther none, or but very few are found, that understand what they reade, or what they heare? that seeth, or practiseth what they observe? now seemeth to be come to passe that which was said by the Prophet; The Priest shall be as one of the peo­ple. It seemeth then that it were better to be silent, then to sing, and rather to hold our peace then to danse. Thus derided hee the singing and mimique gestures of the Priest.

All the Churches of the world, which are not subiect to the Pope, yea and even some of them which are sub­ject to him are for us in this point. For in Greece the service is said in Greeke, and by more then a thousand [Page 105] yeares after Iesus Christ the tongue of the liturgie was the vulgar tongue; and now whereas by the empire of the Turks, and by the aboli­shing of schooles and lear­ning the tongue is altered, yet so it is, that the vulgar Greeke is not so farre corrup­ted, that the Greeke of the liturgie is not understood of the people: and if it were otherwise, yet so it is that the example of antiquitie by the space of a thousand yeares & upward, ought to be more considerable with us, then the corruption of but yester­daies birth.

Cassiodore who writ about the yeare 520. or 530. of our Lord, hath an excellent passage upon this subject, upon the Psalme 44. [Page 106] Perscru­temur cur Ecclesia Dei de ve­stis varie­tate laude­tur, cui to­tum sim­plex con­venit atque unum. Sed hic varie­tatem aut linguas multipli­ces signi­ficat, quia omnes gen tes secun­dum suam patriam in Ecclesia psallunt, ut authori virtutum pulcheri­mam di­versitatem demon­strent. Let us carefully seeke out, why the Church of God is prai­sed and commended for her va­rietie of partie coloured gar­ments. But here this signifieth the varietie, or diversitie of tongues for that all nations said the Psalter in the Church according to their severall tongues of their countries to shew forth unto the author of virtues a most beautifull di­versitie.

Harding Hardin­gus lib. de precibus linguae pe­reg [...]. Sect. 38. Quae gentes preces publicas vernaculo semper sermone habuerunt, &c. quales sunt Moscovitae, Armenij, & Aethiopes, &c. Ruscianis, Moravis, alijsque quibusdam anie 600. ab hinc annos permis­sum fuit ut Missam lingua Dalmatica celebrarent. acknowledgeth that the Muscouits, Arme­nians, and Ethiopians have ever had their publique pray­ers in their vulgar tongue, and that to the Russians, Mo­ravians, and to other people [Page 107] it was permitted from about 600. yeares to have the ser­vice in the Dalmatick tongue.

The Churches of the Abis­sines or Ethiopians have their service in the Ethiopian tongue, as witnesseth Francis Aluares a Portugall Munck, who lived seaven yeares in the Court of the Great Ne­guz of Ethiope in his 3. Chap. of his Ethiopian Historie. Et in tanto consecra nella sua lin­gua con le proprie no­stre parole, & non la lieva. Et il medesimo fa nel calice, & non l'alza. Dice sopra quello le pro­prie nostre parolo nella sua lingua. Onely (saith he) he conse­crates in his owne with our ve­ry words, and he makes no ele­vation, he doth the same over the cup, and elevates it not, and saith over the same our very words in his owne tongue. Cas­sander in his Liturgicks hath translated these very words of Alvares into Latine.

Who also in the 15. [Page 108] Chapter of the same booke, cites the commentaries of Sigismund Liber De rebus Muscoviticis, speaking thus. In singu­lis templis unicum tan­tum altare, & in dies singulos un­um quod que sacrum faciendum putant. To tum sacrum seu Missa gentili ac vernacula lingua apud illos peragi solet. The Muscovites have but one altar in every temple, and thinke that every day they ought to celebrate once the Sa­crament and all the service, where the service is used to be said in the countrie language and vulgar tongue.

In a word, no Church, nor people had divine service in Latine, saving they that are subject to the Pope. Nay there will be some Churches found, which obey him, the which yet in this point would never be conformable to the Church of Rome. Bel­larmine in his revisalls of the bookes de verbo Dei, acknow­ledgeth that among the [Page 109] Muscovites, and Armeni­ans, and Maronites, there are some Romane Catholicks, that have not their publique service in Latine.

The Custome of the An­cient Church, as well in the East, as in the West, was that the Priest and the peo­ple answered one another, the Priest saying, Lift up your hearts on high; and the people answering, Wee lift them up to the Lord. The Priest saying, the Lord be with you; and the people answe­ring, And with thy spirit: and every where saying, Amen to the prayers of the Priest with a great noise, as it were a thunder, as appea­reth in the Liturgies attribu­ted to Basil, & to Chrysostome, and Hierome in his preface [Page 110] upon the second book of the Epistle to the Calathians, saith Ad simi­litudinem coelestis to­nit [...]ui Amen reboat. that at Rome the (peo­les) Amen echoed like the thunder from heaven. Which Bellarmine in his 26. Chap­ter of his second booke of the Word of God. Tunc quia Christiani erāt pauci omnes si­mul psalle­bant in Ec­clesia, & res­pondebant in divinis officij: at postea cre­scente po­pulo divisa sunt magis officia & so­lis clericis relictum est ut commu­nes & pre­ces & lau­des in Ecclesia per­agant. Then (saith he) because the Christians were but few in number, all did sing together in the Church, and answered one another in the divine service. But after­wards the people increasing, the divine service was more se­perated and divided, and was reserved and sequestred to the Clergie men onely to say in the Church common prayers and praises. This he saith, accor­ding to his wonted fidelitie, for he knew well enough that the most populous Chur­ches that were ever in the [Page 111] world, were the Churches of Constantinople, and of Rome in the fourth and fifth Ages: in the which these re­sponds of the people were made, as well as in the lesse frequented, and wherein all the service was done in the vulgar tongue. Besides this is not to divide a service, but rather to have reduced the people to silence, and not to permit any to speake but the Clergie.

I say then that these an­swers of the people are an evident proofe, that the peo­ple understood that which the Pastor said, for otherwise how could they have made answer to words not under­stood? But this custome cea­sed in the Church of Rome, when the people lost their [Page 112] understanding of divine ser­vice, the Priest being become a barbarian to the people, the people likewise became mute and deafe to the words of the Priest.

And hereupon it is to the purpose to take into our con­sideration the words of the Iesuit Salmeron in his com­mentarie upon the first to the Corinthians, Chap. 14. Disp. 22. §. Ac sub­dit Ne be­nedicens sa­cerdos di­cat, Ego quidem in­telligo, & gratis ago peregrina lingua, re­spondet Apostolus [At alter non aedifi­catur] id est inde nullam deriuari aedificationem Ecclesiae, cuius imprimis ratio habenda erat. Nam omnia tunc ad aedi­ficationem Ecclesiae fieri solebant, ut docet Apostolus, ita ut nolit vllas preces publicas, in Ecclesia celebrari ignoto pror­sus sermone. Least the Priest that gives the blessing, might say, I un­derstand well what I say, when I give thankes in a strange tongue; The Apostle tells him, YEA BVT ANO­THER IS NOT EDE­FIED THEREBY, that [Page 113] is to say, there redounds not thence any edification to the Church, unto which chiefly and above all there should regard be had. For then AT THAT TIME ought all things to be done to the edification and consolation of the Church, as the Apostle teacheth, in such sort, that he will not have any publique prayer to be made in the Church in a tongue which is not understood of all. Now if this was the Apostles de­cree, as this Iesuit acknow­ledgeth, who gave the Pope power to change it? and to forbid to performe divine service in vulgar tongues? as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, saying, Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei c. 15. §. At Catho­lica. Prohibetur ne in pub­lico & com­muni usu Ec­clesiae scrip­turae legan­tur vel ca­nantur vul­garibus lin­guis. is it forbidden to read or sing the Scriptures in the Church in the vulgar tongue? But if in the Apostles [Page 114] times all the publique prayers ought to be said in a tongue understood, because (saith this Doctor) all things ought to be done to the edi­fication and consolation of the Church; have not wee now the same necessitie at this day? and should the now Pastors of the Church have lesse care of the edifica­tion of the Church?

Wherefore when the Councell of Trent Si quis dixerit lin­gua tantùm vulgari Mis­sam celebrari debe­re anathema fit. in the 9. Canon of the XXII. Session anathematized, and scorch't and ouercast with thunderbolts all those that say, that the Eucharist which they call the Masse, ought to be celebrated in the vul­gar tongue; doe they not include and enwrap the Apo­stle Saint Paul, and the Pro­phets [Page 115] and the Apostles, and the whole ancient and Primitive Church in this excommunicati­on?

Sixtus Senensis in his sixt booke of his Bibliothek in the Annotation 263. to re­fute Cardinall Caietan, who saith, that publique prayers ought rather to bee said in a tongue understood, then in Latine, alledgeth Am­brose de Compsa, who Miratus sum Caieta­num non esse deter­ritum à fru­ctu huiusmo­di traditio­nis, quae pri­mum à Lu­thero, immò à diabolo in Luthero lo­quente in­venta est. saith, that this tradition was inven­ted by Luther, or rather by the divell that spake in Luther: in the meane while Luther hath taught in this point, no­thing else but what the Apo­stle Saint Paul hath taught, by the very confession even of our Adversaries, as wee have prooved.

But Polidore Virgil, a lear­ned man amongst our Ad­versaries, taketh up his complaint against the abuse which is committed in the Church of Rome, saying, Polidor. Virgil: de Inventor. rerum lib. 6. cap. 2. Cantores nostri in templis no­stris con­strepunt, ut nihil praeter vocem au­diatur, & qui inter­funt, ejus­modi vocum concentu quo eorum aures maxi­mè calent, contenti de vi verborum nihil curant. Vnde vētum eò est, ut omnis divi­ni cultus ra­tio in istis cantoribus sita esse vi­deatur. Our singers make a noise in our Churches, so that nothing can be heard but their voices, and all that are present, con­tenting themselves with the harmonie of such voices, wherewith their eares are tickled, take no care at all for the sense of their words, whence the matter is come to this passe: That amongst the people, the whole divine service consists in nothing else but in these Chanters or sin­gers, and a great sort of the people come to Church to heare them, as it were to the Stage.

But which is yet more, Sixtus Senensis on the place above alledged, after Am­brose de Compsa, acknow­ledgeth that in the Church of Rome very often the ve­ry Priests themselves under­stand not that which they say. Illud po­tiùs vitupe­randumerat, quod solùm qui suppient locum idio­tae, [...]lerum (que) non intelli­gunt quid oretur, ve­rum etiam saepenume­rò nec ipsi presbyteri aut diaconi, qui orant aut legunt. Not onely (saith he) they that fill the place of the simple and unlearned under­stand not for the most part that which is said in the prayer, but also very often, noe not the very Priests themselves, nor Deacons that pray or read understand them, which is a grosse abuse, &c. This the Du Per­ron in his book against the King of great Brit­taine, booke 6. chap. 1. pag. 1079. Cardinall du Perron could not dissem­ble, saying, that if there be any Church-men, that un­derstand them not, it is their fault that gave them [Page 118] orders. For hee was not ignorant that the Countrey is full of Priests, that hard­ly can read, so farre are they from understanding the La­tine.

Estius a Doctor of Do­way in his Commentarie upon the 14. Chapter of the first to the Co­rinthians, forbids to the utmost of his power an un­knowne tongue in the pub­like service. Neverthelesse this confession slipt from him. Quam­vis per se bonum sit ut officia divina ce­lebrentur ea lingua quam plebs intelligat, id enim per se confert ad plebis aedisicatio­nem, ut be­nè probat hic locus. It is (saith hee) a good thing of it selfe, that divine service should be cele­brated in a tongue understood by the people: for that ser­ueth of i [...] selfe unto the edi­fication of the people, as it is well prooved by this place of Saint Paul. And [Page 119] therefore Caietans opini­on being formally and abstractedly considered is true.

CHAP. VIII. Two causes which move the Pope and his Clergie, to will that the Masse, and the whole ordinary ser­vice be said in the Latine tongue.

PApistrie is a pile or tim­panie rather of doctrines and ceremonies, cemented and built with admirable skill. All the subtilties and counsells & cunning sleights of humane wit have beene imployed in the framing of it. Whereupon it is not to be wondred at, that the Apo­stle stiles this structure of the sonne of perdition the mysterie of iniquitie.

In this very point, where­of we treate, the Pope and his Clergie have propoun­ded to themselves two ends, whereof the former is to keepe the people in igno­rance, and to inure them to beleeve without knowing, and to follow their eyes be­ing blindfolded, and to obey without all enquirie into any thing: this evidently ap­peares in this, that they have entertained a feare, least in deed the Latine should bee too well understood, and therefore have ordered that the principall parts of the Masse should bee said in so low a fumbling murmure, that the Priests voice cannot be heard; to the same end tends their forbidding to reade the Scriptures. And [Page 122] Images, and implicite faith, and their Maxime that the Pope cannot erre in the faith. For in effect his empire is founded upon the blindnesse of the people, and publique ignorance is his firmest prop.

The second end which the Pope propounds to himselfe in the establishment of the Latine tongue in the pub­like service, hath beene to plant among the nations, he hath conquered the badges and cognisances of his Em­pire. The custome and man­ner of great Monarcks, is to give their language to the people subdued by them, to the end to civilize and re­claime them unto their go­vernement. Thus did the Romanes to the Gaules and [Page 123] Spanish, and the King of Spaine ties the Indians to speake Spanish: who be­comming Spanish in their language, become also such in affection. The Pope doth the like, in giving to the peo­ple he hath conquered, his tongue together with his re­ligion. The simple people thinke, that their religion ought to be Romish as well as the tongue, which is used in that religion, and that the Christian faith, and the tongue came both to them from the same place.

CHAP. IX. The third cause for the which they will not have the Masse understood by the people. The clauses of the Masse which would offend the people if they under­stood them.

BVt the principall cause why the Pope will not have the Masse to be under­stood by every one, is be­cause the Masse containes many things, which if the people understood, they would thereby bee either instructed, or scandali­zed.

For the Masse is full of clauses, whereof some of them are contrary to Pope­ry, [Page 125] and are conformable to our Religion, others of them are clearely opposite and contrary to the doctrine of the Gospell, and some of them contrary to common sense.

I. For example, the peo­ple should be instructed and taught not to beleeve the point of merits, if they un­derstood the words of the Masse. Which condemnes them, when the Priest askes of God that he would receive us into the company of the Saints: Non aestimator meriti, sed veniae largitor: Not by re­garding or having any respect to our deserts, but by granting us pardon.

II. Also the people that are taught to pray for the soules departed out of this [Page 126] life which broyle in purga­tory, would be astonisht to heare the Priest pray for the deceased in these words: Memento etiam, Do­mine, famu­lorum & fa­mularum tuarum qui nos praeces­serunt cum signo fidei & dormiunt in somno pacis. Remember, Lord, thy ser­vants, and handmaids which have gone before us with the signet and stampe of faith, and who sleepe the sleepe of peace. Hee that hath given the Priest money to pray for one of his deceased friends, at this Memento of the Masse, would say, I gave money indeed for a soule, which I beleeved was tormented in burning fire, but now that I perceive it sleepes in peace, Ile be­ware hereafter how I give any money to draw it out of torment.

III. So the poore peo­ple being taught to beleeve, that after the words of con­secration [Page 127] the bread is tran­substantiated into the bodie of our Lord, and that, that which the Priest holds be­tween his hands, is not bread, but the naturall body of Iesus Christ, would bee much amased to heare the Priest say these words over the consecrated Hoste: Per quem [Christum] haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedi­cis, & praestas nobis. By the which Iesus Christ, ô Lord, thou createst for us daily all these good things thou sanctifi­est them, and dost blesse them, and dost bestowe them upon us. For he would thinke it very strange, that the Priest calls the body of Iesus Christ, all these good things: and that the Priest sayes, that God [Page 128] creates daily Iesus Christ, seeing that God creates one­ly the things which had no being before they were crea­ted: and that God doth no more create the glorious bo­dy of his Sonne Iesus Christ, and that it is a great abuse to say that God doth alwaies create a thing, which is alwaies in its per­fection. Hee would won­der, hearing that the Priest saith, that God daily quickens Iesus Christ, as if every moment God raised him up againe. And scru­ples would arise in the minds of the people, hearing the Priest say these words unto God. Per Christum haec om­omnia bona creas & praestas nobis, thou createst for us, and bestowest and conferrest upon [Page 129] us all these good things by Iesus Christ: for hee that hath any liberty of iudge­ment, would say in himselfe. A man may well say, that these good things which the Priest hath before him, are not Iesus Christ himselfe, see­ing God gives us them by and thorow Iesus Christ. And God doth not create nor quicken Iesus Christ by Iesus Christ. Herevpon every man in his right wits would say, questionlesse this prayer was said in times past in another sense; for every word is proper and fitting to be said over a quantitie of Bread and Wine set upon the table, but not over the body of Iesus Christ.

IIII. The people would not be lesse astonisht, seeing [Page 130] the Priest offering unto God the consecrated Host in these words, Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere di­gneris. Vpon the which things vouchsafe to looke with a mercifull and gratious countenance. For hee would say, how comes this to passe? That the bo­dy of Iesus Christ, which is but one, is called, these things, as if hee had many bodies? And what an abuse is this that the Priest prayeth that God would daigne to looke upon his Sonne Iesus Christ with a mercifull and gratious eye; as if hee fea­red that Iesus Christ were not acceptable and pleasing to his Father; or as if Iesus Christ had need to be prayed for unto God, or to have our recommendation unto God to accept him? For observe, [Page 131] that by these things the Priest understands and meanes the Hoast, which he holds, and not the faith, and the devotion, or the prayer of the people, as it appeares by the words next afore going, where he saith that he offers unto God an immaculate Hoast, an holy bread, a cup of everlasting salvation: and then he adds, upon which things vouchsafe, &c.

V. Supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta ha­bere sicut accepta ha­bere digna­tus es mune­ra pueri tui iusti Abel, & sacrifici­um Patri­archae nostri Abrahae. The people would be yet more offended by the words, which follow: Vpon the which things (saith hee) daigne to looke with a propiti­ous and gratious countenance, and to accept them as thou didst daigne to accept the offerings of thy righteous sonne Abel, and the Sacri­fice [Page 132] of our Patriarch Abra­ham. For enquiring but what were the offerings which Abel offered unto God, and having learned, that it was a calfe, or a lambe, he would bee provo­ked to the heart to heare this comparison, wherein Iesus Christ is compared to a beast: and wherein the Priest beseecheth God, that the body of Iesus Christ may be as acceptable unto him, as a calfe or a lambe offered by Abel. For we have al­ready shewed that by These things, he meanes the conse­crated Hoaste; and the Cup which he paralels and com­pares with the offerings of Abel, and not our faith or devotion with that of Abel.

[Page 133]VI. The like subject of scandall would offer it selfe in the words following, wherein the Priest adjoy­neth, Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens D us, i [...]be haec preferri per manus sancti Ange­li tui in sub­lime altare tuum in cō spectu divi­nae majesta­tis tuae. Wee humbly b [...]seech thee, ô Almightie God, command that these things may be carryed by the hands of thine holy Angell, unto thine high Altar into the presence of thy divine Ma­jestie. This surely is enough to offend a minde that hath but never so little cleare­nesse and light of iudgement in it: what (will hee say) aske we of God, that an An­gell may come, and that he may take the Ho [...]st out of the Priests hand? Needeth it that the eternall Sonne of God, bee offered unto his Father by an Angell? Or hath hee any need of the [Page 134] mediation of Angels to bee acceptable to his Father? Or if the Priest desire the Angell to come, and take the Hoast from betweene his hands, Why doth hee eate it a little while after these words? Why staies hee not the comming of the Angell? It seemes then hee feares he is not heard, as also that in calling Iesus Christ These things, hee speakes manifestly against his owne intention, for Ie­sus Christ is not these things, but a person.

And here will present it selfe againe the same thought: that is, that these prayers are good being said over the Almes, and over some quantitie of Bread and Wine not Transubstantia­ted, [Page 135] set upon the Table, ac­cording to the custome of the Primitive Church; but are absurd being spoken of Iesus Christ. Without doubt these prayers elder then the beleefe of Tran­substantiation, have lost their first signification tho­row the change of the do­ctrine.

VII. The words following afford like subject of offence, when the Priest adjoynes; Vt quotquot ex haec altaris participatione sacrosanctum filij tui corpus sumpserimus: To the end that all and everie one of us, which have taken from this Altar the sa­cred body of thy Sonne. For to what purpose useth hee these words, when none par­ticipates with him? seeing [Page 136] in the most of their Masses the Priest eateth alone, and drinkes alway alone? And in private Masses there are none present, and yet the Priest speakes in them, as if a number partaked in the same.

VIII. There would bee also a subject whereout to take offence in the words, which are used as the conse­cration is made which they speake onely by way of reci­tall, that is to say, in forme of narration and rehearsall as when a historie is related. Whereas the Church of Rome will have them spoken effectivè as seconded with an effect, and as if God there­by declaring that hee will have that bread become flesh. When God said, Let [Page 137] th [...]re bee light, and let the earth bring forth hearbes, &c. these words were effe­ctive and operative, and pro­duced light and plants. But hee that recites what God spake, Let there be light, by this recitall produceth not light. Yet for all that, the words of the Priest are but a meere recitall of that which Iesus Christ spake. The words of the Priest are, Who Qui pridie quàm pate­retur acce pit panem in sanctas & venera­biles manus suas & ele­vatis oc [...]lis in coelum ad te Deum patrem suū omnipoten­tē tibi grati­as agens, be­nedixit fre­git, dedit (que) discipulis suis dicens, Accipite & manducate ex hoc om­nes, Hoc est enim corpu­meum. (meaning Iesus Christ) the day before hee suffered, tooke bread into his sacred and venerable hands, and when hee had lift up his eyes to heaven unto thee his Fa­ther Almightie, giving thee thankes blessed it, brake it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, For this is my body. All this is but a meere reci­tall [Page 138] of that which Iesus Christ hath done: Which cannot have any effective virtue, and this is forti­fied by these words, Accipite, Manducate, by which it is evident that the Priest expresseth not that which hee doth, or would doe, but onely that which Iesus Christ hath done. For ordinarily when the Priest pronounceth these words, there is no body that taketh or eateth after the Priest. And the private Masses are without Com­municants.

IX. It might also fall out that some one of the people more curious then others would take the boldnesse to search the holy Scriptures, and would observe that the [Page 139] Apostle Saint Paul in the first to the Corinthians, Chapter 11. verse 24. wit­nesseth that Iesus Christ said, This is my body which is broken for you. And there above out of a curiositie which is doubtlesse the way to heresie, would be inquisi­tive, why the Priest omits these words, which is broken for you. For these are the words that are the deciders of the difference. It being most cleere and evident, that as the body of our Lord in the Eucharist is not broken really, but sacramentally; that so also the bodie of our Lord is not really but sacra­mentally betweene the hands of the Priest. Nor is there any reason to require that these words which is [Page 140] broken for you should bee a Sacramentall and figurative manner of speech, and that these words, This is my body, should be taken in any other manner. In a word, it is cer­taine that the bread in the Sacrament is in the same manner the body of Christ, as that it is broken in. Now broken it is not really, nor then likewise is the body of Iesus Christ therein broken really. But Sathā hath endea­voured to damne and stop up this window, thorough which the light shineth in unto us so clearely, having this Word utterly out of the Bibles of the Church of Rome, where­in, in steed of frangitur, there is inserted tradetur, in steed of is broken, they have put shall be given.

[Page 141]X. From the bread the Priest passeth to the Cup, and recites the words of our Lord, saying, that Iesus Christ having taken the Cup, said, Accipite, bi­bite ex eo omnes. Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni Testamenti, mysteri­um fidei. Take yee, drinke yee all hereof: for this is the Cup of my bloud of the New and eternall Testament, the Mysterie of faith. There also many subjects of scan­dall offer themselves. For seeing the Priest witnesseth that Iesus Christ said, Drinke yee all hereof. Why is it the priviledge of Priests and Kings onely to drinke of this Cup? If it belong to Priests and Kings onely, that this word Drinke yee is directed, [Page 142] then must the like be said of this word Eate yee: For these words are directed to the same persons. Then should there bee none but Priests and Kings, that ought to eat of the Sacra­ment. Add moreover that the Apostles being in the company of Iesus Christ, held not the ranke of Pa­stors, but of sheepe, and of Disciples. Therefore the Apostle willeth, that the people of Corinth examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11.28. and so eat of this bread and drinke of this Cup.

XI. Above all, these words afford subject of of­fence in this, that the Priest changeth the words of our Lord: For the words of the Masse are neither found in [Page 143] Saint Paul, nor in any of the Evangelists. Saint Paul saith, that the Lord said, This Cup is the New Testament in my bloud: doe this in remem­brance of me Excellent words. For these words This is my body, and those, This Cup is the New Testament, ought to bee understood after the same manner. Now nei­ther the Cup, nor that which is in it, is really a Te­stament, but sacramentally and in signification. Nor then the bread, which they call the Hoast, is really the body of Iesus Christ, but sa­cramentally, and in significa­tion. Therefore that this might not be discerned, the words of our Lord have bene changed in the Text of the Masse. For in the place of [Page 144] these words, This Cup is the New Testament, The Priest saith, This is the Cup of my bloud of the New and eternall Testament.

XII. To the same end in the place, and instead of these words, Doe this in re­membrance of me, the Priest saith, The Mysterie of faith, which is a strange de­pravation, made of purpose, because the word in remem­brance, expounds these words, This is my body, to [...]it, that the bread is called the body of the Lord, be­cause it is the commemora­tion of it, according as the Scripture denominates the signes and commemorations by the names of the things signified.

XIII. Behold here yet [Page 145] another subject of scruple & of scandall, that the people would receive if the Masse were said in a tongue under­stood: And this is it, A great while before the words which are called the words of conse­cration, there are prayers in the Masse, wherein the un­consecrated bread is called the sacrifice, or immaculate Hoast, which is offered to God for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead, in these words, Suscipe hanc im­maculatam hostiam, quam ego indignus fa­mulus tuns offero tibi Deo meo vivo & ve­ro, pro in­numerabi­libus pecca­tis & offen­sionibus & negligentijs meis, & pro omnibus circumstantibus, sed & pro omnibus fidelibus Christianis vivis atque defunctis. Receive this imma­culate Hoast, which I thine unworthy servant offer unto thee my living and true God for my numberlesse sinnes and offences, and negligences, and for all them that stand round about, and withall for all faith­full [Page 146] Christians quick and dead. He saith, the like thing over the unconsecrated Cup. All this is full of difficulties. For the unconsecrated bread is not the same Hoast with that which is consecrated, which is said to bee the true body of Iesus Christ; by this meanes behold in the Masse two Hoasts of divers natures, and two sorts of Sacrifices. And that which is more strange and of more difficult disgestion is, that the Priest offers unto God in Sacrifice unconsecrated bread, for sa­tisfaction for our sinnes: Which is to offer a morsell of bread for payment for our sinnes, and for the price of our redemption.

Bell lib. 2. de Missa cap. 17. §. Offertori­um Quin­que illae o­rationes, Suscipe sancte pater, &c. Offerimus tibi Domi­ne, &c. Veni sanctifica­tor, &c. In spiritu hu­militatis, &c. Suscipo Sancta Tri­nitas, &c. Neque anti­quae admo­dum sunt, [...]eque in Romana Ecclesia ante quingentos annos legebātur. Bellarmine in his 2. [Page 147] booke of the Masse, Chap. 17. seemeth to condescend and to yeeld as much tou­ching these prayers, for hee saith, that they are not very ancient, & that untill within these five hūdred yeares they were not said in the Church of Rome: for there are five prayers in ranke of like na­ture in that part of the Masse, which is called the offertorie, the which this so renowned Cardinall hath beene bould to accuse of no­veltie, and hath observed, that Innocent the III. who writ of the Masse in the yeare 1214. hath made no mention of them.

But that by these prayers the Priest makes an oblation, and offers in sacrifice uncon­secrated bread, Bellarmine ac­acknowledgeth [Page 148] it in his first booke of the Masse, Chap. 27. saying, Bellarm. c. 27. §. Primo Negari non debet, pa­nem & vi­num aliquo modo in Missa of­ferri, & proinde pertinere ad rem quae sacrificatur. Haec pro­positio pa­tet primum ex ipsa Li­turgia. Nam cum ante consecratio­nem dici­mus, Susci­pe sancte Pater, hanc immacula­tam hosti­am, certè pronomen HANC demonstrat ad sensum id quod tunc mani­bus tene­mus, id au­tem panis est. Et similes sunt in Liturgia non paucae senten­tiae, quae panem offerri manifestissimè demonstrant. It must not bee denied, that bread and wine are in some manner offered in the Masse. This may appeare first of all by the Liturgie it selfe: for when, before conse­cration, wee say, Suscipe, san­cte pater hanc immaculatam Hostiam: Receive ô holy fa­ther, this immaculate Hoast: Certainely this Pronounce HANC demonstrates sensi­bly that which we then hold in our hands: but it is bread which we hold. And in the Liturgie (so hee calls the Masse) there are many senten­ces, which manifestly shew that bread is offered. Behold [Page 149] here then in the Masse an Hoast offered in sacrifice for the sinnes of the quick and of the dead, which is not the bodie of Christ, but unconse­crated bread.

But as concerning that, which the said Cardinall saith, that these prayers are new, and brought in within these five hundred yeares, he saith true in some sort. It is true, that it is a very new thing to sacrifice unto God unconsecrated bread for the sinnes of men. But to call the bread and the wine of the holy Supper, which the peo­ple brought, and which the Pastor offered unto God, sa­crifices, and holy oblations, it is a thing very ancient, and a prayer conformable to the Word of God, which calls [Page 150] Almes & prayers, and al holy actions, sacrifices. Bellarm. Ibid. §. Deinde. Veteres Patres pas­sim ita tra­dunt. Ire­neus lib. 4. cap 32. dicit Eccle­siam offerre Deo sacrifi­cium ex creaturis, id est ex pane & vino. Cy­prianus lib. 2. Epist. 3. dicit Chri­stum obtu­lisse patri­calicem vi­no & aqua mistum. Et in sermo­ne de ele­emosyna, reprehen­dens divi­tes foemi­nas, quae non adfe­rebant pa­nem con­secrandum. Locuples (inquit) & dives, in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, & partem de sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis. Vbi per sacrificium panem intelligit, qui per sacerdotes Deo sacrifi­candus erat. The fa­thers of the first Ages spake thus. So spake Ireneus in his 4. booke, Chap. 32. say­ing, The Church offereth to God a sacrifice of his creatures; that is to say of bread and wine. And Cyprian in the Epistle 3. of the 2. booke, saith that Christ offered unto his Father a Cup blended with wine and water. And in his Sermon Of Almes, reproving the rich women, that brought not bread to Church for an offering, said unto them, Thou rich and wealthy woman, that commest to the Supper of the Lord with­out a sacrifice, that takest part [Page 151] of the sacrifice which the poore hath offered: Where it is evident, that by these sacri­fices he calls the offerings of bread and of wine not conse­crated, brought by the people, as freely acknow­ledgeth the same Cardinall in the same place.

But that which is more ex­presse in this matter, is that the Priest on Christmasse day, adioyneth, Oblata, Domine, munera nova uni­geniti tui nativitate sanctifica. O Lord Hallow by the new birth of thy Sonne, these offerings which we have offered unto thee. He speaketh of an oblation al­ready offered, and yet this is spoken before consecra­tion.

The title of the 24. Ca­non of the third Councill of Carthage is such, Vt in sa­crificio tan­tùm panis & calix of­feratur. That in sacrifice nothing be offered but [Page 152] bread and the Cup. Ipse Ca­non Vt in Sacramen­tis corporis & sanguinis Domi i, ni­hil ampl [...]ùs offeratur, quàm ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis & vinum aqua mixtum. Nec ampliùs in sacrificijs offeratur, quàm de uvis & fru­mentis. And in the Text of the Canon there is, That in the Sacraments of the bodie and blood of our Lord, nothing bee offered but what the Lord hath or­dained, namely of bread and of wine mingled with wa­ter; and that nothing bee offered in sacrifices, but that which commeth of the grape and wheat.

XIIII. But behold here the things, which as much, or more then the precedent, would give the people a very strong impression, and would discover unto them the abu­ses of the Masse, were it but pronounced with an audible voice in the vulgar tongue. The Priest in the beginning of the Masse saith his Confiteor, in these words, [Page 153] Confite­or Deo om­nipotenti, beatae Ma­tiae, semper Virgini: bea­to Iohanni Baptistae, sanctis Apo­stolis [...]etro & Paulo: omnibus Sanctis, & vobis, fra­tres; quia peccavi nimis co­gitatione, verbo, opere Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxi­ma culpa. Ideò precor b [...]atam Ma­riam semper Virginem, be [...]tum Mi­cha [...]lem Archang [...]lum, beatum Io­hannem Ba­ptu [...]a [...], san­ctos Aposto­stol [...]ke trum & Pau­lum, omnes Sancto [...], & vos fratres, orate pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. I confesse unto Almighty God, and to the blessed Ma­rie ever a Virgin: To blessed Iohn Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you bre­thren, I have too exceedingly sinned in thought, word, and deed. Mine offence, mine of­fence, mine exceeding great offence. Wherefore I beseech the blessed Marie ever a Vir­gin, the blessed Michael Archangell, the blessed Iohn Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and you brethren, to pray for me unto the Lord our God. In this confession the Priest confesseth his sinnes to the dead departed this life, con­trarie to the example of all [Page 154] the prayers and confessions, which are found in the Scriptures, all which are made unto God onely. For even as it is God onely, whom we have especially of­fended, Tibi soli peccavi, Psalme 51. verse 6. I have sinned against thee onely, so also is it God alone, that can forgive us our sinnes, and it is he alone that understands the prayers of the heart: because hee it is onely that knowes the hearts of men, 2. Chron. 6. ver. 30. and it is to be noted, that by the 23. Canon of the third Coun­cill of Carthage it is expresly forbidden to direct in the Eucharist any prayer to any other then to the person of the Father, Vt cum al­tari assisti­tur, sem­per ad Pa­trem diri­gatur oratio. not permitting so much as to addresse it one­ly [Page 155] to the person of the Sonne. How much lesse would these fathers have suffered, that in the Eucha­rist there should be offered prayers to Saints, and to An­gells?

XV. But that which is yet worse in this confession, is, that the Priest prayeth to have for intercessors unto God the Archangell Mi­chael, Iohn Baptist, Peter, and Paul, &c. never so much as making in one word menti­on of the intercession of Iesus Christ, who neverthelesse went up into heaven of pur­pose to make request for us, as Saint Paul teacheth us, Rom. 8. verse 33. We have an Advocate with the Fa­ther, to wit, Iesus Christ the righteous. For he it is, who is [Page 156] the propitiation for our sinnes, 1 Iohn 2. ver. 1. and 2. thus in their Letanies they say to every Saint, Ora pro nobis, But unto Iesus Christ. Mi­serere nobis, dispoiling him of the office of Interces­sor.

XVI. That if the Masse were said in English, would not the people bee offended, hearing the Priest saying in his entering into the Masse, We beseech thee, Oramus te Domine, per mertia Sanctorum, quo­rum reliq [...]iae hic sunt, ut indulgere digneris omni pec­cata mea. Lord, by the merits of the Saints, whose reliques are herevnder, that thou wilt vouchsafe to forgive mee all my sinnes. What? (would the people say) must then the Lords Table needs be changed into a Sepul­cher? And must the Masse bee said ouer dead-mens bones? And why is salva­tion [Page 157] prayed for thorow the merits of the Saints? As if Iesus Christ had not suffici­ently satisfied for us? or as if to obtaine remission of our sinnes, it were behovefull that men, that have beene sinners, and that have had need of pardon themselves, doe merit the remission of our sinnes for us? For the effecting whereof must there bee found out payments for debts already payed, and for which Iesus Christ hath fully satisfied? And if the Saints have merited any thing, God in giving them eternall salvation hath more then sufficiently payed them their merits. It is a point of iniustice to will, that the same money should serve to make two purchases, when [Page 158] scarcely they have beene suf­ficient for to compasse the first. Besides, they told us that the Saints are not Me­diators of redemption, but onely of intercession: but now I see that the Masse speakes of them as of media­tors of redemprion, in as much as it saith, that they have deserved for us salvati­on, and remission of our sinnes.

XVII. But if the peo­ple knew that amongst these Saints, whose bones are stoo­ved up under the Altar, and unto whose merits the Priest hath recourse, that there are many of them, whose Sanctitie is very doubtfull; namely, those whom the Pope hath foisted into the Catalogue of his [Page 159] Saints with commandement to call upon them: and that of those reliques, the grea­test part of them are false and suborned: Buckler or shield of faith, in the Chapt. of the invocation of Saints. and that many of these Saints never were men, being imaginarie persons, or forged at pleasure, as we have elsewhere shewed, they would bee yet much more astonisht, and would grone under the burthen of so cru­ell a captivitie.

XVIII. The people likewise would have a iust ground to bee offended, knowing that the Priest in private Masses, and with­out assistants, saith Orate, fratres, &c. pray brethren, &c. For who are these bre­thren, to whom he speaketh being all alone? Pope Inno­cent III. in the second [Page 160] booke of the Mysteries of the Masse, Piè creden dum est, & sacris au­thoritatibus comproba­tur, quod Angeli co­mites assistāt orantibus. Chap. 25. an­swereth, that these brethren are the Angells: But the words immediatly follow­ing contradict his answer; Pray my brethren, that my sa­crifice, and yours may bee ac­ceptable unto almighty God: For this sacrifice is not made for Angels, nor by Angels. As also that if these words, Pray ye, my brethren, bee di­rected to Angels, even so also these words, Take ye, eate ye, will bee directed unto them: and so must wee beleeve, that in so­litarie Masses the An­gels are present in the roome of the people to eate.

XIX. But what would the people say hearing these [Page 161] words of the Canon of the Masse, Communicantes & memoriam venerantes impri­mis gloriosae semperque Virgi­nis Mariae. Communicating and honouring the memorie chiefly of the glorious and ever a Virgin Mary. To what purpose is it to say, Communicating together, when none communicates? But who could endure that the Communion of the holy Sacrament should bee celebrated IN THE FIRST PLACE for the honour the memorie of the Virgin Mary? Seeing that the Institution of the Sacred Supper by Iesus Christ ca­rieth it expresly, that it is in­stituted in remembrance of Iesus Christ, who said, Doe this in remembrance of me? [Page 162] By this relation, Iesus Christ should have said, Doe this IN THE FIRST PLACE in re­membrance of my Mother. We ought to speake of the holy and blessed Virgin with all respect and reverence: but for all this, ought wee not to change the nature of the Sacred Supper, nor to divert or alienate it from it true end. For it is institu­ted to shew forth the Lords death, but not to shew forth the death of the holy Vir­gin: sith shee suffered not death for our redempti­on.

XX. Some comfort had it beene, if the Priest ha­ving said, that this commu­nion is celebrated in the first place, to honour the me­memorie [Page 163] of the blessed Vir­gin, he had added, that it is likewise done in the re­membrance of Iesus Christ. But this is it which hee omits: Commu­nicantes & memo­riam ve­nerantes imprimis gloriosae semper­que virgi­nis Mariae genetricis Dei & Do­mini no­stri Iesu Christi, sed & bea­torum A­postolo rum ac mart [...]um tuorum Pe­tri, Pauli, &c. Lini, Gleri, Cle­mentis, &c. Cosmae, Damiani, & omnium Sanctorum tuorum, quorum meritis precibusque roga [...]nus ut in omni­bus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio, per eundem Chri­stum, &c. Communicating and honouring the memorie in the first place of the glo­rious ever Virgin Marie, Mother of our God and Lord Iesus Christ, but likewise of all thy holy Apostles, Peter, Paul, &c. Cosmus and Da­mian, and all thy Saints by the merits and prayers of whom wee beseech thee, that in all things we may be fur­nished with the succours of thy protection by the same Iesus Christ our Lord. He maketh indeed mention of Iesus Christ, but hee doth [Page 164] not say, that this communi­on is done in his memorie, onely he saith that in the first place hee celebrates the me­mory of the Virgin Mary, and next the memorie of the Saints, amongst whom hee thrusts in many Popes. And alwaies falls backe upon the merits of the Saints, and saith, precibus meritisque. Not contenting himselfe that the prayers of the Saints bestead us, hee willeth, that they merit for us the grace of God.

XXI. About the end of the Masse the Priest having taken the Hoast and the Cup, maketh his prayer for himselfe. Corpus tuum, Do­mine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis que potavi ad­haereat vi­sceribus meis. Thy body, Lord, which I have taken, and thy blood, which I have drunke, cleaveth close to my entralles: [Page 165] Hee should rather have prayed with the Apostle, that Iesus Christ would dwell in his heart by faith, Ephes. 3.19. and that his body might be the temple of the holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 6.16. for as Saint Iohn saith in his first Epistle, Chap. 4. verse 13. By this we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit. But to imagine that the body of Iesus Christ sit­ting at the right hand of God sticketh fast to the guts and entrailes of a Priest, it is in dishonouring Iesus Christ to defile ones selfe with car­nall thoughts. And the ra­ther for that our Adversaries hold that the wicked; yea beasts, doe also eate the bo­die of our Lord, into [Page 166] whose entrailes also wee must beleeve that the glorious bodie of the Sonne of God, is clapt up. And that hee was annexed to Iudas his en­trailes after he had participa­ted in the Sacrament. Pope Innocent III. in 4. booke of the Mysteries of the Masse, Chap. 16. propoun­deth an important question: Si fortè secessus vel fluxus aut vomitus post solam Eucharistiae perceptio­nem evene­rit, ex acci­dentibus & humoribus generatur. If (saith he) any one ha­ving nothing else in his belly but the consecrated Hoast, and the bloud of the Cup, be seased on by a scowring, or flux of the belly, of what man­ner, and of what nature are those excrements? The solution is, that they are accidents and humours: but he cleares not that dif­ficultie, namely, if Iesus [Page 167] Christ sticke fast to his en­trailes.

XXII. It would bee a thing too infinite to set forth all that may be met withall in the Masses of the whole yeare, and in the whole publique service of the Church of Rome, which might offend the people, were it but propounded in the vulgar tongue. As that which is said on Good-fryday. Ecce lig­num crucis, in quo salus mundi pe­pendit, ve­nite adore­mus. Deus misereatur nostri, Evo­vac. Loe here the wood of the Crosse, whereon the sal­vation of the world hung, come, let us worship, God have mercy vpon us, Evo­vac. The which word, Evo­vac, is a word of triumph, which the furious and drun­ken Priests of Bacchus used as they did sing in the ho­nour of their God Bacchus. [Page 168] Then puts the Priest off his shooes to worship bare­foot the wood of the Crosse.

Then is said this An­theme. Crucem tuam adora­mus, Domi­ne, & san­ctam tuam resurrectio­nem lauda­mus. Crux fidelis, inter omnes, ar­bor vna no­bilis, nulla sylva tan­tùm profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lig­num, dulces clavos, dulce pondus su­stinet. Wee adore thy Crosse, O Lord, and praise thy resurrection. And in spea­king of the Crosse, Faithfull Crosse, onely noble amongst the trees, there is no forrest brings forth so much in l [...]afe, flower, or budd, This sweet wood sustaines sweet nailes, sweet waight. Whilst these words are spoken, everie one worships the Crosse, and when they lift up the Crosse, they say, Ave lignum tri­umphale, &c. I salute thee, or haile triumphant Crosse: which is manifestly spoken to the wood. And hereupon most of the Doctors main­taine, [Page 169] that the Crosse ought to be adored with the wor­ship of Latria, which is the highest kinde of adorati­on.

XXIII. The Saturday before Easter Masse is said in violet: wherein they hallow Incens, and there is virtue given it to drive away divels: and they put out all the can­dles in the Church, and then they light them againe with hallowed fire: and the Dea­con brings three great wax candles at the end of a staffe: then he sticks five graines of incens in a great wax Candle in forme of a Crosse; upon which wax candle, this bles­sing is said in singing it in a stile, whereof the impietie is absurd, and the termes ri­diculous. Loe here the very [Page 170] words In huius igitur no­ctis gratia, suscipe, san­cte Pater, incensi hu­ius sacrifi­cium ves­pertinum, quod tibi in hac ce­rei oblati­one solen­ni per mi­nistorum manus de operibus apum sacro­sancta red­dit Eccle­sia. Sed iam columnae huius prae­conia novi­mus, quam in honorem Dei rutillans ignis accen­dit. Qui licet sit divisus in partes, mu­tuati tamen luminis de­trimenta non novit. Aliter enim liquantibus ceris, quas in substan­tiam pretiosae huius lampadis apis mater eduxit. O verè bea­ta nox, quae spoliauit Aegyptios, &c. In the grace of this night, receive, holy father, the evening Sacrifice of this incense, which the holy Church offereth up unto thee in this so­lemne oblation of waxen Can­dles by the hands of Ministers, of the worke of Bees. But al­ready wee acknowledge the praises of this columne, which the glistering fire kindles in the honour of God, which al­though it bee divided into parts, acknowledgeth no losse of borowed light, for it is fedd by the liquid wax, which the mother Bee hath produced into the substance of this precious lampe. O truely happie night, which dispoiled the Egypti­ans, and enricht the Hebrewes. Night wherein earthly things [Page 171] are blended with celestiall, and divine with humane; Wee pray thee then Lord, that this waxen candle consecrated to the honour of thy name, may hold out without failing, to destroy the darknesse of this night, and being acceptable in the odour of a good sent, may be blended and ranked amongst the heavenly lights above. Let the morning bringer Lu­cifer meet with it flames, that Lucifer I say, that cannot set, or goe downe. All this gallimau­frey and medley of absurde termes, which give to a wax­en taper, that which belongs to the doctrine of the Gos­pell, and placeth a waxen ta­per composed of the worke of Bees amongst the starres of heaven, is farre from the [Page 172] language of the spirit of God.

XXIIII. On the same Saturday they hallow their fonts, in which is the water for baptisme, in these words, Make this water by thy Ma­jesties Empire, Note. The God head blending it selfe with water, gives it virtue to regenerate soules, and maketh the water to be­come a new creature, and a cele­stiall race by the immacu­late wombe of the foun­taine. take the grace of thy onely Sonne by the holy Ghost, which by the secret admixtion of his God-head make fruitfull this water pre­pared for the regeneration of men; to the end, that having conceived sanctification tho­row the immaculate wombe of the divine fountaine, borne againe, as a new creature, may become a celestiall race, and let the mother grace bring forth in the infancie all them, that the Sex distinguisheth unto the body, or the age unto time. Set farre away from [Page 173] hence, thou that comman­ding Lord, every uncleane spi­rit, let all wickednesse of dia­bolicall fraud keepe farre a­way, let the mixture of any contrary power here have place, let it not hover over about it to lay any ambushes, let it not slide in covertly, let it not corrupt by annoying it Let this holy and innocent crea­ture be free from all assaults of the enemie, and be purged by the departure of all wicked­nesse. Let this water be a li­ving well, a regenerating water, a purifying wave, that all they that shall be washed in this wholesome lavor, the holy Ghost working in them, may obtaine indulgence of per­fect purgation; wherefore I blesse thee creature of water, by the living God, † by the true [Page 174] God, † by the holy God, † by the God, who in the beginning by his word separated thee from the dry land, &c. Then hee breathes upon the water in forme of a Crosse, and prayes that those waters may be efficatious to purifie the understanding, and dip­ping the taper three times into the water, he saith, Let the power of the holy Ghost de­scend in fulnesse upon this fountaine. Then he blowes thrise upon the water in this figure. † Then powreth hee oyle and creame into it in forme of a Crosse. There is even as much sense in all these words, as efficacie in the ceremonie. I thinke some broken-winded Monke, whose braine swarmed out extravagant conceptions, [Page 175] made these prayers in an ignorant age; or that some profane fellow spor­ted him selfe in ridicu­lous termes to mocke God.

XXV. Thus when they consecrate salt, the Bishop, or Priest saith, I conjure thee, creature salt, &c. And speaking to salt, as if it understood him, gives it power against evill spi­rits.

In the Masse-booke which is in use at Paris, in the Masse of the holy Virgin Mary, is extant a Passage, which saith, O faelix puerpera, nostra pians scelera; iure matris impera, redemptori. O thou happie woman in childbed, who expia­test our sinnes, command by [Page 176] the right of a mother, the re­deemer.

XXVI. These things and many other the like wherewith swarmeth the whole Romish service, could they but bee pro­nounced in English with­out exasperating the minds, and without moving in some distate, in other some laughter, in o­thers execration? Who would laugh hearing the Priest saying in the begin­ning of the Masse. Ad Deum qui laetificat iuven­tutem meam. Vnto God that gladds my youth, Al­beit this Priest have a gray head.

In a word, the whole body of the Romish service, principally the [Page 177] Canon of the Masse, is composed in such a man­ner, that I doubt not but that the Popes would willingly correct many things in it, if it were in their power: and that they would make the same alteration, which they have made in the Masses of the Saints, out of which the Popes, Pius the V. and Clement the VIII. have rased out many Proofes and prayers to the Saints, which are still extant in most of the Masse-bookes. In the which Canon that which most displeaseth our Ad­versaries, is, that there are many clauses, which con­tradict Merits, Purgatorie, and Transubstantiation. In private Masses; In the [Page 178] Communion under one kinde, and in an unknowne tongue, and that it is evi­dent, that the prayers of this Canon are in a manner all made to bee said over the Almes, and over the bread and wine, and not over the bodie of our Lord. Syn. Trid. Session. XXII. Can. 6. Si quis dixerit Canonem Missae erro­res contine­re, ideoque abrogandū esse, ana­thema sit. But they dare not touch this peece, because the Councill of Trent in the XXII. Session thun­dreth and Anathematiseth every man that shall say, that in the Canon of the Masse there is any thing to bee corrected, they have bound their owne hands by this decree. This is the sole remedie, that remaines for them, to estrange the people from the understanding of the [Page 179] Masse, whereunto serveth the barbarous tongue, and the lowe murmur, and the confused and inarticu­late singing thereof.

CHAP. X. An examination of our Adversaries reasons: es­pecially of those of Mounsieur the Cardinal du Perron.

AS touching the pray­ers of particulars in a tongue not understood so much as by him himselfe that prayeth, our adversaries cast downe the bucklers and de­fend not themselves, but abandon their cause, onely they say, That it is the Church. For this word Church is a covert and star­ting hole, for every sort of abuse, and a playster for eve­ry sore. This is it they op­pose [Page 181] against the Word of God, and unto all antiqui­tie, unto reason, and unto common sense, which in this point are contrarie to the now Church of Rome of this time.

But as for the publick ser­vice in an unknowne tongue not understood, our adversa­ries propound some slender reasons, which we must ex­amine.

I. They say that the title of the Crosse was writ by Pilate in three tongues, in Hebrew, Greeke and La­tine, they will have Pilate; that was a Pagan Iudge, give this law to the Christian Church. For being a man of great prudence, it is to be presumed that he had a care that the Masse should bee [Page 182] sung in a fit tongue. Thus Pilates authoritie carieth it away, above the Word of God, and against the exam­ples of Iesus Christ, of the Prophets and of the Apo­stles. That if, according to the custome of the Ro­manes, the title of the Crosse had beene written but in one tongue, then should they not, by this rea­son, sing the Masse but in one tongue, or if Pilate had writ nothing, the Masse had not beene sung at all.

Du Perron lib. 6. of his book against the King of great Brit­taine.II. They have no better grace when they say, that it is expedient that divine ser­vice be said thorowout and in all places in the same tongue, that strangers may understand it. This reason [Page 183] contradicts the former, for if it be expedient, that divine service be said in one and the same tongue every where, then shall we be forced not to rest upon the inscription of the Crosse in three tongues, and we shall be dri­ven to say service in one onely tongue thorow­out the whole universall Church.

By the same reason, Ser­mons ought to be made eve­ry where in the same tongue in favour of strangers. Cer­tainely the service in Latine doth in no measure at all comfort the strangers that are in France: For of these strangers, three fourth parts at the least understand not the Latine, and there will bee found in France, ten [Page 184] times moe strangers which understand the French, then the Latine. And these strangers which understand the Latine cannot under­stand the Masse, whereof a great part is pronounced in so low a voice, that they that are neere the Priest cannot heare his voice. But what shadow of reason is there for it, that in favour of a few strangers, which are in great townes, all the people of France must be deprived of the understanding of divine service? and especially all the townes and Burroughes wherein there are no stran­gers? That if in one great Towne, as in Paris, they would gratifie strangers, there should be assigned for the Italians one Church, [Page 185] wherein service should bee said in Italian, and so of other nations, by this meanes every nation should have at Paris the service in their owne tongue.

III. They further add that to have every where the same tongue, is a signe of union, and of concord in the Catholike Church. In thus speaking they declare that it would bee expedient, that the service should neither bee said in Greeke, nor in Hebrew, tongues neverthe­lesse which they say were authorised by the inscription of the Crosse. But the vni­on which God approveth and applaudeth in his Word, is not the vnion of one and the same tongue, but of faith and charitie. [Page 186] Which vnion may bee amongst those of divers tongues; as on the contra­rie, men of the same tongue doe often dissent in faith. Which is more. God is glorified, when in divers tongues hee is purely and unanimously served & called upon: as God himselfe wit­nesseth saying, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow before me, and eve­ry tongue shall give glory un­to God. Rom. 14. verse 11. Esay 45.23. For this it was that God gave to his Apo­stles the gift of divers tongues, to the end, that in all tongues God might bee served and called up­on.

Du Perron the same.IIII. Also presupposing that divine service bee not [Page 187] done for the instruction of the people, but onely to glorifie God by prayers, and thanksgiving, and by their assistance to bring their con­sent unto that which is done in the Church, and to be partakers of the fruits which the Church obtaines of God by the Liturgie, they say, that the people which understand not, loose not these fruits, nor the ends for the which divine service is instituted: because that the Churches authoritie is a sufficient caution and secu­ritie for the people: And that it is enough that the Pastors understand for them. But by the same ends for the which they say that di­vine service is instituted, it is easie to convince them. [Page 188] For persons assembled and met together to glorifie God by prayers and giving of thankes, ought to know that which they aske, and what they give thankes for. Now these Rabbines will have the people aske they wot not what, and give thankes for they know not why. And seeing that they will have the people assem­ble to yeeld their consent to what is done and said in the Church, how will they have them approve, and as­sent unto things they under­stand not? But if the peo­ple assist to participate in the good things which the Church receiveth by the publike service, they assist then to bee instructed and comforted, for that is one [Page 189] of the fruits for which di­vine service is instituted. And seeing that in the Masse the Priest speaketh to the people, in vaine speakes he to a people that understands him not. And seeing that in the Masse are read Chapters of the Scrip­tures, wherein God speakes unto men, they ought not to hinder, that God bee not understood by men. The Apostle to the Romanes, Chapter 10. tells us, that faith comes by hearing of the Word of God, not then by an assistance without understanding that which God propoundeth unto us in his Word. And the same Apostle speaking to the people of Corinth, 1. Cor. 11. ver. 26. will that in eating the bread of [Page 190] the Lords Supper, and in drinking of the Cup, they shew forth the Lords death, which cannot be done by persons that assist without understanding the same. Of all these fruits are they de­prived, that assist and are present at a service where they understand not,

V. As for that, that Du Perron saith, that the Church stands for the peo­ples caution and securitie: as if it could answer for the people at Gods judge­ment Seat; I say, that for this Church, that boasts it selfe to bee a caution, it shall stand in need of ano­ther caution to give us assu­rance that it erres not, and that God receives her for caution. Surely at the day [Page 191] of judgement, Priests shall not answer for the people. Hee shall finde himselfe deceived and fowly mista­ken; who then would give his Curate for his cau­tion. Above all those Pa­stors shall not bee currant, who to enhaunse their au­thoritie, and to leade the people on in ignorance at their pleasure, have estran­ged them from all under­standing. But why may not the Greeke Church as well be caution as the Ro­mane? Seeing the Greeke Church is more ancient then the Romane, and the Church of Rome is but her daughter, and received from her the Christian re­ligion, and boasts her selfe as well to bee Ca­tholicke, [Page 192] and to have the chaires of Saint Peter and of many Apostles?

Du Perron pag. 1079.VI. But saith this Car­dinall, if to profit at a Masse it were necessarie to understand it, the deafe, and the persons that stand a farre off from him that saith service, should receive no benefit by it, if this reason were of any weight. Then might we as well say, that we must preach in a tongue not understood, for though it were necessarie to preach in a tongue understood, yet the deafe, and such as were at too farre a distance from the Preacher, would re­ceive no profit by him. I say then, that where the de­fects of nature hinder from understanding what is said, [Page 193] we are not for that accoun­table before God: for God imputes not that for a crime which hee himselfe hath done. But we stand accoun­table unto him for the im­peachments, and hindran­ces, which we our selves lay in the way to hinder the un­derstanding of his Word: God supplies the defects of nature by meanes, which are knowne to himselfe: but man after hee hath done evills, cannot remedie them. If the light of the Sunne bee unprofitable to the blinde, it thence followeth, not that the eyes of them that see, must bee put out, even so if any be deafe, yet ought we not for that to de­prive the rest of the people of vnderstanding and he that [Page 194] stands farre of from him saith service speaking in a tongue understood, had profited more if he had beene neare: and another time hee may come nearer.

VII. Hee obiects also that strangers are pre­sent in England at the En­glish service without under­standing the same, where­unto I say, that such are stran­gers present at it, it may bee once or twise out of curiositie, and not for devotion, and that if they understood the English, they would pro­fit more by it, and that the French have at London, and other townes the service in French.

VIII. Hee saith more­over that in the time of Christ Iesus and of the Apo­stles, [Page 195] the Iewes assisted and were present at the ordina­rie service, of the Syna­gogues without understan­ding any thing thereof. Which wee have already shewed to be false. For then the Hebrew tongue was un­derstood generally by the people of Iudea. It fared not so with the Iewes which are called Helenists in the 6. of the Acts, who were Iewes transported into Aegypt by Ptolomeus Lagus, who also were called Babe­lim, and were dispersed abroad in very great num­bers thorow out all Africa, so called, because they were issued of the people which had beene transported into Babylon, for they there read in Synagogues the Greeke [Page 196] translation of the Septua­gints. Whereupon also the Apostle to the Hebrewes writing to them, alleadgeth to them the Scripture accor­ding to their translation. Of these Iewes was Philo a Iew of Alexandria, See Scaliger de emendat. Temp. p. 143. A man lear­ned in the Greeke, but ig­norant of the Hebrew. For in Alexandria the Greeke tongue was there so com­mon, that the Bishops, as Athanasius, Cyrill, Theo­philus, &c. there prea­ched to the people in Greeke.

IX. It is without reason that Du Perron obiecteth unto us the example of the sacrificing Priests of the Law, interceading for the people in the Temple, the whilst, that the people were [Page 197] without in the Court, and by consequent could not un­derstand that which the Priest said. For here the question is of the Priest speaking unto God in the Masse in the presence of the people. And withall, the question is of the Masse, in the which are read Chapters to the people out of the Scripture, all in a tongue, which the people under­stand not. And indeed there are many Priests that understand not their Masse: to what purpose then is it to bring us the example of a sacrificing Priest, who spake not to the people, and spake not to God before the peo­ple, the whilst that hee was was within in the holy place? And read not to [Page 198] the people any place, nor Chapter of the Law of God? And indeed we finde not in the holy Scripture that the Priest spake, or pronounced by mouth any prayer whilst that hee was in the holy place, or whilst he was in the Sanctuary as he performed the propitiation for the peo­ple. I thinke that if this Priest comming out of the Temple to the people that waited for his comming forth in the Court, had spo­ken to the congregation in a barbarous and strange tongue, this people would have stoned him.

X. Now these Gentle­men confesse, that by this unknowne tongue the peo­ple is deprived of instruction and of consolation, but they [Page 199] say that their Such pray­ers as they thinke fit for them to understand. pronesse and Sermons supply this defect in which they set forth that which is said in the Masse: Put wee the case that it were so. For it is a maine abuse to doe evill, to the end to bring remedies for the same: to make wounds, to the end to apply playsters to them. It were better the Priest made himselfe understood in the Masse, insteed of making the poore people hope that within some yeares they shall learne the explication of it in some Sermon. But it is most false, that in their Sermons there is any expli­cation made of the Masse, neither in regard of the word, nor of the matters; [Page 200] take me a Pesant, or a Trades­man, that hath heard Masse fiftie yeares, & you shal finde him wholy ignorant of that which is said in the Masse; are the people made to un­derstād in Sermons, why the Priest, praying for the dead, saith, that hee prayeth for them that sleepe a peacea­ble sleepe? Or why the Priest presenting unto God the consecrated Hoast, which they say is the bodie of Iesus Christ, asks of God, that he would so ac­cept of that offering, as hee did of Abels sacrifice, that is to say, of a calse, or of a lambe offered by Abel? Or why the Priest besee­cheth God in the Masse, that the Angells may take Iesus Christ which is upon [Page 201] the Altar, and carry him up unto the celestiall Altar? Or why the Priest calls the bodie of Iesus Christ. These gifts, These offerings, which God createth daily and quickneth? Or why the Priest in his confiteor, confes­seth his sinnes to God, to the holy Virgin Marie, to Michael the Arch-Angel, to Saint Iohn Baptist, with­out speaking of Iesus Christ? Or why in the Masse the ho­ly Virgin is preferred be­fore Iesus Christ, in saying; communicating, and celebrating in the first place the memorie of the Virgin Ma­rie: notwithstanding that the sacred Supper was on­ly instituted for a remem­brance and commemora­tion of Christ, and to [Page 202] shew forth his death.

XI. The Cardinall du Perron findeth that the discommoditie which is in the people not understan­ding of the service, brin­geth this profit, that the me­rit of the peoples endeuour, and the exercise of their faith is thereby the greater. Hee thinkes that the lesse know­ledge there is, the more me­rit there is in the faith: and that he that hath least under­standing, he it is, that hath most faith, and that merits most. Which is the same that Harding Harding. De precibus peregtina lingua fa­ctis. Hic pius animo­rum affectus tam est pro­culdubio Deo gratus, ut nulla [...]er­borum in­telligentia conferri queat. saith. That the people indeed under­stand not the Latine of the Masse, but that the pious af­fection which they thither bring, is so acceptable to God, that thee understanding [Page 203] of the words cannot be com­pared unto it. By this rea­son there is merit in know­ing nothing, and ignorance shall be ranked amongst the blessings of God, and to in­struct a man in the true knowledge of God, it is to diminish the merit and the price of his faith. And why not? Seeing that faith con­sisteth in being ignorant, and in not knowing, and is op­posite to knowledge, as Cardinall Bellarmine hath before told us? Certainely this maxime is a maine prop to uphold the Popes Domi­nion, and the Authority of the Clergie: seeing it tea­cheth to beleeve without knowledge, and to follow the Pope and his doctrine, with their eyes shut, with not [Page 204] so much as enquiring at all af­ter the will of God, nor af­ter his Word: which is a light which God offereth us, to the end that we our selves might know the right way. Now albeit that re­medilesse ignorance lessens the fault, yet so it is that it is an evill: as being borne blind excuseth going out of the way. And yet going out of the way is still an evill: But to studie to be ignorant, and to bee afraid to learne, and to be voluntarily blinde, and to thinke that there is merit in voluntarie igno­rance, besides the follie of it, is a stiffe and wilfull obstina­cie not to have a will to learne the Will of God: nor can I conceave what that endeavour is, and that great [Page 205] exercise of faith, which Du Perron saith, is in those, that doe beleeve without understanding, seeing it is no labour to know nothing, and to will not to learne.

XII. The same Prelate insisteth strongly upon the danger, it would bee to tran­slate the Liturgie into the Vulgar tongue: saying, that the changing though but of one sole sillable, yea but of one letter, in the Mysterie of the Church, might bring a change in the faith: Wit­nesse the [...] of the Arrians, that the divine ser­vice cannot be translated in­to so many tongues without incurring that danger, like as the phrases of the old French would at this day be ridicu­lous, as appeareth by the [Page 206] In the Confines of Germany & Lorraine, [...]he language that is not Germane is at this day called Ro­mane. Romanes: and an hun­dred yeares hence Ma­rots translation of the Psalmes will be sottish, fond and ridiculous.

If this objection cary any waight with it, it should ra­ther have more force to hin­der and debarre the transla­ting of the holy Scriptures into Latine, and into the vulgar tongues, least that some depravation in a word, or in a sillable might alter the doctrine of Salvation. For the Text of the Scrip­ture is of farre more impor­tance, then the Text of the Masse, seeing that to change but a word in the Scripture is a fault, but the Text of the Masse hath received a Thou­sand changes and additions, as our Adversaries them­selves [Page 207] acknowledge. The whilst that this feare hath not hindered the Ancients to make sundrie translati­ons of the Scriptures Greeke and Latine: the multitude whereof was so diverse, that Hieron. praefat. in Euangeli­stas ad Da­masum. Si Latinis exemplari­bus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus? tot enim sunt exemplaria penè, quot codices. Saint Hierome saith, there were almost as many divers versions, as there were coppies thereof. Vt ad e­xemplaria praeceden­ti [...] recutra­tur, si quam dubitationē attulerit La­tinorum in­terpretum infinita va­rietas. And Saint Augustine in his second booke of Christian doctrine, Chap­ter 11. saith, that the multi­tude of Latine interpreters were in a manner infinite. And our Adversaries con­fesse that their Latine vul­gar Translation is very much different from the Hebrew and Greeke Texts. But they confesse not, that this diversitie hath brought [Page 208] into the Church of Rome any change in the faith, This feare hindred not Saint Hie­rome to translate the Bible into the Dalmaticke tongue, nor Vlfilas to turne it into the Goticke tongue, nor any Nation to translate it into their owne tongue. And so farre was it from all such issue, that the vulgar ver­sions produced any altera­tion in the faith or in the authoritie of the originall Greeke and Hebrew, that on the contrarie the Chur­ches which have at this day, their service in the vulgar tongue, are they that have reduced, and brought againe the Hebrew and the Greeke tongues, and have brought to light [Page 209] and laid open to the view the Originall Hebrew and Greeke, and have restored the translation of the Scrip­ture into its integritie, which the Church of Rome in their translation had deformed and disfigu­red.

But there is matter of wonder in it, See touching these additi­ons Platinae in the life of Sixtus I. and of Innocent III. in 2 lib. of the Masse chap. 61. Bellarmin. 2. lib. of the Masse, chap. 17. acknow­ledgeth that five prayers which are in the offer­torie of the Masse, were not in it five hundred yeares since. that Moun­sieur Du Perron findeth per­rill in the translation of di­vine service, and finds it not strange that so many chan­ges have beene made in the institution of the Lord, and that so many new peeces have beene thrust into the Masse, many Popes having therevnto added clauses: namely Pope Pius the V. all a new caused the Masse-bookes to be reformed, and [Page 210] rased out an infinite num­ber of Prayers, and of Proofes, and sequences which were in the old Masse bookes, so that the Priests found themselves ve­ry much pussel'd.

But to what purpose is it to alleadge inconvenien­ces, for the which (if our Adversaries be to be belee­ved) the remedy is ready at hand: seeing they af­firme, that the Pope and the Church of Rome can­not erre in the faith? For when the Pope shall have examined and approved the Masse translated into French, or into any other vulgar, this translation will be well assured amongst our Adversaries, and there will bee nothing to bee spo­ken [Page 211] against his approbati­on.

As for this that he saith of the French termes would become ridiculous at the end of two or three hun­dred yeares the same may be said of the Latine and of the Greeke, and of eve­ry other tongue, whence it would follow that the Masse should not bee said in Latine, least thorow laps of time the tearmes thereof might become ridiculous. The words which in the forme of divine service, have beene kept become not ridiculous amongst them that approve this ser­vice. In the publicke service of the Romish Masse there are words truly ridiculous, and which never were other [Page 212] then worthlesse, as Evovae, Miserere nobis, & Stabat ma­ter dolorosa, and many the like, which neverthelesse in the Church of Rome are not ridiculous, because they are authorised by the di­vine service. And these words Alleluja and Osanna have long since ceased to be vulgar, and yet for all that are not ridiculous, when they are pronounced, or in reading of the Scrip­ture, or in publicke ser­vice.

XIII. Finally, Du Per­ron objecteth, that if ser­vice were not said in La­tine, there being no more any common tongue, there could no more any Ge­nerall Councills be held: And so all meanes would [Page 213] be taken away of deciding points of faith with infal­lible certaintie, and that the Decrees, and ancient Ca­nons would be abolished. This objection is refuted by experience. For the Greeke Church and the Romane had not in time past, nor ever had a com­mon tongue, and yet in the meane while ceased they not to celebrate be­tweene themselves Coun­cills. There were chosen out of Italie Deputies, which understood the Greeke, for then the La­tine Church complied with the Greeke; because the Emperours resided in Greece. By whose com­mandement the Bishop of Rome sent his Deputies to [Page 214] the Generall Councills, of which none of them were held in Italie, although the Bishops of Rome desired it, and humbly sued to the Emperours for it. But if for the holding of Coun­cills in the West, it be necessarie that the La­tine tongue bee common every where. The Vniver­sities and Colleges where the Latine are taught eve­ry where, suffice to preserve the Latine tongue; al­though the publicke service were in the vulgar. Wit­nesses hereof might be the Countries, whence Papi­strie is banished, where their youth is carefully in­structed in the Latine tongue, although their service bee in their vulgar [Page 215] tongues; there also the Councills and ancient Ca­nons are carefully preser­ved. It is a great fondnesse to thinke that the barbarous Latine of the Masse serves unto the preservation of the Latine tongue: or that the Text of the Masse serveth for the vnderstanding of Virgill, or of Titus Livius, or to speake Tullies Latine, and to make one a Cicero­nian. Nay in very deed were the Latine of the Masse as elegant as it is grosse and barbarous, yet would it be but a very weake meanes to preserve the Latine tongue, the Greeke of the Greeke Liturgie, which is pure, hath not hindred that the Greeke tongue was not then corrupted, when the [Page 216] Turkes abolished and berea­ved them of their Schooles. And the Liturgie of the Armenians which is in the Armenian tongue, and the liturgie of the Ethiopians, which is in the Ethiopian tongue, have not hindered the corruption of the Anci­ent Armenian and Ethiopi­an language.

As for their founding of the Christian faith upon the decision of Councills, which are found contrarie one to another, and the new contradicting the ancient: and of whom the Pope al­loweth but what makes for himselfe: opposing himselfe often against generall Coun­cills: It is another questi­on, which is not for this place. The cleare passages [Page 217] of Scripture and which have no need to be interpreted, are sufficient unto salvation. Whosoever writeth himselfe for an infallible iudge of the sense of the Scripture, sets himselfe above God. For he makes God speake after his owne will, and may change the Scripture under colour of interpreting it: and hath the open way to build and erect an Empire. And hee should be exempt from all vice, lest he bring an inter­pretation unto it, that may serve to colour his vices, and to feed his avarice, or to un­dershore his Ambition.

Such as these are the rea­sons of our Adversaries, which are but shifts, and hu­mane reasons and considera­tions, without, yea against [Page 218] the Word of God, and which indeed are refuted by experience, and by common sense.

CHAP. XI. An examination of the proofes which Mounsieur the Car­dinall du Perron draw­eth from antiquitie for service in a tongue not under­stood.

IF our Adversaries reasons have beene weake, their allegations out of Antiqui­tie have no more colour. Mounsieur the Cardinall Du Perron is he that hath brought the most to this pur­pose.

He saith that the service in the time of the ancient fa­thers was never said in the Christian Religion saving in two tongues, to wit, Against the King of great Brittaine. lib. 6. chap. 1. p. 1089. in the [Page 220] Greeke tongue and in the La­tine, this he affirmes with­out proofe, and against the truth, and we already have given a multitude of proofes to the contrarie. He him­selfe in the beginning of that Chapter acknowled­geth that the Syrian Chur­ches had their service in the old Syrian, and the Ethio­pian in the ancient Ethiopian tongue. And the Arme­nians in the ancient Arme­nian tongue. It had beene then his part to proove that the Armenians and the Ethiopians ever had their Li­turgie in Greeke or in La­tine, which can never bee made to appeare. I say the same of the Indian and Per­sian Churches, the which never had in their Litur­gie, [Page 221] no more then in civill vse, any vse of either of the Greeke or of the Latine, unlesse that which in this last age, the Iesuits have brought into some corners of the East-Indies.

Hee alledgeth in the Sequell the Iewes, who in their Synagogues used the Hebrew tongue, which is not the vulgar in any Countrey of the world. He beareth up him­selfe upon the example of the sworne enemies of Iesus Christ; whose exam­ple if we must follow, wee must with all circumcise our selves, and renounce Chri­stianitie. We on the con­trarie, doe acknowledg in this, the accomplishment of Gods curse uppn this [Page 222] people. It is that which God had foretold of them: I will speake to this people by folke of another tongue and by strange lips, and so they shall not understand mee. 1. Cor. 14. ver. 21. Esay 28.11. for as for the Iewes in the time of Iesus Christ and of the Apostles. Wee have prooved in the sixt Chapter, that the people then understood the Hebrew tongue.

Du Perron pag. 1077.It is not unto the very Pagans and Mahumetans, but the Cardinall imploy­eth himselfe, and hath his recourse, thinking that the Church of Rome hath dealt very wisely to conforme her selfe unto their example. We must needs say, that the Word of God failes him see­ing [Page 223] he hath recourse to such examples he saith then that the Turkes and Persians do their service in the Gram­maticall Arabick and not in the vulgar of the simple Turkes and Persians, that the verses of the Saliques, in which were contained the ancient service of the Ro­mane common-wealth, were hardly understood of the Priests: He might also add that the Magicians farce their conjurations with bar­barous words, such as are not understood. If in this question the Divell which seduced the Pagans, and which blinds the Mahu­metans, be taken for judge, there must be no service of God, nor Gospell, needs must that cause be adjudged [Page 224] deplorable, and without sup­port, that's drived to im­ploy such poore proofes. We must observe by the way, that this Prelate ma­king as though hee were very well seene in Historie, discovers himselfe to be but a very novice and smatterer therein. For the Arabians which are neere the halfe of the Mahumetans, have the service and the Alcoran in the vulgar tongue; and the Salique verses containe but a small part of the service of the Romanes, to wit, the service of Mars, and Qui­rinus, for they were the Priests of Mars. The bo­die of the Romane religi­on was contained in the Tos­cane discipline, given by Numa.

Hee saith further, Pag. 1089. that for the regard of the East-Church, the service was therein done onely in Greeke: This wee have convinced to be false. Ne­ver had the ancient Chur­ches of Armenia, of Per­sia, and of the Indians their service in Greeke. Nor must it be doubted that the Church of Ierusalem in the time of the Apostles cele­brated the Sacraments in the same tongue in the which Iesus Christ had in­stituted them, In primiti­va Ecclesia mysteria Hebraicè celebraban­tur. Sed tem pore Adria­ni I. Impera­toris Graecè in Ecclesia Orientali Christiano­rum, primo celebrari caeperunt. and was un­derstood by the people. Durand in his Rational * lib. 4. Chap. 1. saith, that in the Primitive Church the mysteries were celebrated in Hebrew, but that in the time of the Em­perour [Page 226] Adrian, they began to be celebrated in Greeke in the Westerne Churches of the Christians. Vnderstan­ding by the East-Church that which on the East side was subject to the Romane Empire: to wit, Syria, Iu­dea, Natolia, or Asia the lesse, unto the which may also be added Egypt. In these Countreys every where, where the service was done in Greeke, there also their Sermons or preachings were likewise done in Greek. An evident proofe that the Greeke tongue was there most used, although it was different from the ancient vulgar tongues. So Athana­sius and Cyrill, and Theophi­lus preached in Greeke to the people of Alexandria: [Page 227] and Cyrill of Ierusalem prea­ched in Greeke at Ierusalem: And Eusebius in Caesaria of Palestine: And Chrysostome in Antioch, Capitall of Syria, and Basil in Caesaria of Cappadocia, and Gregorie of Nazianzen at Nazianzen, Graeca le­guntur in omnibus ferè genti­bus, Latina suis finibus exiguis sanè continentur. and Gregory of Nysse at Nysse. Cicero in his Oration for the Poet Archias, saith that the Greeke was read in a manner thorowout all na­tions. For the Empire of the Greeke Successors of Alexandria had planted the Greeke tongue in Syria, and in Egypt, and in Cilicia, and in Cappadocia, and Gala­tia, and had made it so fami­liar, that the vulgar tongues used before the raigne of Seleucides, and of Ptolomie, were lesse familiar then the [Page 228] Greeke: For evermore prea­ching ought to be accom­modated to the eare of the simple people, even so in the Churhes of Gascogne, and of Languedock Sermons and publicke service are perfor­med in French, although different from the tongue of the Countrey. But the French is there in such sort understood by the people, that they farre better love the French then the Gas­cogne, and understand it with like facilitie. Mounsieur the Cardinall was not ignorant of this, which appeareth by this, that he maintaines one­ly that in the East the Greek was not the vulgar tongue, but maintaines not that the Greeke was not there un­derstood, by that meanes he [Page 229] wanders from the question. For our difference is not, that the publike service ought to be said in a vulgar tongue, but whether it ought to bee done in a tongue understood of the people. Saint Hie­rome in the preface of his second booke upon the Epistle to the Galathians, saith that the tongue of the Galathians was like to that of the Gauls of Treves. But there he speakes of the tongue that the Galathians had brought to the Coun­trey, and not of that, which they there had learned. The Cardinall Du Perron useth this place of Saint Hierome to prove that in Galatia the Greeke was not the vulgar tongue. But he fasifies this place according to his won­ted [Page 230] manner, which maketh wholly against him. The words of Saint Hierome are, Galatas, excepto sermone Grae­co, quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam eandem linguam ha­bere quam Treveros: That the Galathians besides the Greeeke tongue which all the East useth, have a tongue proper, like to that of them of Treves. This place speakes clearely, that the Greeke was current in Galatia, as in all the East. But the Cardinall alleadgeth Saint Hierome in these words, The tongue of the Galathians was like to that of the Gaules neere to Treves. This falsification is evident. Besides, the Apostle writing to the Galathians in Greeke, presupposed that they under­stood the Greeke. The Ly­caonian [Page 231] language which is mentioned in the 14. Chap­ter of the Acts, verse 11. was rather a dialect, then a diver­sitie of tongues, and though indeed it had beene a tongue a part of it selfe; yet so it is that it appeareth, that the Greeke tongue was under­stood by Lycaonians, seeing that Paul and Barnabas speake to the multitude, the presse and throngue of the people in Greeke.

CHAP. XII. By what meanes the Latine tongue is brought into divine service in France and in Spaine.

FRom the East Du Perron passeth on to the West, and saith, that thorowout all the West the service was done in Latine: for where­soever the publike service was done in Latine, there also were preached the Ser­mons in the same tongue: and the Letany was there understood by women and children. It will not bee found that in times past, the service hath beene in La­tine in any Countrey. [Page 233] Where the Latine was not understood thus amongst rhe Gauls the service was done in Latine, because the Latine was there more used then the ancient French tongue, which was so abo­lished by little and little, in such sort, that the Gaules were called Romanes, and are so ordinarily called by Gregorie of Tours, and di­stinguished by that name from the Franks and Burgu­nians, which were stran­gers. and the tongue of the Countrey was called Roman: different from the tongue of the Court, which was high-Dutch, such as is spoken in Guelders and Iubiers. This difference continued still un­to the time of Charlemagne. For in the third Councill of [Page 234] Tours held under his raigne, in the yeare 812. Chap. 17. there is commandement gi­ven to every Bishop to have Et ut eas­dem homi­lias quisque apertè trās­ferre studeat in rusticam Romanam linguam aut Theotiscam quo facilius cuncti pos­sint intelli­gere quae dicantur. Homilies or Sermons in two tongues, to wit, in the countrey Romane tongue, that is the tongue of the common people, and in the Theotisk or Tudesk, that is to say, in the high-Dutch tongue, to the end that all might understand the Ser­mons. Now this was the time wherein the French-Church began by the violence of this King, to receive the Romish service, notwith­standing the resistance of the Clergie, who before that had the Ambrosian service, and was not in any thing subject to the Bishop of Rome.

Vnder the Empire of Marcus Aurelius about the yeare of our Lord 168. the Christian Religion be­gan to spread it selfe a­mongst the Gaules, and then first began there to be Martyrs, as saith Sulpitius Severus a Gaulois Author, neere about that time in his 2. booke of his sacred Histo­rie, Sub Aure­lio deinde Antonini silio perse­cutio iquinta agitata. Ac tum primum intra Gallias martyria vi­sa, serius trans Alpes Dei religio­ne trans­gressa. under Aurelius (saith he) the Sonne of Antoninus the fift persecution was raised up, and then first were seene Martyrs in France, the Reli­gion of God having very slowly passed over the Alps. At this time the Latine tongue was so familiar amongst the Gaules, that it was more used then the old Gaulois, and the language of the Countrey was called Roman, and the [Page 236] French Romans, as we have said. Besides it is to be pre­sumed that this Latine of the Gaules or old French-men was not so polished nor so congruous as that of the towne of Rome. Where­upon also Pacatus in a Pane­girick to Theodosius, Tum diffi­cilius pro genita at­quae haere­ditaria orā ­di facilitate non esse fa­stidio rudē hunc & in­cultum Trā ­salpini ser­monis hor­rorem. excuseth himselfe in that he spake not Latine so well as they that were borne in Italie. Then were the contracts and law­pleas, and all the acts of justice done in Latine. The Gottick lawes which were observed from the straits of Gibraltar unto the river of Loyre abridged by the Code of Theodosius by the Kings of the Visigots were Latines, as teacheth Fauchet the most learned French An­tiquarie that wee have, [Page 237] in the life of King Clo­vis.

In the yeare of our Lord 252. under the Emperour Decius, according as obser­veth Gregorie of Tours in the first booke of his Hi­storie, Gratian came to Tours to preach the Gospell a­mongst the Pagans, and Sa­turnine to Tholouse, and Dio­nysius to Paris, where he was Bishop, and there suffe­red Martyrdome. This is he, whom they falsely sur­name Dionysius Areopagita. Saturnine was cast downe headlong from the Capitoll of Tholouse. These mens tongues being Latine, and preaching to a people that spake Latine, it is no mar­vaile if they established the service in Latine: not after [Page 238] the Romish manner, but with diverse Ceremonies, according to the necessitie of the times, and decensie of the places, to reclaime and civilize the Pagans. Which diversitie continued untill the Ambrosian service was received by the Gaules, which amongst them bore the sway untill the time of Charlemaigne, who brought in the Romish ser­vice.

The Franks being en­tred France, and having made themselves masters unto the river of Loire: (for the rest unto the Pire­ne was held by the Visigots, unto the time of Clovis, who left not the Visigots, that raigned also in Spaine, any more but Languedoc, [Page 239] which the Romanes called Septimania, Fauchet in the life of Cloves. chap. 15. and a small part of Guien) the Latine or Romane tongue was cor­rupted, and fell from her puritie, yet for all that not in such sort that divine ser­vice which was done in La­tine, was not still under­stood. Wee have former­ly heard the witnesse of Sulpitius Severus in the life of Saint Martin, reciting that one of the people ta­king up the Psalter in the place of the absent Dea­con or Reader began to reade the 8. Psalme, wherein there is, ut destruas inimicum & defensorem: which raised such a shout of the people against one called Defensor, who oppo­sed himselfe against the [Page 240] election of Martin unto the Bishopricke.

Prosper of Aquitan writ about the yeare of our Lord, 450. He in 1. booke of the contemplative life Chap. 23 will have the preachers lan­guage to bee simple and plaine, sit simplex & apertus etiamsi minus Latinus, disci­plinatus tamen & gravis, let it be simple and open, although it be not so good latine, yet let it be regular and grave, that it may not hinder any, though he be ignorant to understand it. Now he speakes of the people of Guien.

Much about the same time lived Sidonius Apolina­ris Bishop of Clermunt in Auvernie, who maried the daughter of the Emperour Avitus, by whom hee had [Page 241] children. This Bishop, Vt nisi vel paucissimi quique me­ram Latiaris linguae pro prietatem de triviali­um barbaris­morum ru­bigine vin­dicav eris, eam brevi abolitam defleamus. who writ all his letters in Latine, preacht also in La­tine. In the tenth Epistle of the second booke, hee complaines that in his time amongst the common people the puritie and proprietie of the Latine tongue fell away, and de­generated into Barba­risme; and in his Epistle to Perpetuus Pope (for so then were stiled all the Bi­shops a little more respected then the common sort of Bishops) which is the ninth of the seaventh booke there is a Latine Sermon made by the said Sidonius to the people of Bourges, an un­doubted proofe that the peo­ple of Bourges understood the Latine.

Now albeit that the med­ley of the Visigots and of the Franks among the Gaules, had altered the latine tongue yet so it was that the Latine could not thereby be utterly rooted out, but rather the Kings of the Franks, whose language was that of Guel­ders, to accommodate them­selves unto, and to com­ply with their people, lear­ned the Latine tongue, as witnesseth Fortunatus, speaking of King Aribert.

But thorow laps of time the Latine being abastardi­sed amongst the Gauls, and [Page 243] the Thioise abolisht, the Ro­mane was corrupted in such sort, that it became another tongue from the Latine. And alreadie in the time of the second race of our Kings the tongue of the Countrey was no more La­tine: and neverthelesse tho­row the negligence of Bi­shops, and by the ignorance of people, there was no care taken to put the divine ser­vice into the vulgar tongue. One might see that then the studdie of the Bishops was to adorne their Churches, and to heape together re­liques, and to finde out men that had a faire Organe to diversifie and descant on a Church song and make their voices sound out the loudest. Images were not [Page 244] as yet received into them, nor the single life of the Clergie, nor the power of the Popes, nor Purgatorie, nor Romish indulgences. But the Warres of the French in Italie against the Lumbards in the time of Pe­pin, and of his Sonne Char­lemagne, brought a strait communion betweene our Kings and the Bishop of Rome, who in that warre used all his power, and was a mortall enemy of the Lum­bards: Whence it fell out that Pepin, and after him Charles his Sonne, and Lewis le Debonnaire, Charles his Sonne, bestowed on the Bishops of Rome great pre­sents, and gave them all the lands and possessions, which the Pope holdeth at this [Page 245] day in Italie: reserving ne­verthelesse the Royaltie. Vnto these benefits Char­lemaigne added this: That at the request of Pope Adrian I. See Durand in the 5. book of his Ratio­onal chap. 2. and Fauchet in 7. booke of his french Antiquities in the yeare. 796. hee abolished out of the Kingdome of France the Ambrosian Ser­vice, and established therein by force, and Maugre the Clergie of France, the Ro­mish or Gregorian service. By this change the Latine tongue in the publike ser­vice was fully established: for that which was but done formerly thorow the negli­gence of the Bishops of France, from thenceforth was done by law, according as the servitude increased, from age to age. It would be now a crime of Heresie, and a manifest rebellion a­gainst [Page 246] the papall Sea, to goe about to have divine service in any other tongue, then in the Latine or Ro­mane. At this day one of the most essentiall Marks of the Romish Hierarchie, is the Romish language. And I wot not, whether it was by chance, or by conjecture, or by inspiration, that Ireneus above fourteene hundred yeares agoe, in this word Latine, found out the name of Antichrist, and the num­ber of six hundred sixtie six.

The like matters happe­ned in Spaine, where the La­tine tongue became so fre­quent and so familiar, that in the times of the Empe­rours Domitian and Trajan, and a long time after them, [Page 247] the Latine tongue was there as familiar, as at Rome, ex­cept in Arragon, and in the Cantabrick Mountaines, which is the countrey of Bis­cay and in Galicia. Seneca and Quintilian and Martiall, excellent Authors of the La­ine tongue, were Spaniards; The Father and the Mother of Martial were called Fronto and Flacilla, which are Romane names, as also the names of Martial and of Quintilian, an evident signe, that the language was there Romane. Whereupon we need not wonder, if when the Christian religion thither entred, the ordinarie service was done in Latine, not for all that, after the forme, nor by the ordinance of the Bi­shop of Rome, who indeed [Page 248] there was respected, by rea­son of the dignitie of the Cittie, but had not there any power, nor jurisdicti­on.

In the yeare of our Lord' 408. Genseric King of the Vā ­dals Conquered Spaine up­on the Romane Empire, which a while after he left to passe over into Africa, and left the place to the Visigots, who raigning formerly in Aquitane, made themselves masters of Spaine in the yeare of our Lord, 417. The lawes of the Visigots were Latine: and although their tongue was Gotick, yet did they ac­commodate themselves to the Latine: Whence likewise their Councills and generall Assemblies were made in La­tine. The office or ordinarie [Page 249] service of the Orthodox Spa­niards (for the Visigots at the beginning were Arians) was called the Mosarabicke, or Toletain office: whereof may be seene an abridgement in Isidore in his first booke of Ecclesiastick offices, which Isidore borne in Sevill writ in the yeare of our Lord a­bout 630.

In the yeare 713. the Sa­rasins abolished in Spaine the kingdome of the Goths, slue their King Roderick in bat­tell, and extinguished in the most part of Spaine the Chri­stian Religion. And held Spaine for many ages, un­till that the residue of the Christians, which were reti­red & fled into the Moūtains having recollected their for­ces in the end, drove out the [Page 250] Mores, and replaced againe the Christian Religion in Spaine, and established ma­ny pettie kingdomes. Their service was done yet in La­tine, according to the an­cient forme, albeit by reason of the mixture of the Sara­sins they had lost the use of the Latine tongue. Their office or service was the an­cient, to wit the Mozorabick office: which still continu­ed in Spaine, untill about the yeare of our Lord, 1080. in the which King Alphonsus to gratifie Pope Gregorie the VII. Roderick Archbishop of Toledo. lib. 6. chap. 25. and 26. by strong hand, and Maulgre the estates of the Countrey established in Spaine the Romish service, then the Latine tongue which heretofore was used by custome, was now esta­blished [Page 251] by law. And so hath continued unto this day.

CHAP. XIII. Of England and Germany, and and how the Romish service and the Latine tongue were thither brought in.

IT will not be amisse to say somewhat also of England, which in times past was cal­led Brittaine. Etenim circiter non gentos ab hinc annos constat ple­bem in non­nullis regio­nibus p [...]eces suas publi­cas ignota lingue reci­taste, id quod in An­glia nostra fuisse factita­tum, manife­stum faciam. Harding in the first Section of his trea­tise Of prayers in a strange tongue, saith about nine hun­dred yeares since publike prayers have begun in some Countreys to bee said in a tongue not understood, espe­cially in England. This Do­ctor very much versed in An­tiquity findeth not the use of the Latine tongue in En­gland [Page 253] to bee more ancient since the terme of nine hundred yeares: and hee hath in this spoken accor­ding to the truth.

We must then know that England received the Chri­stian religion, before there were any Churches erected amongst the Gaules or old French. Nicephorus in his second booke, Chap. 40. saith, that Simon Zelotes the Apostle brought the doctrine of the Gospell unto the We­sterne Sea, and unto the Isles of Brittaine. Gildas an English Author who lived in the sixt age, and Polidore Virgil in his second booke of his Hi­storie say, that Ioseph of Ari­mathea there first preached the Gospell Balaeus in his first Centurie, alleadgeth [Page 254] many other witnesses, Ter­tullian Britannorum in ac­cessa loca Christo ve­ro subdita. who writ at the end of the second age in 7. Chap. of his booke against the Iewes, saith, that the inacces­sible places of the Brittaines are subject to the true Christ. [...], &c. [...]. And Theodoret in his 9. booke of the meanes to cure the indisposition of the Greekes. Our fishers and toule-gatherers and our curri­er (so qualifieth he the Apo­stles) have brought to all men the Evangelicall Lawes, and have perswaded not onely the Romanes, and those which are tributaries to them, but even the Scithians, Indians, &c. and those of Brittaine to receive the lawes of him that was crucified.

Some West-monasteri­ensis & Gal­fridus. Authors affirme, that in the yeare 185. Lucius [Page 255] King of Brittaine sent to Pope Eleutherius, praying to bee instructed by him in the Christian religion, and that he abolished Paganisme out of all Brittaine, so that there was not left so much as one infidell. Which is a a storie invented in favour of the Pope. For these Histo­rians place in this Isle peace­able Brittaine Kings raig­ning in the South-part of the Isle, which was subject to the Romanes, and which had no other King but the Emperor of Rome. The estate of this Isle under the Ro­manes, may be seene in Cor­nelius Tacitus in the life of Iulius Agricola, and in Xiphilinus an Epitomiser of Dion, in the life of Nero, and of Severus Emperours. At [Page 256] this time the Christians of South- Brittaine suffered per­secution under the Ro­manes, that were Pagans. And as for the Northerly part, which at this day is cal­led Scotland, and the Coun­trey of Northumberland it was Heathenish, and was so a long time after Eleutheri­us. Hieron. Oceano. Scotorum & Asotorum ritu, ac de republica Platonis, promiscuas uxores ac communes liberos ha­beant. Saint Hierome in his Epistle to Oceanus speaketh of the Scots, as having in his time their wives com­mon 200. yeares after Elu­therius. And Idem lib. 2. in lovi­nianum, Cum ipse adolescen­tulus in Gallia vi­derim Scottos gentem Britannam humanis vescicarnibus, & cum per sylvas porcorum greges & armentorum pecudum (que) reperiam, pastorum nates & foeminarum papillas solere abscindere, & has solas ciborum delicias arbitrari. Scot­torum natio vxores proprias non habet, &c. in 2. lib. a­gainst Iovinian, he sayeth, he had seene the Scotch ea­ting mans flesh. And Gal­fride in his 2. Chapter of [Page 257] his third booke of his Hi­storie speaketh of them as of Pagans. Furthermore the Christians of this Isle cele­brated Easter precisely the fourteenth of the moneth of March, contrarie to the rules of the church of Rome, which they would not have done, had they beene brought to Christianitie by the Church of Rome.

This Isle so continued under the government of the Romane Pagans untill the time of Dioclesian in the yere 286. The Senate of Rome sent thither Caurasius to op­pose the courses of the bar­barous, but he enleagu'd himselfe with the Islanders, and thence drove out the Romanes, and made him­selfe King, and after that [Page 258] time, one while the Ro­manes prevailing, another while the Islanders, that Isse was but weakely held by the Romane Empire.

In the yeare of our Lord, 307. Constantine Sonne of Constantius and of Helene, a Christian woman governed that Island. Being Pagan, he tooke the title of Ro­mane Emperour, and passed thorow the Gaules, and from thence into Italie, and made himselfe absolute Empe­rour. Then becomming Christian, he granted peace to the Churches of Brit­taine.

In the yeare 383. Maxi­mus a Christian and Or­thodox Prince govern'd Brittaine: for as then all that part of the Isle which [Page 259] was subject to the Romanes was Christian. This Maxi­mus invaded with a maine armie the Gaules, and con­quered them, and tooke the title of Romane Emperour against Gratian, Sonne to Theodosius.

In the yeare of our Lord, 434. The Romane Empire being fallen into the West, and rent by the Goths, Franks, Vandals, and Bour­gagnions, the Romanes a­bandoned the Isle of Brit­taine. Which moved the Islanders to conferre the kingdome upon Constantine, the brother of the King of Brittaine Armorique, who was issued of their nation, a Christian and vertuous man.

In the yeare 446. accor­ding to Westmonasteriensis, [Page 260] calculation. The Pelagian heresie reinforcing it selfe in the Island of Brittaine, the Bishops of the Countrey assembled in a Synod, writ into France to Germanicus Bishop of Auxerre and to Lewis Bishop of Troyes in Champagne, men renowned for their learning and piety, and prayed them to come to them, to assist them with their aide and counsell, which they did, and with successe, God blessing their travell. This Historian saith not that the Pope sent them, as some doe fable, but that they came at the request of the Islanders.

In the yeare of our Lord, 449. three ships of the Anglosaxons came from the East Frises, landed in the [Page 261] Isle of Brittaine, and tooke the same beaten way of those others which some foure yeares before arived there in great multitude. This na­tion was high-Dutch, and Paganish, serving Saturne, Iupiter, and Mercurie, who having set foot in the Isle could not be driven out a gaine, and at length made it selfe mistresse of the East and South-part of the Isle, and there establisht Paga­nisme, dividing the Coun­trey into many pettie king­domes, and called the Countrey England. But besides the Christians living under the Dominion of the Pagan Saxons, all the Oc­cidentall part, to wit Corn­wall, and the Countrey in times past called Cambria, [Page 262] and now Wales, was Chri­stian. The Scotch had al­ready receaved Christiani­tie: in such sort that the Isle was halfe Christi­an.

In the yeare 596. Pope Gregorie judged the time fit to improve the authoritie of his Sea: for the Christians of England not being fit to give instruction to the pet­tie Pagan kings, by reason of their continuall warrs, and those pettie kings be­ing savage, and easie to bee perswaded: and the Chri­stians of that Island living under other lawes, and other ceremonies then those of the Church of Rome, he sent Augustine, Monke of Saint Bennet (for as then in the West, there was but [Page 263] that sole order of Monkes) into England, a man fit and industrious to travell and to take paines for two things. The one to reduce the Chri­stians of the Isle unto the forme, and to the service of the Church of Rome, and to induce them to acknowledge his Sea. The other to endevour to draw some of those pettie Pagan kings to the Chri­stian Religion.

This Austin came to England with a traine of fortie persons, and presen­ted himselfe to one of the pettie kings named Ethel­bert King of Kent, who re­received him with honour. A while after insinuating in­to the Queenes fauour and good liking, he perswaded [Page 264] her to embrase the Christi­an faith. The Queene a while after drew in her hus­band, who was followed by a multitude of Pagans. Of this King the above na­med Augustine obtained permission to communicate with the Christians of the North-part of England, whom he exhorted to ioyne themselves with him, be­cause (as faith Westmonasteri­ensis) Sanctum Pascha & alia perplura vnitati Ecclesiae con­contraria faciebant. They did keepe the holy Easter, and many other things in a contra­rie manner to the vnitie of the Church. These Christians before they would commu­nicate with him, consulted a certaine person of the Isle, who lived a solitarie life, [Page 265] esteemed a prudent man, and of holy life, and they asked him whether at Au­gustines perswasion they should part with their anci­ent customes. To whom this good man answered, if he bee a man of God, follow him, but (said they) how shall we discerne whether hee bee a a man of God or no? he an­swered them, You shall know him by his humilitie, and if he induce you by his ex­ample to beare the Crosse of Christ. So they made their appearance in the Synod assigned, where Augustine received them with contempt, and vouch­safed not so much as to rise up from of his seat when they entred. This was the cause, that they likewise [Page 266] contemned him and contra­dicted whatsoever be pro­pounded, accusing him of pride: and although Grego­rie had sent him the Pal­lium, The robe. and had stiled him Arch-bishop, neverthe­lesse they declared unto him, that they acknow­ledged not his authoritie, nor would obey him in any thing. Wherewith Au­gustine being netled, threat­ned them that the Anglo-Saxons should revenge it upon them, and hee lyed not. So Aethelfrid King of Northumberland, al­though hee were a Pagan, favouring this Augustine, in hatred of these Christians his enemies, fell upon them, and made a great slaughter of them. They [Page 267] had in a Towne called Ban­gor a great Monastery, wherein there were some twelve hundred Monkes, who were all poore arti­sans getting their living by their trade: of whom this Pagan King made a massacre and a sacrifice unto Augustine, but as for the Saxon Christians converted by Augustine from Paganisme, they re­ceived the Romane service, such as Augustine pleased to give them, and subjected themselves to Augu­stine sent by the Bishop of Rome, about the yeare 600. of our Lord. Which is the time which Har­ding pointeth out unto us, saying, that at the least nine hundred, or a thou­sand [Page 268] yeares since service was done in England in a tongue not understood, ac­knowledging that it was this Augustine, who to­gether with the Romane service thither brought in the romane language, which ever after that time forward continued in England in their publike service, unto the time of the reformati­on: every age from that time on-ward patched on some peece in religion. In such sort, that had Augustine lived againe seven or eight hundred yeares after his death, he should have found in England, and at Rome too quite another religion then that which he prea­ched. This that we have re­cited concerning this Au­gustine, [Page 269] and of his entrie, and of his carriage and behaviour in England is ex­tant in Bede in his second chap. of the second booke of the Historie of the Anglosax­ons. In Geffrey of Monmouth, in his 4. chap. of his eight booke of the Historie of the two Brittaines, and in the flower of the Histo­ries of Matthew of Westmin­ster.

Bede in the 4. book of his Historie saith that in the yeare of our Lord 668. one surnamed, Stephen taught the people of Northumber­land to follow the Romish singing in publike service As then the Romish service was not yet received in France, nor in Spaine. This selfe-same Augustine passing [Page 270] thorow France, and there ob­serving the service different from the Romish Liturgie, asked advice of Gregorie his Master how he should carry himselfe in that diversitie. Gregorie answered him that he should follow that which he found good, and should accommodate himselfe un­to, and comply with the Churches wherein hee was. This is extant in the Interrogatories of the said Augustine added to the end of the workes of Grego­rie the first.

As for Germany, Christia­nitie came in thither very late. Radbod King of the Frisons in the yeare 700. of our Lord, was a Pagan: and Franconia began to receive the Gospell. And the Saxons [Page 271] against whom Charlemagne made so great warres in the yeare 775. and following, were Pagans, and were ran­ged to Christianitie by the sword, as were also the Fri­sons.

Suibert in the yeare 704. and following, very much ad­vanced Christianitie along the Rhine, and in the Countrey of Brandenbourge. But it appeares not to us by Histories in what tongue hee established the ser­vice.

In the yeare 719. Wino­frid, surnamed Boniface, prea­ched the Gospell to the Ger­mane Pagans, sent by Gregory II. Pope, a great defendor of images. This Boniface being wholy given to the advan­cing of the Papal Sea, I [Page 272] doubt not but that hee gave to the Germanes newly converted from Paganisme, the service in the Romane forme, and tongue.

CHAP. XIIII. Concerning Africa, and how the service in the Latine tongue entred thi­ther.

COncerning Africa, Mounsieur du Perron speakes thus. Lib. 6. c. 1. p. 1091. Saint Augu­stine witnesseth to us, that in Africa the custome which was amongst the people of pro­nouncing in singing of the Psalmes, De doctrina Christiana. lib. 2. cap. 13. Floret sanctificatio mea, instead of saying, Flore­bit, was so deeply rooted tho­row long use amongst the peo­ple, that there was no meanes to bereave them or to weane them from it, and yet never­thelesse it is certaine that the [Page 274] Latine tongue was not vulgar any where out of Italie, and the townes of the Romane Colonies, spread abroad thorow the Empire: as was Carthage in Africa, where­in the Latine tongue was vulgar, whence it was that Saint Augustine (as such) saith, that hee learned it from the blandishments and hugging of his Nur­ses.

This Prelat doth accor­ding to his accustomed manner, which is to proove a thing, which is not in controversie, and so to wander from the que­stion. Hee saith, that the Latine tongue was not vulgar in Africa: but that is not the question. Wee dispute not here of [Page 275] the vulgar tongue, but of a tongue understood by the people. It matters not whether the Latine was, or was not the vulgar tongue in Africa: the question is whether it was there understood or no. In this part of Africa, which he noteth to us, the Liturgie was said in La­tine, because the Latine tongue was there more common and better under­stood by the people then the Punick tongue, which was their ancient vulgar tongue. It is already much that Du Perron yeeldeth us that the Latine tongue was the vulgar tongue of Carthage a Capitall towne of Africa. Hee confesseth also the like of the townes [Page 276] of Africa, which were Colonies. Now the vul­gar tongue of the ca­pitall towne of the coun­trey being Latine, where the Proconsuls Court was, and the officers of the Emperour, and where the causes were judged in La­tine, and wherein there were an innumerable mul­titude of people, and ma­ny other townes being Ro­mane Colonies: and tho­row out all these townes, they whom the Romanes called Curiales, & the Greeks [...], whom in France we call les Gens du Roy, being La­tine, it is no wonder, if all the people thorow the maine Countrey were ac­customed to speake Latine, and that the Latine tongue [Page 277] there was more usuall then the Punick tongue, which was the vulgar tongue. Wherefore as at Carthage, so also at Bonne, and in o­ther townes of Africa subject to the Romanes, not onely the Liturgie, but also their Sermons were made in Latine. In Latine it was that Saint Cyprian, and Aurelius, and Au­gustine preached. The which Augustine being borne in the towne of Thagast or Tegest in Numi­dia, where the people were halfe barbarous, and farre from Carthage: yet ne­verthelesse in the 1 of his Confessions, Chapter 14. Latina didici sine vllo me­tu atque cru­ciatu, inter etiam blan­dimenta nu tricum, & io­ca arridenti­um. saith, hee had learned the Latine amongst the blan­dishments and flatteries of [Page 278] his Nurces: for that his Father was a Courtier and an officer of the Romane Emperour: as witnesseth Possidonius in the life of Saint Augustine. And therefore also in the books of Saint Augustine there are many passages by the which it appeareth, that the people of Africa un­derstood the Latine, better then the Punicke tongue. As in the Ser. 16. de verbis Apo­stoli. Prover­bium notum est Punicum, quod quidē Latinè vobis dicam, quia Punicè non omnes no­stis. 26. Sermon of the words of the Apostle, hee speaketh thus to the people. There is a Punicke proverbe well knowne, which I will tell you in Latine, because you doe not all of you understand the Punicke. And upon the 50. Psalme. We all know that in Latine wee say not sanguines, nor san­guina. [Page 279] And in his second booke of Christian doctrine, Chapter 10. Cum dicimus bovem, Cum di­cimus bovē intelligimus pecus, quod omnes no­biscum La­tinae linguae homines hoc nomine vocunt. When wee say OXE, we meane that beast, which all they which with us are Latinists by tongue doe call by that name. And in his first booke of retracta­tions, Chapter 20. Volens causam Do­natistarum ad ipsius hu­milimi vul­gi & omnino imperitorū & idiotarum notitiam pervenire, & eorum, quā ­tùm fieri posset per nos, inhaere­re memoriae, Psalmum qui eis can­taretur per literas Lati­nas feci. Desiring that the cause of the Dona­tists might come to the know­ledge of the common people, and of the most ignorant and of very Idiots, and that by our meanes it might bee deepely imprinted in their memories, I have put it into Latine in a Psalme for them to sing.

By all this hitherto laid open it appeareth as cleare as day that the Primitive and ancient Church in [Page 280] Greece, Egypt, Asia, Ar­menia, Ethiopia, Africa sub­ject to the Romanes, In Italie, in France, Spaine, and England divine ser­vice was said in a tongue understood. And this Mounsieur Du Perron co­vertly without any words acknowledged, in that hee durst not say, that in these Churches service was said in an unknowne tongue, but maintaines that it was not said in the vulgar tongue, and that is false too in Italie, in Greece, and in the most part of Asia the lesse, In the Towne of Carthage, and and in all the Romane Colonies of Africa: and in all of them it is true without exception, that Sermons [Page 281] and service were perfor­med and done in the same tongue.