The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Treatise · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Examination of the reaſons of our Adverſaries, of Card. Du Perron eſpecially.
UPon the Prayers of private men in a language not underſtood by the very perſon that prayeth, our Adverſaries yield the bucklers, and abandon their cauſe. Only they ſay, It is the Church; for this word Church is a covering for all ſorts of abuſes, and a plaiſter for all ſores. This they oppoſe to the Word of God, and to the whole Antiquity, and to reaſon, and to common ſenſe, which in this point are contrary to the Roman Church of our age.
But as for the publick Service in a tongue not underſtood, they bring ſome few ſmall reaſons, which muſt be examined.
I. They ſay, that the title of the Croſs was written by Pilate in three Languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. They will acknowledge Pilate who was a Pagan Judge, for a Law-giver that gave this Law to the Chriſtian Church. For being a man of great prudence, it is to be preſumed, that he took care that the Maſs ſhould be ſung in a convenient Language. Thus the authority of Pilate carrieth it above that of the Word of God, and againſt the examples of Chriſt, the Prophets, and the Apoſtles. And if according to the cuſtom of the Romans the title of the Croſs had been written in one tongue only, by their reaſon the Maſs ſhould be ſung in one tongue only. Or if Pilate had written nothing, the Maſs ought not to be ſung at all.
II. Neither is their reaſon better when they ſay(a)Card. Du Perron. 6. book 1. ch. againſt K. James. that it is expedient, that the divine Service be celebrated in all Countries in the ſame language, that ſtrangers may underſtand it. This ſecond reaſon contradicteth the firſt. For if it be expedient that the divine Service be done everywhere in the ſame language, we muſt not ſtand upon the inſcription of the Croſs in three languages, and divine Service muſt be celebrated in one language, over all the Univerſal Church.
For the ſame reaſon Sermons ought to be preached every where in the ſame tongue in the behalf of ſtrangers. Certainly the Service in Latin is no eaſe to the ſtrangers that are in France; for of thoſe ſtrangers there are three for one at the leaſt that underſtand no Latin; and for one that underſtands Latin, there are ten that underſtand French. And thoſe ſtrangers that underſtand Latin, cannot underſtand the Maſs, a great part whereof is pronounced with ſuch a low voyce, that they that ſtand by the Prieſt cannot hear him. But is there any ſhadow of equity in this, that in conſideration of a few ſtrangers that are in great Cities, the whole French Nation muſt be deprived of the intelligence of the divine Service? eſpecially all the inhabitants of Villages and Market-towns, where there are no ſtrangers? whereas the true way to gratifie ſtrangers in a great City like Paris, ſhould be to eſtabliſh for the Italians a Church, where they might have the Service in Italian, and the like for other Nations. By this means every Nation ſhould have the Service in Paris in their natural language.
III. They add, that having the ſame tongue everywhere, is a ſign of union and concord in the Univerſal Church. By ſpeaking ſo, they declare that it ſhould be expedient that the Service ſhould be neither in Greek nor Hebrew, which tongues nevertheleſs they affirm to have been authorized by the inſcription of the Croſs. But the Union which God recommendeth in his Word, is not the Union in the ſame language but in Faith and charity, which Union may be between men diverſe in language; Whereas perſons of the ſame language many times diſagree in the Faith. God is glorified when he is purely and unanimouſly ſerved and called upon in diverſe languages; as God himſelf ſaith, As I live, ſaith the Lord, Rom. 14.11. Iſa. 43.23.every knee ſhall bow unto me, and every tongue ſhall confeſs to God. Wherefore God gave unto his Apoſtles the gift of diverſe tongues, that in all tongues God might be ſerved and called upon.
IV. They preſuppoſe that the Divine Service was not inſtituted for the inſtruction of the people, but only to glorifie God by Prayers and Thankſgivings,Du Perron in the ſame place. and that the people by his preſence may give his conſent to that which is done in the Church, and partake of the fruits which the Church obtaineth of God by the Liturgy. And upon that preſuppoſition they ſay, that the people that underſtand not, loſe not theſe fruits, nor the ends for which the Divine Service was inſtituted, becauſe the authority of the Church is unto them a ſufficient ſecurity, and that it is enough that their Paſtors underſtand for them.
But by thoſe very ends for which they ſay that Divine Service is inſtituted, it is eaſie to convince them. For perſons aſſembled to glorifie God by Prayers and Thankſgivings, muſt know what they ask, and what they thank God for. Theſe Doctors will have the people to ask, and not to know what; to give him thanks, and not to know for what. And whereas the people aſſembleth to give conſent to that which is ſaid and done in the Church, how ſhall they give their conſent and approbation unto things which they underſtand not? And if they be aſſiſtant to be partakers of the benefits which the Church receiveth by the publick Service, they are then aſſiſtant to be inſtructed and comforted; for it is one of the fruits for which Divine Service is inſtituted. And whereas in the Maſs the Prieſt ſpeaks unto the people, in vain doth he ſpeak unto thoſe that do not underſtand him. Alſo ſince in the Maſs Chapters of Scripture are read, in which God ſpeaks unto men, we muſt not hinder that God be underſtood by men. The Apoſtle, Rom. 10.17. ſaith that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God; not then by a preſence without underſtanding that which God propounds to us in his Word. The ſame Apoſtle ſpeaking to the people of Corinth, will have them to(b)1 Cor. 11.26. foreign. announce the Lords death as often as they eat the bread, and drink the cup of the Lords Supper; Which cannot be done by perſons that are preſent and underſtand not what is ſaid. Such as are aſſiſtant to a ſervice which they underſtand not, are deprived of the benefit thereof.
V. As for that the Cardinal ſaith, that the Church is a ſecurity to the people, as if the Church were to anſwer for the people in Gods Judgment, I ſay, that to that Church which beareth her ſelf for a ſecurity, there is need of another ſecurity to aſſure us that ſhe doth not err, and that God accepteth of her ſecurity. Truly in the day of Judgment the Paſtours ſhall not anſwer for the people. That man ſhall be deceived that will in that day give his Parſon for a ſecurity. Thoſe Paſtours eſpecially ſhall not be receivable, who to raiſe their authority by leading the ignorant which way they would, have kept the people far from all intelligence. But why cannot the Greek Churh be a ſecurity as well as the Roman? ſeeing that it is more antient then the Roman, and that the Roman Church is her daughter, and hath received Chriſtian Religion from her? For the Greek Church boaſteth alſo, that ſhe is Catholick, and hath the chairs of St. Peter and of many Apoſtles.
VI. But(c)P. 1079. (ſaith the Cardinal) if to profit at the Maſs it was neceſſary to underſtand it, the deaf and they that ſtand far from him that officiateth, ſhould receive no profit by it. If this reaſon be worth any thing, it will follow that we muſt preach in an unknown tongue. For if it were neceſſary to preach in an intelligible tongue, the deaf and the perſons that ſtand too far from the Preacher, ſhould receive no benefit thereby. I anſwer then, that when the defects of Nature keep us from hearing that which is ſaid, we are not accountable for it before God; for God imputes not to us as a crime, that which himſelf hath done. But we are accountable unto him of the hindrances which we bring our ſelves unto the underſtanding of his Word. God ſupplyeth the defects of Nature by the wayes which are known to him: But man after he hath done evil, cannot (but ſeldom) bring a remedy to it. If the light of the Sun be uſeleſs to the blind, it followeth not therefore that the eyes of them that ſee muſt be put out. Likewiſe if one or two are deaf, we muſt not therefore deprive the reſt of the people of intelligence. And he that ſtands far from him that officiates ſpeaking in a known tongue, might have profited more if he had been nearer, and he may draw near another time.
VII. He objecteth alſo the ſtrangers in England, that are preſent at the Engliſh Service and underſtand no part of it. To which I ſay, that ſuch ſtrangers go to that Service perhaps once or twice out of curioſity, not devotion; and that if they underſtood Engliſh they might be more edified. Alſo that the French have at London and in other Towns their Service in French.
VIII. He ſaith alſo, that in the time of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, the Jews had their ordinary Service in their Synagogues, in which they underſtood nothing; Which we have already ſhewed to be falſe. For Hebrew was then intelligible among the people of Judea. It is not the ſame of the Jews called Helleniſts, in the ſixth of the Acts, who were Jews tranſported into Egypt by Ptolomeus Lagus, who alſo were called Babelim, and were ſpread in very great number over all Africa. They were ſo called, becauſe they were deſcended from the people that had been tranſported into Babylon. Thoſe Jews read in their Synagogues the Greek Verſion of the Septuagint. Wherefore alſo the Apoſtle to the Hebrews, writing to them, alledgeth the Scripture unto them according to their Verſion. Of thoſe Jews was(d)See Scaliger de Emendatione temporum. p. 143. Philo a Jew of Alexandria, a Learned man in Greek, but ignorant in Hebrew. For in Alexandria the Greek tongue was ſo common, that the Biſhops as Athanaſius, Cyrillus, Theophilus and others, preached there unto the people in Greek.
IX. It is without reaſon, that the Cardinal objecteth unto us the example of the Prieſts of the Law, interceding for the people in the Temple, while the people was without in the Court, and by conſequent could not hear what the Prieſt ſaid. For here it is queſtion of the Prieſt ſpeaking to God in the Maſs in the preſence of the people, and ſpeaking to the people. Alſo of the Maſs, in the which Chapters of Scripture are read, All that in a tongue which the people underſtands not. Yea there are many Prieſts that underſtand not their Maſs. It is then nothing to the purpoſe, to bring us here the example of a Prieſt that ſpake not to the people, and ſpake not unto God before the people while he was in the holy place, and read to the people no Text or Chapter of Gods Law. Neither do we find in Scripture, that the Prieſt ſpake or pronounced any Prayer with his mouth while he made propitiation for the people in the Holy place, or in the Sanctuary. I verily believe, that if that Prieſt coming out of the Temple unto the people attending in the Court, had ſpoken to the Congregation in a barbarous and ſtrange tongue, the people would have ſtoned him.
X. Theſe Doctors confeſs, that by the unknown language the people is deprived of inſtruction and comfort: But that defect (ſay they) is ſupplyed by Sermons, in which the Contents of the Maſs are expounded. Suppoſe that it is ſo; Is it not a great abuſe for one to make wounds that he may apply plaiſters? It were better that the Prieſt ſhould ſo ſpeak to the people in his Maſs as to be underſtood, then to make the poor people to hope that within ſome years they ſhould learn the expoſition of it in ſome Sermon. But it is moſt falſe, that in their Sermons they expound the Maſs, either for the words or the matter. Take me a Peaſant or a Tradeſman, who hath heard the Maſs fifty years, you ſhall find him altogether ignorant of that which is ſaid in the Maſs. Do they make the people underſtand in Sermons why the Prieſt praying for the dead, ſaith that he prayeth for thoſe that ſleep in the ſleep of peace? Or why the Prieſt preſenting the conſecrated Hoſt unto God, which Hoſt they ſay to be Jeſus Chriſt, asketh of God that he would accept of that gift as he did of Abels Sacrifice, which was a calf or a lamb? Or why the Prieſt prayeth in the Maſs, that the Angels may take Chriſt whith lyeth upon the Altar, and carry it up to the heavenly Altar? Or why the Prieſt calls the body of Chriſt theſe gifts, theſe preſents, which God alwaies createth and quickeneth? Or why the Prieſt in his Confiteor confeſſeth his ſins unto God, to the holy Virgin Mary, to Michael the Archangel, and to St. John the Baptiſt, without ſpeaking one word of Chriſt? Or why in the Maſs the holy Virgin is preferred before Chriſt, in theſe words, communicating, and celebrating in the firſt place the memory of the Virgin Mary, although the Lords Supper be inſtituted for the remembrance of Chriſt only, and to announce his death?
XI. Cardinal Du Perron finds, that the incommodity which is in the Service not underſtood by the people, brings this benefit, that the merit of the endeavour and exerciſe of the Faith of the people is thereby the greater. He thinks, that the leſs knowledge there is in Faith, the more merit; and that he that hath leſs intelligence, is he that hath more Faith, and that meriteth more. Harding ſaith much the ſame thing, That the people indeed underſtands not the Latin of the Maſs,(e)Harding De precibus peregrina lingua factis; Hic pius animorum affectus tam eſt proculdubio Deo gratus ut nulla verborum intelligentia conferri queat. but that their pious affection is ſo acceptable unto God, that no underſtanding of words can be compared to it. By that reckoning there is merit in want of knowledge, and ignorance muſt be numbred among the bleſſings of God. Grant that once, we muſt no more inſtruct any man in the true knowledge of God, for fear of diminiſhing the merit and price of his Faith. Yea if this Doctrine may be currant; that Faith conſiſteth in ignorance, not in knowledge; and that Faith is oppoſed to ſcience, as Cardinal Bellarmine told us before: Truly this Maxime is a great prop of the Papal dominion, and of the authority of the Clergy; ſince it teacheth to believe without knowing, and to follow the Pope and his doctrine, blindfolded, without inquiring of the will of God or of his Word, which is a light that God preſents unto us, that we may our ſelves know the right way. Truly although incurable ignorance diminiſh the fault, yet it is an evil; as being born blind excuſeth going aſtray, yet going aſtray is evil. But to ſtudy to be ignorant, To fear to learn, To be wilfully blind, and to think that there is merit in wilful ignorance, it is, beſides folly, a headſtrong obſtinacy, and a full purpoſe to reject the knowledge of Gods will. And I cannot comprehend that great endeavour and exerciſe of Faith, which the Cardinal ſaith to be in them that believe without underſtanding, ſeeing that there is no labour in not believing, knowing nothing and refuſing to learn.
XII. The ſame Prelat inſiſteth very much upon the danger of tranſlating the Liturgy into a vulgar tongue, ſaying that the alteration of one ſyllable or one letter only in the the myſterie of the Church, may bring an alteration in the Faith, as in the foreign of the Arians. That one could not tranſlate Divine Service without running into that danger. That the Phraſes of old French ſhould be rediculous in our time, as it may be ſeen in the Romances; and that Marot's traduction of the Pſalms a hundred years hence will appear rude, ſilly and ridiculous.
If that objection hath any weight, it ſhould have with more reaſon hindred the traduction of the holy Scripture into Latin, and into the vulgar tongues, for fear that ſome depravation in a word or in a ſyllable alter the doctrine of Salvation; for the Text of Scripture is far more important then that of the Maſs, ſeeing that changing a word in Scripture is a crime; but the text of the Maſs hath received a thouſand alterations and additions, as our Adverſaries acknowledge. Yet that fear did not hinder the Ancients to make many verſions of Scripture both in Greek and Latin, The multitude whereof was ſo diverſe, that(f)Hieron. in Evangeliſtas ad Damaſum. Si Latinis exemplaribus ſides eſt adhipenda, reſpondeant quibus; tot …nim ſunt exemplaria pene quot codices. Hierome ſaith that there was almoſt as many diverſe verſions ae copyes of the Bible. And Auſtin ſaith, that the multitude of Latin Interpreters was almoſt infinite. Our Adverſaries confeſs, that the vulgar Latin verſion is much different from the Hebrew and Greek Texts; but they acknowledge not, that this diverſity hath cauſed in the Church of Rome any alteration in the Faith. That fear did not hinder Hierome to tranſlate the Bible into the Dalmatick tongue, nor Ʋlfilas to turn it into the Gothick tongue, nor every Nation of the Church to tranſlate it into their own. And the verſions into vulgar tongues were ſo far from altering in any reſpect the truth and authority of the Greek and Hebrew Originals, that the World may thank the Churches that have now Divine Service in their vulgar language, for reſtoring to the Weſtern Church the purity of the Hebrew and Greek tongues,(g)Aug. l. 2. de doctrina Chriſtiana cap. 11. Ut ad exemplaria praeced…ntia rever…tur, ſi quam …abitationem attul…rit Latinoram interp…etum infinita varietas. for bringing the Hebrew and Greek Originals to the publick ſight, and for the reſtitution of the integrity of the verſion of Scripture, which the Roman Church had disfigured in the vulgar verſion.
But why doth the Cardinal apprehend a danger in the tranſlation of the publick Service, and finds no inconvenience in ſo many alterations that were made in Chriſts inſtitution; ſo many new pieces being ſowed up to the Maſs(h)Concerning theſe Additions ſee Platina in the life of S…tus the I. and Innocent the III in the 2. book of the Maſs, ch. 61. We ſhewed before how Bellarmin acknowledgeth in the 2. book of the Maſs, ch. 17. that five Prayers which are in the Offertory, were not in it 500. years agoe. unto which ſeveral Popes have added ſome clauſes? Hath not Pius the V. reformed the Miſſals, and put out many Prayers, Proſes and Sequences, which were in the old Miſſals, whereby Prieſts are put to great trouble?
And to what purpoſe doth he alledge that inconvenience, to which (if one may believe our Adverſaries) they have a ready remedy, ſince they ſay that the Pope and the Roman Church cannot err in the Faith. For whenſoever the Pope will examine and approve the Maſs tranſlated into French, that Tranſlation ſhall be authentical among our Adverſaries, and ſhall be without exception after his approbation.
As for that he ſaith that the French terms in two or three hundred years would become ridiculous, the like may be ſaid of Latin and Greek, and of any other tongue. Whence it would follow, that the Maſs muſt never be ſaid in Latin, for fear that by the lapſe of time the terms of the Maſs become ridiculous. The words which by the eſtabliſhed form of the Divine Service were preſerved, never become ridiculous among them that approve that Service. In the publick Service of the Roman Maſs there are words truly ridiculous, and ſuch as never were good, as Evohe, Miſerere nobis, and Stabat mater doloroſa; and many like theſe, which yet are not ridiculous in the Roman Church, becauſe they are authorized by the Divine Service. And theſe words Alleluja and Hoſanna are long ſince become vulgar, and yet are not ridiculous when they are pronounced in the reading of Scripture or in the publick Service.
XIII. Finally, the Cardinal objecteth, that if the Service were no more done in Latin, there being no more common language, Univerſal Councils could be held no more, and ſo all means ſhould be taken away of deciding the points of Faith with infallible certainty, and the ancient Decrees and Canons ſhould be aboliſht. This Objection is confuted by experience; for the Greek Church and the Roman had not in old time, and never had a tongue common to both, and yet they celebrated Councils together. They choſe in Italy ſome Deputies that underſtood Greek; for then the Latin Church did accommodate her ſelf unto the Greek, becauſe the Emperours lived in Greece, and that by their command the Biſhop of Rome ſent his Deputies to the Univerſal Councils; None of which Councils was held in Italy, although the Biſhops of Rome deſired it; and were humble petitioners for it to the Emperours.
If to hold Councils in the Weſt, it is neceſſary that the Latin tongue be common everywhere; So many Academies and Colledges where Latin is taught are ſufficient to preſerve the Latin tongue, although the publick Service be in the vulgar tongue: as it is ſeen in Countries, whence Popery is baniſht, though they have Divine Service in their own language. There alſo the Councils and the ancient Canons are carefully preſerved. It is a groſs abuſe, to think that the barbarous Latin of the Maſs, ſerveth for the preſervation of the Latin tongue, or that the text of the Maſs ſerveth to underſtand Virgil or Livy, or to ſpeak in Tullie's ſtyle. Yea though the Latin of the Maſs were as elegant as it is rude and barbarous, it would be but a weak help to preſerve the Latin tongue. The pure Greek of the Greek Liturgy did not hinder the corruption of the Greek tongue, when the Turks had once put down Schools. And the Liturgy of the Armenians which is in the Armenian tongue, and the Liturgy of the Ethiopians which is in the Ethiopick tongue, have not hindred the corruption of the old Armenian and Ethiopick languages.
As for grounding Chriſtian Faith upon the deciſion of Councils which contradict one another, the late Councils being contrary to the old, and the Pope approving nothing but that which is fit for his turn, oppoſing himſelf often to Univerſal Councils, it is another queſtion which is not for this place. The clear Texts of Scripture which need no interpretation, are ſufficient unto Salvation. Who ſo beareth himſelf as an infallible Judge of the ſenſe of Scripture, ſets himſelf above God, for he makes God to ſpeak according to his will; He may alter Scripture undet a pretence of expounding Scripture, and hath a way open to build an Empire to himſelf. Such a man hath need to be free from all vice, leſt he bring an interpretation that ſerve to colour vices, feed his covetouſneſs, or maintain his ambition.
Such are the reaſons of our Adverſaries, which are but ſhifts and humane conſiderations, without, yea againſt the word of God, and they are confuted by experience and by common ſenſe.