The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Treatise · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. Examination of the proofs that the Cardinal brings out of Antiquity, for the Service in a ſtrange tongue.
IF the reaſons of our Adverſaries were weak, their allegations out of Antiquity are no ſtronger. Cardinal Du Perron is he that hath moſt contributed to the gathering of thoſe allegations.
He ſaith that(a)In his Book againſt King James, lib. 6. cap. 1. pag. 1089. in the time of the ancient Fathers, the Service was never celebrated in the Chriſtian Religion but in two tongues, Greek and Latin. This he affirmeth without proofs, and againſt truth, and we brought before many proofs to the contrary. Himſelf in the beginning of the ch. acknowledgeth, that the Syrian Churchs have their Service in old Syriack, the Armenian Churches in old Armenian, and the Ethiopian Churches in old Ethiopick. He ought then to have proved, that the Armenians and Ethiopians had ſometimes their Liturgy in Greek or Latin, which ſhall not be found. The ſame I ſay of the Indian and Perſian Churches, who never made uſe in their Liturgy, no more then in the civil commerce, of the Greek or Latin tongue; but only in this laſt age in ſome corners of the Eaſt Indies, where the Jeſuits have brought in the Roman Service.
Next he alledgeth the Jews who uſe Hebrew in their Synagogues, a tongue which is not vulgar in any Country of the World. So he defends his cauſe with the authority of the ſworn enemies of Chriſt, whoſe example if we muſt follow, we muſt alſo be circumciſed and renounce Chriſtianity. But we acknowledge in that practcie of theirs the fulfilling of Gods curſe upon that people, 1 Cor. 14.21. With men of other tongues and other lips will I ſpeak unto this People, Iſa. 28.11.and ſo they ſhall not underſtand me. For as for the Jews of the time of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, we have proved in the ſixth ch. of this Treatiſe, that the people then underſtood Hebrew.
(b)Du Perron. p. 1077.The Cardinal makes uſe of the very Pagans and Mahumetans, holding that the Roman Church hath wiſely done to follow their example. He ſheweth ſufficiently that he finds no help in the Word of God, ſince he hath recourſe to ſuch authorities. He ſaith then that the Turks and Perſians celebrate their Service in the Grammatical Arabick, not in that which is vulgar to the Turks and Perſians; that the Verſes of the Salians in which the ancient Service of the Roman Commonwealth was contained, were hardly underſtood by the Prieſts. He might have ſaid alſo, that the Magicians will add barbarous and unintelligible words unto their conjuring. If in this queſtion the Devil, who ſeduced the Pagans, and now blindeth the Mahumetans, muſt be taken for Judge, we muſt ſpeak no more of Gods Service or Goſpel. That muſt needs be a deſperate and forſaken cauſe that makes uſe of ſuch proofs. Note by the way, that this Prelate while he goeth about to ſhew his learning in Hiſtory, betrayeth his ignorance. For the Arabians, who make well nigh one half of the Mahumetans, have their Service and the Alcoran in their vulgar tongue. And the Verſes of the Salians contained but a ſmall part of the Roman Pagan Service, namely the Service of Mars and of Quirinus, for they were Prieſts of Mars. But the body of the Roman Religion was contained in the Tuſcan diſcipline, brought in by Numa.
(c)Pag. 1089.He ſaith alſo, that in the Eaſtern Church the Service was in Greek only, which we have convinced of untruth. The ancient Churches of Armenia, Perſia and India never had their Service in Greek. And it is without doubt that the Churh of Jeruſalem in the Apoſtles time-celebrated the Sacraments in the ſame language as Chriſt inſtituted them, which was underſtood by the People. Durandus in his Rational, in the fourth book, ch. 1. ſaith that(d)In primitiva Eccleſia myſteria Hebraice celebrabantur, ſed tempore Adriani Imperatoris Graece in Eccleſia Orientali Chriſtianorum primo celebrari coeperunt. in the Primitive Church the myſteries were celebrated in Hebrew; but that in the time of the Emperour Adrian they began to be celebrated in Greek in the Eaſtern Church of the Chriſtians, underſtanding by the Eaſtern Church that which was ſubject to the Roman Empire in the Eaſt, namely Syria, Judea, Natolia or Aſia Minor, to which alſo we may add Egypt. In all thoſe Countries whereſoever the Service was done in Greek, there alſo Sermons were done in Greek. An evident proof that the Greek tongue was there the moſt vulgar, though it differed from the ancient vulgar tongues. Thus Athanaſius and Cyrillus and Theophilus preacht in Greek to the people of Alexandria. And Cyrillus of Jeruſalem preacht in Greek at Jerulem. And Euſebius in Ceſarea of Paleſtina, and Chryſoſtome in Antioch the capital of Syria, and Baſilius in Ceſarea of Cappadocia, and Gregory Nazianzen at Nazianza, and Gregorius Nyſſenus at Nyſſa. (e)Cicero pro Archia Poeta. Graca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus; Latina ſuis finibus exiguis ſane continentur.Tully in his Oration for the Poet Archias ſaith, that Greek is read almoſt over all Nations. For the Empire of the Grecians ſucceſſors of Alexander, had planted the Greek tongue in Syria, in Egypt, in Cilicia, in Cappadocia, and Galatia, and had made it ſo familiar, that the vulgar tongues uſed before the reign of the Seleucides and the Ptolomees were leſs familiar then the Greek; for alwaies Sermons muſt be accommodated to the ears of the plain people. Thus in the Reformed Churches of Gaſcoigne and Languedoc Sermons and divine Service are in French, though it differ from the language of the Country; But French is ſo well underſtood there, that the people prefer French before their Gaſcon dialect, and underſtand it with the like facility. The Cardinal was not ignorant of that, Which he ſheweth by maintaining only that in the Eaſt Greek was not the vulgar tongue, but he maintaineth not that Greek was not underſtood there. So he wanders out of the queſtion. For our difference is not whether the publick Service muſt be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, but whether it muſt be celebrated in a language underſtood by the people.
Hierom in his Preface of the ſecond book upon the Epiſtle to the Galatians, ſaith, that the language of the Galatians was like that of the Gaules of Triers. But there he ſpeaks of the tongue which the Galatians had brought to the Country of Galatia, not of the tongue which they had learned in it. Yet the Cardinal makes uſe of that paſſage of Hierom to prove that in Galatia Greek was not the vulgar language. But he falſifieth that paſſage according to his cuſtom; Whereas the paſſage is altogether againſt him. Hierom's words are theſe, Galateas accepto ſermone Graeco quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam candem linguam habere quam Treviros. That the Galatians beſides the Greek languge which all the Eaſt ſpeaketh, have a proper tongue like unto that of Triers. This paſſage plainly affirmeth, that the Greek tongue was currant in Galatia as in all the Eaſt. But the Cardinal alledgeth Hierome in theſe words, The Galatians tongue was like that of the Gaules near Triers. The falſification is evident. But St. Paul writing to the Galatians in Greek preſuppoſed that they underſtood Greek. The Lycaonian language mentioned, Acts 14.11. was rather a dialect then a diverſe tongue. And though they had a diverſe tongue, yet it is evident that Greek was underſtood by the Lyconians, ſince Paul and Barnabas ſpake to the common people in Greek.