Hebrew Greek and Latin made all to his praise c. And conformable to this is the Decree of the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. Anno 1215. that because in many parts within the same City and Diocess there are many people of different manners and Rites mixed together but of one Faith We therefore command that the Bishops of such Cities or Diocesses provide fit Men who shall celebrate Divine Offices according to the diversity of Tongues and Rites and administer the Sacraments This may be further confirmed by the very Offices of the Church of Rome but this is sufficient to shew that the Church of Rome hath departed from Scripture Antiquity and it self when it doth require that Divine Service be performed in a Tongue unknown to the people and that it was never the opinion of the Fathers nor any Church nor even of the Church of Rome that it is most expedient to have it so performed So little was it then thought that religious things the less they are understood the more they would be admired and that to preserve a reverence for them and the people from dangerous errors it is requisite to keep them from being understood So little was it pleaded that there are any Tongues sacred in themselves and that as the three upon the Cross of Christ are to be preferred before others and to exclude the rest so the Latin as next to the head of Christ is the most venerable of the three So little was it then thought that there is a certain kind of Divinity in Latin and something more of Majesty and fitter to stir up Devotion than in other Tongues So little were they afraid that Latin would be lost if the Service were not kept in it or however so little evident is it that they valued the preservation of that Tongue above the Edification of the Church Lastly So little did they think of the expedience of having the Service in one common Tongue as Latin That Christians wherever they travel may find the self same Service and Priests may officiate in it as at home As if for the sake of the few that travel the many that stay at home should be left destitute and for one Mans convenience 10000. be exposed to eternal perdition These are Arguments coined on purpose to defend the Cause and so are peculiar to the Church that needs them II. Let us consider Whether from the time of its having been a Rite it hath been the Rite of every Church To this I shall only produce their own Confessions for it is acknowledged that the Armenians Aegyptians Habassines Muscovites and Sclavonians have their Service in a Tongue known to the people And their giving them the hard Names of Hereticks Schismaticks and Barbarous will not save the Council from being fallible when it saith It is the rite of every Church But were there no such Churches in the World that herein practised contrary to the Church of Rome yet it would no more justifie her than it can make that good which is evil that expedient which is mischievous to the Church of God or reconcile one part of the Council to the other that when it hath declared The Mass contains great instruction for the people yet adds That it is expedient and an approved Rite that it be not celebrated in the Vulgar Tongue But say they this is granted If there were no interpretation but that is provided for by the Council for it is ordered That lest Christs sheep should hunger all that have the care of Souls shall frequently expound c. And that we are now to consider SECT IV. Whether the Provision made by the Council of Trent for having some part of the Mass expounded be sufficient to countervail the mischief of having the whole celebrated in a Tongue not understood of the people and to excuse the Church of Rome in the injunction of it This is the last refuge they betake themselves to confessing that without an Interpretation S. Paul is against them but with this they plead he is for them But what shall we then think of the case in their Church at a time when as the people could not understand so the Priests could not interpret and wanted both the gift and had not acquired so much as the art of it What shall we think of their case and their Church that hath neither provided nor doth use such an Interpretation as the Apostle speaks of but what differs as much from it in respect of the light it gives to the people as both that and the Tongue they use do in the way by which they are obtained If it were a translation what a ludicrous thing would it be for a Church in its constant Service to take suppose the Lord's Prayer in pieces and first pronounce it in Latin and then in English But as they do not permit their Offices not the Horae B. Virginis Breviary or Mass Book to be translated into a Vulgar Tongue So the verbal translation of it during the celebration of Mass was never thought of by the Council but was thereby condemned as the cause and seedplot of many errors as we are informed in a Letter wrote upon the occasion of Voisin's translation by the whole Clergy of France to Pope Alexander the Seventh And whatsoever the Exposition did refer to let it be what it will yet it was not to the devotional Part as Sanders declares who after he had pleaded that an Unknown Tongue with interpretation was the perfect fulfilling of S. Pauls advice perceiving a difficulty behind throws all off with this If the Interpretation of Prayers be laid aside for a season it is however not to be thought that it is to be omitted for ever c. So that at most no more was intended than a short exposition of some doctrinal Point or Ceremony which might as well be called an Exposition of the Breviary or any other Book containing much the same things as the Missal And it is probable that so much as this also was never intended which if ever is very rarely practised amongst them Insomuch as Ledesma saith That the sence of the Council was That the people should be instructed only by Sermons Indeed they would rather have this go for an Argument than dispute it They do as the Irish by their Bogs run over it lightly for fear if they tread too hard it will not support their cause but stifle it And therefore they wheel off again and then tell us That it being a known set Form in one set Language those that are ignorant of it at first need not continue so but by due attention and diligence may arrive to a sufficient knowledge As if the poor people are inexcusable if they do not arrive to a sufficient knowledge of the Tongue which must be learned before the things without other helps than their own attention and diligence when the Priests and
the other is understood by none Now in all this they say little or nothing to the purpose For if they plead for their Latin Service as Greek was in Galatia and Latin in Africa who is their Adversary For these Tongues were as I have shewed in those and the like places as well or little less spoken and understood than the Vulgar and Mother Tongues And the Protestants do not think it unlawful to have the common Service in a Tongue which is commonly understood though it be not the Vulgar Tongue of the Nation especially in Maritim and Provincial Countries where there is a concourse of diverse Nations and where either these several Languages are understood or there is a compound Language that serves for all as the Lingua Franca before spoken of But if they plead for Latin as it is now when a Dead and Learned Tongue that is where it is not known at all as in the West-Indies where yet it is as much used by those of the Roman communion in Mass as in Europe or where it is not known to the Vulgar people as it is with us and every where else then they speak to the purpose for that the Reformed do oppose but then the way of arguing hitherto taken notice of is of no use to them in the World and is no more to the purpose than if they would undertake to prove that there is at this day a famous University at Athens and that Latin is the Vulgar Tongue now at Rome because these were so formerly So that if we will know where the Controversie lies and what is contended for and against we must restore things to their proper places and I think all may be brought to an Issue by putting and resolving this plain Question viz. SECT II. Qu. Whether it be lawful and expedient to use such a Tongue in the publick Worship of God as is not vulgarly or commonly understood by the people according to the way at this day required and practised in the Church of Rome If we would enquire into the lawfulness of such things as appertain to Divine Worship we must apply our selves to the Holy Scripture being in matters of that nature to determine of Right and Wrong Lawful and Unlawful according to the Directions Commands and Prohibitions of it If we would be satisfied about their Expedience we must consider the Nature Ends and Use of what we enquire about This therefore is a proper method for the Resolution of the foregoing Question But because the Apostle in his Discourse upon this Subject 1. Cor. 14. doth argue from the ends and use of the several Offices belonging to Divine Worship and because the like Order may give some light and force to what follows I shall first of all I. Treat of the Ends for which Divine Worship and the several Offices of it were instituted II. Consider whether those Ends may be attained when the Worship is performed in a Tongue not understood III. Whether the Worship so performed as to leave those ends unattainable will be accepted by God IV. I shall consider the Apostle's Discourse upon this Argument and whether it can be reasonably concluded from thence That Divine Worship so administred as not to be understood of the people is unlawful I. In the first of these the Masters of Controversie in the Romish Church do proceed with great tenderness and no little obscurity For would we know what the Worship is they would have in an Unknown Tongue they answer it is the publick only they defend For as for private saith one It is lawful for every one to offer his lesser Prayers to God in what Tongue soever he pleaseth And saith another All Catholicks are taught to say their private Prayers in their Mother Tongue As if it were possible to assign such a vast difference betwixt them when the Dispositions Reasons and Ends required and intended are the same that what is lawful expedient and necessary in the one is unlawful inexpedient and unnecessary in the other Or as if the saying private Prayers in Latin was never heard of practised or encouraged in their Church Again Would we understand to what purposes the Divine Offices do serve and whether the Edification Instruction and Consolation of the people be not some of those Ends. Bellarmin answers 1. That the principal end of Divine Offices is not the instruction or consolation of the people but a Worship due to God from the Church As if there were no regard to be had to the special ends of those Offices such as the Instruction and Consolation of the people Or as if God could be honoured by that Worship where those ends are not regarded 2. The Rhemists add That Prayers are not made to teach make learned or increase knowledge though by occasion they sometimes instruct but their especial use is to offer our Hearts desires and Wants to God c. As if there were no Offices in God's Worship appointed for Instruction and increase of Knowledge and which are performed in an Unknown Tongue amongst them as well as Prayer Or as if their Adversaries did either deny it to be the special use of Prayer To offer our Hearts c. to God Or did affirm that the special use of it is To teach make learned and increase knowledge as they with others do falsly suggest and would fain have believed But to set this in a better light and that we may understand what are the Ends and Uses for which Divine Worship was appointed and after what manner they are to be respected It is to be observed 1. That Divine Worship in its first notion respects God as its Object and so the end of it in general is the giving Honour to him by suitable Thoughts Words and Actions 2. That he hath appointed several wayes and Offices by which he will be so honoured and in which as the Honour doth terminate in him so there redounds from thence benefit to the Church 3. That the Benefits redound to the Church according to the nature of those Offices and the special Ends they were designed unto As the Word of God is for our instruction and comfort c. The Lord's Supper for the encrease of Faith in God and love to him through Jesus Christ The Praising of God is to raise our Affections and to make us more sensible of his goodness and to quicken us in our duty The especial use of Prayer that I may use the Words forecited is to offer up our Hearts Wants and Desires to God and that by conversing with him we may be the more ardently excited to the love and adoration of him as the Trent Catechism doth express it 4. That those Offices are to be performed so as may effectually answer those Ends and as we may receive the benefits they were appointed for From whence it follows 5. That if the Offices of Divine Worship are to be performed by Words those Words and that
others are trained up to the knowledge and understanding of Latin by Rules Masters and frequent exercise Surely they had the Mass in Latin when the Learned themselves did not understand it as Valla saith They had the Mass in Latin when the greatest part of the people did not understand it as Faber relates They had the Mass in Latin when not only the people but the Priest and Deacons rarely understood what they prayed for as Billet c. confess And where was then their attention and diligence that to their lives end either daily rehearsed it or often heard it and yet never understood it And is it not so still when notwithstanding all the noise of Exposition Manuals and Primers c. for the use of the Vulgar yet setting aside some little Forms and the Ceremonies of it they are so ignorant of the Contents of the Missal or Mass Book that as to the matter of it they know it not from the Breviary nor would know it from the Alcoran if read in the same Tongue alike pronounced and the same falls and postures were used in the reading of it So that what more plain than the means they have provided is not sufficient for to instruct and edifie the people and that after all they do hold this instruction unnecessary and that the people are safe without it And this is the case for it is generally resolved by their Casuists both for Priest and People that they do their duty and merit when they say their Prayers though they do not understand so Eckius so Salmeron c. And if it were otherwise very few would do their duty when so very few do at all understand what they say as Cardinal Tolet doth determine So indulgent are they and very reasonable is it that they should be so that when they have put out the peoples Eyes they should take good care to make the way broad and smooth for them But in good earnest can we think this way as safe as it is broad and that there is no Ditch into which both Priest and People if alike blind may fall and perish And if there be must not the case of that people be very lamentable that are wholly left to the ability and sincerity of their Priest who if he wants the former may through ignorance turn the most solemn part of their Service as it happens into Nonsense or Blasphemy And if he wants the latter may use a Spell for Prayer and the antient charm of Abracadabra for Ave Maria as a learned person hath observed Nay instead of baptizing in the sacred Name of the Father c. he may do by the person as a Jew under the profession of a Priest is said to have done by a certain Prince in the last Age and baptize him in the horrid name of the Devil There is then nothing so absurd or wicked which according to the case may not be practised And neither Prayers be Prayers nor Sacraments Sacraments nor persons Christians as long as the Priest doth alone know or neither Priest nor People understand But supposing that there be no defect in either of these and that the whole Service is faithfully and understandingly performed yet if the Tongue in which it is performed be not understood of the people there can be no understanding of the sence contained in it and where the sence and matter is not understood there cannot be as I have shewed those dispositions of Soul that attention of Mind that Faith which gives the Amen to our Prayers c. and which renders the Service acceptable to God and beneficial to our selves and consequently a service so contrived as shall defeat those ends is one of the greatest mischiefs that can befal a Church and must render the Romish Church inexcusable in the injunction of it and justifie those that have reformed it SECT V. We are come to enquire Whether upon the whole the Service of God ought not to be celebrated in a Tongne vulgarly understood The Church of Rome doth anathematize and doom to Hell those that hold a Vulgar Tongue necessary in Divine Service and doth both absolutely forbid their own Missal to be so translated and persecute those that have so used it And yet they cannot dare not say it is unlawful in it self For it is better to have it in the Vulgar than not at all saith one It is matter of Discipline saith a second It hath been granted in some cases is acknowledged by others And it is most expedient to have it in the Vulgar saith a fourth And if so why this diligent care to prevent and suppress it Why this out-cry against it Why this Severity What need of such Decrees and Anathemas of Councils What need such Commands of the Popes for Princes to oppose it with all their force as that of Gregory VII to Vratislaus of Bohemia what reason is there for a general Convention of the Clergy of a Kingdom to proceed against a translation of their Missal When if we consult the ends for which the publick Service was instituted if we consult the reason of the thing if we consult Scripture or Fathers or the practice of the Church for about seven hundred Years together we shall find that it is not only expedient but necessary to have it in a Tongue understood of the people and that the Church of Rome that is so forward in its Anathema is under a precedent and greater one even that of the Apostle Whosoever shall preach any other Gospel let him be Anathema So that which is most to be respected the Anathema of Heaven or that of the Council the command of God or a Decree of a Pope the Church of God in its best times or the particular Church of Rome in latter Ages whether the edification of the Church of God or the will and interest of a corrupted Church is not difficult to conceive And therefore we may end as we began with the Church of England It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God and the custome of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the people FINIS Article 24. Comment in Eccles 5. 1. In 1 Ep. Corinth c. 14. Stapleton Quaest quodl Quaest 2. Sixtus Senens Biblioth l. 6. annot 263. Portraiture of the Church of Jesus Christ c. 14. Conc. Trid. Sess 22. â— 8. S. C. Answ to Dr. Pierce c. 15. Retento ubique cujusque Ecclesiae an iquo â—itu Sanctissimi hujus sacrificii aliquod mysterium Canon 9. Collectio quorundam Author c. cum Dicretis c. 1661. De Script Div. Missae sacr celebr ling. vulg c. 20. â— 5. Ciâ— pro Archiâ— Hieroâ— Tom. 9. l. 2. prooem ad Galat. Tom. 3 praef l. in paâ—alip Ledesma c. 33. L. Valla Eleg. praef Ledesma c. 3. 2. 7. L. 1. confess c. 14. Retract l. 1.
by all Such I conceive was anciently that which is called the common Dialect in Greek And of the like kind is that which is spoken in and about the Court and by Scholars and persons of a liberal education amongst us and elsewhere 3. If a Tongue in process of time by a mixture of other Nations or by the removal of a people from one Country to another or by any other cause comes to be so altered as the Mother and Original Tongue is not to be understood as Ledesma saith it is in Spain then it is no longer a Vulgar Tongue but is to be reckoned amongst the unknown II. There is a common Tongue which though not the Mother or National Tongue is however with that commonly and generally understood Thus it was antiently in many places with the Greek and Latin The former of which was once the common Tongue of a great part of the then known World and continued so to be from the time of Cicero to that of S. Jerom for the space that is of 400. if not 500. Years Insomuch that not only the Scriptures were read in Greek in the publick Congregations from Aegypt to Constantinople as S. Jerom informs us but the Christians also had their Worship as is confessed and the Fathers preached to them in that Language So did S. Chrysostome S. Basil S. Cyril and S. Athanasius in their several Sees of Antioch Caesarea Jerusalem and Alexandria And the Latin was so well known understood and commonly spoken together with the Vulgar Tongue in diverse Countries through the industry of the Romans in their several Provinces that the Vulgar was scarcely more Thus we find it in the Proconsular Africa where though less accurately spoken than at Rome it was so well understood that S. Austin saith he learned that Language of his Nurse and at play and did write as well as preach in it for the use of the Vulgar And calls it our Speech whereas the Punick was the Vulgar Tongue of that Country And such a common Tongue is French in Flanders Lingua Franca in the Streights and English in some parts of Wales III. There is a Learned Tongue which though common amongst the Learned yet they being few in comparison of the Vulgar that understand it not it cannot be called a common Tongue Such are Greek and Latin now IV. There is a Tongue understood and spoken by none in a Nation or so few as are next to none and which if used in Divine Offices would be wholly unintelligible Such are Persick and Indian with us The use of all this niceness is partly to clear the state of the Question and partly to prevent many of the Objections which the case is cumbred with And without the observing of which the Dispute will be turned from the point that is controverted to that which is not As it happens for the most part among those of the Church of Rome that undertake the management of this Cause who do either distinguish where they are not to distinguish or do not distinguish where they should distinguish For sometimes they oppose the Dialects of a Tongue to that Tongue of which they are the Dialects At other times they oppose the common Tongue to the Vulgar Sometimes they confound the Learned Tongue with the common And then again oppose the learned and utterly unknown as if these two were of as different kinds as known and unknown To give an instance of each of these Do they undertake to shew how unfit and unreasonable it is to translate the Service or Scriptures into a Vulgar Tongue they endeavour to make it out by shewing how unfit it is to think of Translating and how unreasonable it is to expect they should be translated into the several Dialects of each Tongue Would they farther shew that the Divine Offices c. were not of old so translated they attempt to prove it from their not having been translated into different Dialects As if the Dialects of a Tongue differed as much from each other and all from the main Tongue of a Nation as a learned Tongue differs from the Vulgar Which is to speak charitably for want of observing that the Dialects are but several modes of speaking the same Tongue and that ordinarily there is some common Standard which as I have said over-rules the rest and is a guide common to all As here in England notwithstanding there be several Dialects and that there is one in Scotland differs much from them all yet there is but one Translation of the Bible and one Service for the use of the whole and that is fully if not equally understood by all Furthermore would they prove that anciently the Christian Churches used not a Vulgar Tongue in Divine Service they presently multiply Authorities to shew that in many places they used Greek and Latin and that Greek and Latin were oftentimes not the Vulgar Tongues where they were so used As if the common Tongue for such were those two in elder times where they were not the Vulgar was opposed to the Vulgar as much as unknown is to known and each was inconsistent with the other Thus they tell us from S. Jerom That the Vulgar Tongue in Galatia was in effect the same with that of the Treviri in Germany And yet there and in the neighbouring Countries they had the Scriptures if not their Divine Service in Greek Not observing that Greek was the common Tongue of those parts and that both that and a Vulgar were there freely and generally spoken as Greek and Latin as well as the Gallick Tongues were so frequent in Massilia that it was called Trilinguis as S. Jerom shews in the same Dissertation of his So that these two the Common and Vulgar are so far from being inconsistent that notwithstanding the bold saying of our Country-man Sanders That the common people understand nothing but their Mother Tongue The experience of all Ages as well as our own shews that they are frequently met together But to proceed would they demonstrate that they do and may lawfully use the Latin now in Divine Service they attempt with great industry to prove that both that and the Greek were antiently used therein And so they confound the learned and the common Tongue and compare those times and places in which the Latin and Greek were commonly known and understood with our times and places in which neither of them are understood but by the Learned Lastly Would they shew that S. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14. doth not oppose Service in Latin they undertake to shew That he opposeth no other Service than what is altogether unknown and no Body understands as Persick and Arabick and that he doth not condemn a Learned Tongue thereby supposing the Learned Tongue and Tongue altogether unknown to be different in kind whereas they only differ so that the one is rarely understood and by very few in comparison and