Cathedra una monstretur The beginning comes from unity The Primacy is given to Peter that there may be shown one Church of Christ and one Chayre And in the same Treatise He that forsakes the Chayre of Peter upon which the Church is founded do's he trust that he is in the Church Secondly from his 71. Epistle Peter whom our Lord chose first and upon whom he built his Church c. Thirdly from his 40. Epistle There is one God one Christ one Church and one See by the word of our Lord founded upon S. Peter Insomuch that the Centurists famous Protestants reprove S. Cyprian for it saying Passim dicit Cyprianus supra Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam S. Cyprian often sayes that the Church is founded upon S. Peter Fourthly from that the same Centurists blame likewise S. Hierome for the like sayings who upon the 6. of S. Matthew speaking of S. Peter hath these words Secundum Metaphoram Petrae rectè dicitur ei aedificabo Ecclesiam meam superte According to the Metaphor of a Rock 't is rightly said unto him I will build my Church upon thee And in his first Book against Iovinian Inter duodecim unus eligitur ut Capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio Amongst the twelve one is chosen that a Head being establisht the occasion of Schisme might be taken away Which place of S. Hierome is alledged by Doctor Covell above cited page 107. to prove the necessity of one Head for preventing Schismes and Dissentions in the Church Finally from his 75. Epistle when speaking to Pope Damasus Beatitudini tuae saith he id est Cathedrae tuae communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio c. I am joyned in communion with your Blessednesse that is to Peter's Chayre upon that Rock I know the Church is founded Now Sir by these clear and unquestionable Texts is it not manifest that in your Sermon to the Court you cheated these Fathers out of their true meaning The seventh Demonstration Page 18. 51. If every Patriarch and Bishop be appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his then the Pope cannot be chief or Head of the whole Church But so it was appointed by the Canons of the two first General Councils Nicè and Constantinople Therefore the Bishop of Rome cannot be chief or head of the whole Church The Minor is stoutly proved first by the 6. Nicene Canon in which there is not a word of that sense The Canon is this Let the ancient custome held through Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over those Provinces because that also with the Bishop of Rome this is usual or customary that is to allow that power in the Bishop of Alexandria for if this be not the sence how could the Judges in the Council of Chalcedon inferre out of this Canon Omnem primatum all primacy in the See of Rome as we shall presently see The fifth Canon of the second Generall Council runs thus The Bishop of Constantinople must have the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome Doe not those words after the Bishop of Rome rather prove the absolute Primacy of the Roman See Secondly in the Council of Chalcedon which was the fourth Generall Act. 16. the Judges having heard the recitall of those two Canons concluded thus By what hath been deposed of every one we conceive that all Primacy and chief honour is reserved to the Arch-Bishop of old Rome What Canons I pray but those of the two first Generall Councils you have alledg'd which are so far from equallizing the Roman Bishop with the rest that they give him all Primacy that is both of Order and Jurisdiction For Primacy of Order alone is neither all Primacy nor the chief Honour Primacy of Jurisdiction exceeding it far This Primacy is farther pâ—…oved because the same Council pretending to grant the Bishop of Constantinople a Primacy over the East after the Pope of Rome according to the second Generall Council expressely addes that he should have power to order the Metropolitans in the Diocesses of the East that the Bishops chosen by the Clergy of whatsoever Metropolis of the East be presented to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople that he might either confirm or reject them as he pleased And both Theodorus Balsamon upon the Council of Sardica cap. 3. 5. and Nilus de Primatu Papae cap. 7. from those two Canons of the second and fourth Generall Councils endeavour to conclude a right in the Bishop of Constantinople to admit of appeales from all the East Wherefore your exposition out of Iustellus concerning primacy of Order alone is manifestly false and against the Text. As therefore the primacy aimed at for the Bishop of Constantinople over the East but never obtained because the Church of Rome alwayes rejected those two Canons as derogatory to the precedence of Alexandria and Antioch established by the first Council of Nice was both of Order and Jurisdiction so much more the acknowledged Primacy of the Pope over the whole Church Whereupon the Fathers of that Council writing to Pope Leo say You presided in this Assembly as the Head to the Members When therefore in the same Council of Chalcedon it is said that the Fathers of the Church had given those priviledges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City Their meaning is not that the Cities greatnesse was the immediate cause of the Primacy For that was the being S. Peter's Successor as appeares by the Title they gave S. Leo's Epistle in their Speech to the Emperour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the speech of Peter's Chayre and having read that Epistle thus acclaymed Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo And in their relation given to Saint Leo speaking of Dioscorus who had dared to excommunicate the Pope in a false Council called without the Pope's consent which never was lawfull He shewed say they malice against him to whom the custody of the Vineyard was committed The Fathers therefore meant causam causae the remote cause to wit the cause why St. Peter fixt his Seat at Rome as being the head of the Roman Empire to the end saith S. Leo that the light of truth which was revealed for the Salvation of all Nations might from the head of the world be communicated effectually to the whole Body And so the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian in a Law made six yeares before the Council of Chalcedon comprehend all the causes saying that three things establisht the See Apostolick S. Peters merit who is Prince of the Apostolicall Colledge the dignity of the City and Synodicall authority that is Divine Ecclesiasticall and Civill right 52. The strict injunction you mention of the second Generall Council laid upon Bishops not to meddle but with their own Discesse was not to hinder Hierarchy but confusion And so by setting bounds
all Antiquity that as S. Hierome noted the Villain Porphyrius censur'd S. Paul of sawcinesse and pride for checking S. Peter his Superiour The fourth Demonstration Page 17. 46. The next demonstration is taken also out of the Epistle to the Galatians 2. 9. where S. Paul gives an account how by Divine revelation he went up to Ierusalem to communicate his Gospel with the chief Apostles Peter Iames and Iohn because some were apt to mistrust his Doctrine as not having lived with Christ nor conferr'd with the Apostles Schollars of Christ. And that the said Apostles when they saw the grace that was given to Paul gave him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that is received them into their society of Preaching upon agreement that we saith S. Paul should goe unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision Hence is hewed out the following demonstration 47. Whosoever receiveth into the fellowship of Preaching one sent unto him by Gods appointment to conferre his Doctrine that he may not Preach in vain is either inferiour to the party sent and received or at most his equal But S. Peter did so receive S. Paul Therefore S. Peter was either inferiour to Saint Paul or at most his equal And reason good for S. Peter was one amongst the three prime Apostles sent to the Iews as Christ himself was and S. Paul to the Gentiles who though in regard of their number they were to the Iewes but as the Ocean to a River yet in many other respects being the chosen people of God had as S. Paul said to the Romans Rom. 3. 3. much advantage every way above the Gentiles and chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God and therefore S. Paul himself Act. 13. 46. profess'd to the Iewes It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you but seeing you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life Lo we turn to the Gentiles Otherwise S. Paul by calling Christ Minister Circumcisionis and himself Doctour of the Gentiles should according to you Mr. Pierce signifie some advantage of honour above Christ in the extent of his Diocesse 48. To reinforce this demonstration you may adde that since fellowship argues equality not onely all Fellowes of a Colledge are equall to their head that governs them who is likewise a Fellow but which is more we are all equal to Christ our Lord being called by God unto the fellowship of his Son Iesus Christ 1 Cor. 9. much more then was S. Paul equal with S. Peter was he not think ye especially if we add to this that S. Paul fourteen years before went up to Ierusalem to see and pay his respects to S. Peter because saith S. Ambrose 't was fit that Paul should desire to see Peter to whom our Saviour had committed the charge of the Churches And Theodoret upon the first to the Galathians He went to yield to S. Peter as to the Prince of the Apostles that honour which was fitting And S. Chrysostome He went to see him above others because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the whole Company And elsewhere He went to him as to one greater then himself and that not in a vulgar manner but to behold and admire him as a Personâ—…ge of great Excellency and Majesty as men goe to behold great and famous Cities The fifth Demonstration Page 17. 49. No man can have spiritual jurisdiction and a fatherly power over the Church but he must of necessity Lord it over Gods heritage and fleece the flock of Chrtst. But S. Peter was never known to Lord it over Gods heritage or fleece the flock of Christ. Therefore he had no spiritual jurisdiction or fatherly power over the Church for he rather forbids to domineer in the Clergy The Minor is granted on both sides the Major is clear of it self without proofe for if spiritual jurisdiction could stand without Lording and fleecing S. Peter might be Head of the Church though he did not Lord it over Gods heritage or fleece the flock 'T is also confirmed by instances Christ our Saviour had no jurisdiction forsooth over the Apostles because he came not to Lord it but to serve Non veni ministrari sed ministrare The Apostles had no jurisdiction over their respective Churches for the same reason Nay there is no Hierarchie in the Church as the Presbyterians contend against your Episcopal Protestants because Primates may not Lord it over Arch-Bishops nor these over Bishops nor Bishops over Curats nor Parish Priests over the People for whosoever will be great among you shall be your Minister and whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be the Servant of all And if you confesse that for the good government of a Nationall Church a Hierarchy is necessary then take the judgement of Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgift's defence If it be necessary for the keeping of unity in the Church that one Arch-Bishop should be Primat over all why not as meet that for the keeping of the whole Universall Church there should be one Arch-Bishop over all Hearken to your Doctor Covell saâ—…ing to the Puritans How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastours in the world in peace and unity c. For in all Societies authority which cannot be where all are equall must procure unity and obedience Oâ—…serve Melancthon's judgement As there are some Bishops that govern divers Churches the Bishop of Rome governs all Bishops And this Canonicall policy I think no wise man doth disallow For the Monarchy of the Bishops of Rome in my judgement is profitable to this end that unity in Doctrine be preserved Wherefore we would easily assent to this Article of the Pope's Supreamacy if we did agree in other matters The sixth Demonstration Page 18. 50. If the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis equall not onely in the substance of Apostleship as power of Preaching founding Churches remitting Sins administration of Sacraments and the like but also in jurisdiction and right to govern the whole Church And if Bishops be all ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii not onely of the same merit in order to Priesthood but also of the same degree of authority over others Then S. Peter was not Head of the Church nor the Bishop of Rome his Successour in that Office But S. Cyprian sayes the first and S. Hierome the second Therefore S. Peter was not Head of the Church nor the Bishop of Rome his Successour in that Office Now whether your interpretation of these ancient holy Doctors be or be not their true meaning the Reader may evidently deduce first by what S. Cyprian addes immediately to the very words above cited and you very unhandsomely not to say maliciously conceale Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia
wit that when there is no Pope at all the Catholick Church hath then no Head Therefore c. What! no Head at all At least it retaineth an invisible head which is as much as Protestants allow the Church It follows only good Sir that in the interval the Church as Universal hath no visible head a thing nothing strange in Politick Bodies Elective Princes as the German Emperour and the King of Polonia be they not in Civil Government Heads of their Princedomes If they de the Princedome wants a Head till another be chosen Is this a mystery God govern'd his Church three hundred yeares without a Generall Council may he not govern it a short space without a Pope especially all other Bishops and inferiour Pastors remaining still in full possâ—…ssion of their authority over their severall Flocks and knowing their duty by former definitions of Popes and Councils interpreting the word of God Yea but when there are many Popes the Church is a monster with many heads True if with many Popes acknowledged and accepted of by the Universall Church or declared by a Generall Council which is impossible Otherwise in order to the Faithfull many Popes no Pope In the interim 't is enough for them to stick to their known Doctrine believing in generall him to be Pope who is Canonically chosen without determining any in particular But what if the Pope be hereticall hath not the Catholick Church such a Head which makes her deserve to be beheaded A dainty conceit Are not the Bishops of England in your opinion the immediate Heads of their respective Diocesses what if one amongst them should turn Arian would not the crime lie upon the Diocesse and make her deserve to be beheaded no doubt if you may be believed And to come nearer your example you once made Henry the 8th supreame head of the Church of England If holding the Primacy he had faln into Heresie durst you have said that the glish Church had such a Head as made her deserve to be beheaded Doe not you see whether this poysonous Doctrine leads The tenth Demonstration Page 21. 55. Some Popes even by the confession of Papists have err'd as private Doctors onely not as Universall Pastours of the Church never defining heresie or commanding hereticall doctrine to be submitted unto as to Divine truths Therefore no Pope is Head of the Church Nay the most zealous and partiall asserters of their Supreamacy confesse that Popes have been Hereticks and Heathens too either by denying the Godhead of the Son as Liberius or lifting him above the other two Persons as Iohn the 22. or sacrificing to Idols as Marcellinus or being rejected by the Church for the crime of Heresie as Anastasius the second Therefore in the opinion of those zealous asserters of the Pope's Supreamacy the Pope is not supreame Head of the Church For to what end are those mens authorities alledged if not to knock down the Pope's Headship with our own Clubs 56. Good God what a heap of subtilties are here mass'd up with much more craft if not malice then ingenuity One onely Pope subscribed to S. Athanasius's banishment communicated outwardly with the Arians for fear of torments but never subscribed to the Heresie it self never taught maintained or defined it Insomuch that not onely Soorates Sozomen and Theodoret but also S. Athanasius himself in his two Apologies expressely say he was no Heretick Therefore Popes have denied the Divinity of Christ. One onely Pope is without any ground accused by Stella as holding the Son greater then the Father and the Holy Ghost No other Writer in the world besides Stella ever charging him with such an errour no not Calvin himself though he wanted not spleen enough to impose upon him most wrongfully the mortality of the Soule Therefore Popes have lifted up the Son above the Father and the Holy Ghost One onely Pope not for want of faith but feaâ—…ing the cruell Emperours indignation let fall a gram or two of Incense to the Idols as S. Peter denied Christ for fear of the Jâ—…wes but soon after repenting with Peter died a glorious Martyr Therefore Popes have been Heathens by sacrificing to Idols and a totall Apostacy from Faith One sole Pope was grievously slandered by the Schismaticks adhering to Laurence the Antipopâ—… as if he had communicated with Photinus an Arian Deacon and would have reinserted the namâ—… of Acacius a furious Arian amongst the holy Bishops commemorated in the sacâ—…ed Mysteries And these slanders once blown abroad by those Schismaticks were too inconsiderately saith Baronius registred in the Popes lives Therefore Popes have been rejected by the Church for heresie Did ever Stella Platâ—…ina or Onuphrius say so Do they inferre out of the supposed fall of these few Popes amongst 234. others that either the Popes were not supream Governours of the Church or that therefore the Roman Church erred in Faith Do they not expressely assert the contrary And that those Popes err'd as private persons only and not as Heads of the Church Doth not Stella in the very same place adde immediately Sed in quantâ—… est câ—…put Ecclesia nullâ—…s errare potest But as he the Pope is Head of the Church he can in no wise erre and that the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople have often fallen from their faith â—…t the Church of Rome never 57. As for S. Hilary he was not so desperately rash as to judge the whole Church except France to be really turn'd Arian For neither Liberius nor S. Servatins with sundry other Bishops did ever subscribe to the heretical Confession of the Arians made at Arimini though many of the Orthodox Bishops did partly compelled by fear of torments partly deluded by the Arians perswading them that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was omitted because it was not in Scripture Hence it is that S. Basil coetanean to S. Hilary in his 293. Epistle writes thus 'T was fitting you should understand that by the grace of God there be very many that maintain the Orthodox Faith delivered by the Nicene Fathers according to the rule of piety and that you are not left alone in the East For truly the whole West conspires unanimously with you Nay your Doctor Boughen in his Answer to T. B. confesses that when Arianisme prevailed ' at Rome the Catholick Church was visible at Alexandria in Sardinia in France and other places Wherefore S. Hilary by those words à caeteris extra Gallias from the rest out of France and inter nos tantùm amongst us alone intended only to extoll the constant Faith of his Country for not communicating with the Arians who were spread over many other parts of Europe Otherwise he saying expressely in the same Treatise Episcopos Orientales stare sanos that the Bishops of the East stood sound would have expressely contradicted himself 58. For the rest of this your Instance I can only say in your words that whosoever shall read at large the many
So that to receive either unworthily is to be guilty of both because in either you receive both Hence the Apostle addes presently He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himself not discerning our Lords Body Why but because that in receiving the Body under the form of Bread alone you receive also the Blood which is not separated from Christs living Body It was therefore so from the beginning For Christ our Lord Ioan. 6. five times promiseth life everlasting to the Bread of life not mentioning the Cup in those Texts Himself according to divers Fathers gave the Sacrament in one kind to the two Disciples in Emaus The Apostles practis'd the same in breaking Bread without naming the Cup and in your principles a negative argument from Scripture is valid The Primitive Church communicated the Sick under the form of Bread alone S. Ambrose dying received in one kind The Eremits carried the Sacrament to the Desart in clean Corporalls or Linnen called Dominicalia there to receive it fasting the Christians of AEgypt kept it in their Houses Satyrus Saint Ambrose his Brother took an Hoste with him in a Box about his neck to receive it at Sea To sucking Children the Cup was onely given in S. Cyprian's dayes And in the Greek Church they were wont to consecrate the Eucharist onely upon Saturdayes and Sundayes to be received the other dayes in the week during Lent Now in those hot Countreys the consecrated Wine could not be kept so long And it is most evident from Antiquity that the Eucharist was kept under the form of Bread to be distributed as occasion served Insomuch that we find amongst the Lawes of Charles the great 800. yeares ago Presbyter semper Eucharistiam habeat paratam c. Let the Priest alwayes have the Eucharist ready that if any be sick or a Child infirm he may give them the Sacrament that they may not die without Communion Well then seeing neither Christ our Lord in the Institution of the Eucharist nor S. Paul in declaring it excepted any sort of persons as Sick Ermits Children Sea-passengers or Christians in persecution yet the Church from all antiquity had power to administer it to such in one kinde and it was ever thought sufficient to salvation that is a whole Sacrament not a Half-Communion as you tearm it You must then either demonstrate out of Scripture the Churches restraint to these alone or confesse her practice towards all to be justifiable Finally Luther himself confesseth that Christus hac de re nihil unquam praecepit Christ never commanded any thing in this matter And Melanchthon held it a thing indifferent Against restraining the holy Scriptures from the common people The seventeenth Demonstration Page 26. 88. If Hebrew to the Iewes was the mother tongue and in that 't was read weekly before the people If the new Testament was first written in Greek because a tongue most known to the Eastern world and if after some hundreds of years it was translated into a few other tongues for the use of the common people then the restraining it from the common people was not from the beginning But the Antecedent supposition is true Therefore the Consequent 89. Yea but in our Saviours time Syriack was and had been 14. Generations before the mother tongue of the Iewes who lost the Hebrew in the long captivity of Babylon in so much that Esdras reading the Law to them was forced to use interpreters The New Testament was in Greck and as S. Ierome sayes read only in Greek all the East over though most of the Eastern Nations had a different Language as it appears by the Acts of the Apostles Ch. 2. How have we heard each man in our own language wherein we were born Parthians and Medians and Elamites and those that inhabit Mesopotamia Iewry and Capadocia Pontus and Asia Phrygia and Phamphilia Egypt and the parts of Lybia that is about Cyrene and strangers of Rome Iewes also and Proselytes Cretensians and Arabians We have heard them speak in our own tongue 90. Moreover S. Matthew writ his Gospel for the Iewes in Hebrew or in Greek not Syriack their vulgar tongue nor is it known that ever the old Testament was by order of the Iewish Church turn'd into Syriack S. Mark writ in Greek at Rome and for the Romans whose vulgar language was Latin so did S. Paul his Epistle to the Romans in Greek also to the Galathians and yet their vulgar was a kind of German Language they have a proper tongue almost the same as those of Trevers saith S. Hierome upon that Epistle lib. 2. in his Preface And if the new Testament 400. years after was translated into some very few other tongues what is that to the beginning were not the common people from the beginning restrained from it at least those 400. years and in those Nations where Hebrew Greek or Latine were not the vulgar tongues And was it then translated by order of the Churches into Hebrew Greek or Latine or put into the hands of the common people as of necessary use or commanded to be read in those new traductions upon that score 91. Neither is it true that the Roman Church keeps the Scripture from the People 'T is at this day extant in all vulgar Languages of Europe and permitted to be read by the Layety with leave of their Pastours who are to judge into whose hands the sword of the Scripture which is the woâ—…d of God is fit to be put Which rule had it been observed in England when after fifteen hundred years the Bible except perhaps the Psalmes was under Henry the 8th translated into English out of Latine so many mad Sects would never have risen in it Against publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue The eighteenth Demonstration Page 27. 92. What is scandalously opposite to the plain sense of Scripture was not from the beginning But the use of publick Prayers in a tongue unknown to the common people is scandalously opposite to the plaine sense of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. Therefore the use of publick Prayers in a tongue unknown to the Common people was not from the beginning 93. The Minor is undenyable because you asâ—…rt it but not a word of proofe which to make good you must demonstrate first that the Apostle by preferring the gift of prophecy before unknown tongues in the Church the only intent of that Chapter speakes of tongues in the publick service and administration of Sacraments proper to Pastours and not rather and solely of tongues in mutual conferences when the first Christians met for edification to communicate with one another their miraculous gifts as inspired Canticles Prophecies Tongues and other graces imparted above Nature both to men and women in those dayes In which assemblies the Corinthians seem to have committed some disorders turning Gods gifts especially that of tongues which was the least
to pride and vanity But in the Liturgy or Publick Service which amongst the Corinthians was in Greek there was no abuse at all nor occasion to complain Secondly you must demonstrate that the Apostle means every kind of tongue unknown to the vulgar though known to most of the better sort For if so he would have contradicted himself by writing in Greek to the Romans a long Epistle of Instruction As therefore S. Paul cannot be rightly said to have spoken to the Romans in an unknown Tongue because Greek was known to most persons well bred though not to the common people So for the same reason is not our Latin an unknown Tongue in the sense of the Apostle Thirdly you must demonstrate that the Apostle speaks even of Tongues that may be learn'd by industry and not of Tongues divinely inspired which neither the Pastours of the Church nor the people nay nor the Speaker himself did understand And so St. Paul saith in that Chapter He that speaks Tongues speaks not to men but to God And again He that speaks Tongues let him pray that he may interpret Why pray for the gift of interpretation if he understood the Tongues for so he might of himself interpret by the help of his naturall Language And again If I pray with the Tongue my spirit prayeth but my understanding is without fruit namely the Spirit that is in me maketh me to pray but my understanding not knowing what is said remaines fruitlesse Now that the Apostle did not wholly dislike the speaking of unknown Tongues in the Church but onely preferre the gift of Prophecy to wit of expounding hard points of Religion before it he coâ—…cludes thus Therefore brethren be earnest to prophecy and to speak with Tongues prohibit not but let all things be done decently and according to order amongst you 94. No question but in primitive times the service of the Church was in the three sacred Tongues Hebrew Greek and Latine as appeares by the ancient Liturgies Hebrew amongst the Jewes though not understood by the common people Greek in all the Churches of the East where severall Nations had a different Language Latin over the West not known to the unlearned but in Italy and some few Roman Colonies as in Africa Spain France Britany Germany Polonia c. But when Greek and Latin grew to be un-vulgar in the Nations where they were first naturall who where by what Churches order were the Liturgies translated into vulgar Tongues read but the modest answer or Epistle to the boysterous Authour of the Animadversions upon FIAT LUX and there you shall finde what Cyrill Arch-Bishop of Trapesond a Grecian answered Dr. Cosins at Paris upon enquiry into the matter to wit that all the Liturgies both those of S. Basil S. Chrysostome and S. Gregory Nazianzen were ever kept in the Learned Greek differing from the vulgar Language and that Masse or Liturgy was and had ever been the great work of their Christianity all over the Greek Church Some particular persons 't is true after the Greek Church was torn with Schismes and Heresies translated the Greek Liturgy into Ethiopian Armenian and some â—…ew other popular Tongues but most of those having by length of time out-liv'd the knowledge of the common people we may truly averre that in our dayes all the Churches in Christendome except some few inconsiderable in regard of the rest have the publick service in Tongues not vulgar Take the testimony of your own men the Authors of that famous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bible of many Languages who in the Preface to their Introduction Printed An. 1655. ingenuously confesse that not onely the Scriptures but also the Liturgies and Rituals in most of the Sects of Christians are in Syriack a Tongue unknown but to the Learned amongst them That the Iews in publick prayers use Hebrew of which the common people are ignorant And the Greek Churches the ancient Greek differing as much from the vulgar Greek at this day as Italian from Latin And that amongst the Mahometans prayers are every where publickly said and the Alcaron read in Arabick which they think would be profaned if translated into any other Tongue even where the Arabick is not the vulgar Language With these agrees the Relation of Alexander Rosse in his Review of all Religions The Maronites saith he Cophtes Iaâ—…its Georgians Circassians and others use a Tongue unknown to the people in their Liturgies and publick Service 99. I know no Nation of this age where publick Service in a vulgar Tongue was ever brought in by the Popes approbation as you say In China there are two Languages one for the Learned and another for the generality The Pope onely granted that Masse â—…e said in the Language of the Learned because Latin sounds very harshly in that Nations eares If for such like reasons any former Popes have allowed the translation of the Masse-book into vulgar Tongues 't is an argument that this point of Church Discipline is not indispensable for the Council of Trent sayes only that it seemed not expedient to the Fathers that the Masse should be celebrated every where in the vulgar Tongue which hinders not but that in some places it may be otherwise if it be judged expedient However if God had universally misliked publick prayers for the Church in an unknown Tongue he would never have ordered that no man should be in the Tabernacle when the High Priest went to pray for the whole Assembly of Israel his Language there being neither heard nor understood but by God himself The load of your Margin weighs nothing against our Doctrine Origen if truly cited proves onely that every private Christian prayes to God in his own native Dialect But Doctor is Origen alone primitive Wriâ—…rs the rest you cite I am sure are not nor to the purpose Against prohibiting of Marriage to men in Orders The nineteenth Demonstration Page 27. 28. 96. In the old Law Priests were permitted to have Wives for continuing on the Tribe of Levi of which all Priests were to be but never to use them upon the dayes of Officiating or sacrificing in the Temple or Tabernacle though those Oblations were but beggerly Elements Shadowes and Figures as the Apostle calls them Therefore Priests of the new Law where there is no such restraint to Tribe or Family and where Priests offer daily to God the dreadfull Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus may have Wives and the contrary was not from the beginning To corroborate this proof are cited in your Margin Thuanus a French Lawyer and as it appeares by the whole thread of his History little better then a Hugonot Bishop Hall a violent Protestant against Catholicks and Zonaras a Greek Schismatick Again 97. Some of the Apostles were married before their calling to the Apostleship but after Priesthood ever abstained from their Wives as witnesseth the second Council of Carthage at which S. Austin was