Chapter 18: Latin Service

Latin Service. SECT. 25. Pag. 250.

The next thing he gilds over, in the Roman practise is, that which he calls, their Latin Service; that is, their keeping of the Word of God, and whole worship of the Church, (in which two, all the general concernments of Christians do lie) from their understanding, in an unknown tongue. We find it true, by continual experience, that great successes, and confidence in their own abilities, do encourage men to strange attempts; what else could make them perswade themselves that they should prevail with poor simple mortals to believe, that they have nothing to do with that, wherein, indeed, all their chiefest concernments do lie; and that contrary to express direction of Scripture, universal practice of the Churches of old, common sense, and the broadest light of that reason, whereby they are men, they need not at all understand the things wherein their communion with God does consist, the means whereby they must come to know his will, and way wherein they must worship him. Nor does it suffice these Gentlemen to suppose, that they are able to flourish over their own practice with such pretences, as may free it from blame; but they think to render it so desirable, as either to get it embraced willingly by others, or countenance themselves in imposing it upon them whether they will or no. But as they come short of those advantages, whereby this matter, in former days, was brought about, or rather come to pass: So to think, at once, to cast those shackles on men now they are awake, which were insensibly put upon them when they were asleep, and rejected on the first beam of Gospel-light that shined about them; is, I hope, but a pleasing dream. Certain I am, there must be other manner of reasonings, then are insisted upon by our Author, or have been by his Masters as yet, that must prevail on any who are not on the account of other things, willing to be deluded in this. That the most of Christians need never to read the Scripture, which they are commanded by God to meditate in day and night, to read, study, and grow in the knowledge of, and which by all the antient Fathers of the Church they are exhorted to; that they need not understand those Prayers which they are commanded to pray with understanding, and wherein lies a principal exercise of their faith and love towards God, are the things which are here recommended to us: Let us view the arguments, wherewith, first the general custome of the Western Empire, in keeping the Mass and Bible in an unknown tongue, is pleaded. But, What is a general custome of the Western Empire, in opposition to the command of God, and the evidence of all that reason that lies against it? Have we not an express command, not to follow a multitude to do evil? Besides, What is, or ever was, the Western Empire to the Catholicism of the Church of Christ, spread over the whole world? Within an hundred years after Christ, the Gospel was spread to Nations, and in places, whither the Roman power never extended it self, Romanis inaccessa loca; much less that branch of it, which he calls the Western Empire? But neither yet was it the custom of the Western Empire, to keep the Bible in an unknown tongue, or to perform the worship of the Church in such a language. While the Latin tongue was only used by them, it was generally used in other things, and was the vulgar tongue of all the Nations belonging to it. Little was there remaining of those tongues in use, that were the languages of the Provinces of it, before they became so. So that though they had their Bible in the Latin tongue, they had it not in an unknown; no more than the Grecians had, who used it in Greek. And when any people received the faith of Christ, who had not before received the language of the Romans, good men translated the Bible into their own; as Hierom did for the Dalmatians. Whatever then may be said of the Latin, there is no pretence of the use of an unknown tongue, in the worship of the Church in the Western Empire, until it was overrun, destroyed, and broken in pieces by the Northern Nations, and possessed by them, (most of them Pagans) who brought in several distinct languages into the Provinces, where they seated themselves. After those tumults ceased, and the Conquerors began to take up the religion of the people, into whose Countries they were come, still retaining with some mixtures, their old dialect; that the Scripture was not in all places (for in many it was) translated for their use, was the sin and negligence of some, who had other faults besides. The primitive use of the Latin tongue in the worship of God, and translation of the Bible into it in the Western Empire, while that language was usually spoken and read, as the Greek in the Grecian, is an undeniable argument of the judgement of the antient Church, for the use of the Scripture, and church liturgies in a known tongue. What ensued on; What was occasioned by that inundation of barbarous Nations, that buried the world for some ages in darkness and ignorance, cannot reasonably be proposed for our imitation. I hope, we shall not easily be induced either to return to, or embrace, the effects of Barbarism. But, says our Author, Secondly, Catholicks have the sum of Scripture, both for history and dogm, delivered them in their own language, so much as may make for their salvation; good orders being set and instituted for their proficiency therein; and what needs any more? or why should they be further permitted, either to satifie curiosity, or to raise doubts, or to wrest words and examples there recorded to their own ruin, as we see now by experience men are apt to do. What Catholicks have, or have not, is not our present dispute. Whether what they have of story and dogm in their own language, be that which Paul calls the whole counsel of God, which he declared at Ephesus, I much doubt. But the question is, Whether they have what God allows them, and what he commands them to make use of? We suppose, God himself, Christ, and his Apostles, the antient Fathers of the Church, any of these, or, at least, when they all agree, may be esteemed as wise as our present Masters at Rome. Their sense is, That all Scripture given by inspiration from God, is profitable for doctrine; it seems these judge not so, and therefore they afford them so much of it as may tend to their good. For my part, I know whom I am resolved to adhere to, let others do as seems good to them. Nor where God has commanded and commended the use of all, do I believe, the Romanists are able to make a distribution, that so much of it, makes for the salvation of men, the rest only serves to satisfie curiosity, to raise doubts, and to occasion men to wrest words and examples. Nor, I am sure, are they able to satisfie me, why any one part of the Scripture should be apt to do this more then others. Nor will they say this at all of any part of their Mass. Nor is it just to charge the fruits of the lusts and darkness of men, on the good word of God. Nor is it the taking away from men of that alone, which is able to make them good and wise, a meet remedy to cure their evils and follies. But these declamations against the use and study of the Scripture, I hope, come too late. Men have found too much spiritual advantage by it, to be easily driven from it. It self gives light to know its excellency, and defend its use by. But the Book is sacred, he says, and therefore not to be sullied by every hand; what God has sanctified, let not man make common. It seems then those parts of the Scripture, which they afford to the people, are more useful, but less sacred, than those that they keep away. These reasons justle one another unhandsomly. Our Author should have made more room for them; for they will never lie quietly together. But what is it, he means by the Book? the Paper, Ink, Letters, and Covering? His Master of the Schools will tell him, These are not sacred; if they are, the Printers dedicate them. And it's a pretty pleasant Sophism, that he adds, That God having sanctified the Book, we should not make it common. To what end I pray, has God sanctified it? Is it, that it may be laid up, and be hid from that people, which Christ has prayed, might be sanctified by it? Is it any otherwise sanctified, but as it is appointed for the use of the Church of all that believe? Is this to make it common, to apply it to that use, whereunto of God it is segregated? Does the sanctification of the Scripture, consist in the laying up of the Book of the Bible, from our profane utensils? Is this that, which is intended by the Author? Would it do him any good to have it granted, or further his purpose? Does the mysteriousness of it, lie in the Books being locked up? I suppose, he understands this Sophistry well enough, which makes it the worse.

But we have other things, yet pleaded, as the Example of the Hebrew Church, who neither in the time of Moses, nor after, translated the Scripture into the Syriack; yes, the book was privately kept in the Ark or Tabernacle, not touched or looked on by the people, but brought forth at times to the Priest, who might upon the Sabbath day read some part of it to the people, and put them in mind of their Laws, Religion, and Duty.

I confess, in this passage, I am compelled to suspect more of ignorance than fraud; notwithstanding the flourishing made in the distribution of the Old Testament, into the Law, Prophets, and Hagiography. For first, as to the Translation of the Scripture by the Jews into the Syriack Tongue, to what purpose does he suppose, should this be done? It could possibly be for no other than that, for which, his Masters keep the Bible in Latine. I suppose, he knows, that at least until the Captivity, when most of the Scripture was written, the Hebrew, and not the Syriack, was the vulgar language of that people. It's true indeed, that some of the noble and chief men that had the transaction of affairs with Neighbour-Nations, had learned the Syriack language toward the end of their Monarchy; but the body of the people were all ignorant of it, as is expressly declared (2 Kings 18:26). To what end then should they translate the Scripture into that Language, which they knew not, out of that, which alone they were accustomed to from their infancy, wherein it was written? Had they done so, indeed it would have been a good argument for the Romanists to have kept it in Latine, which their people understand almost as well as the Jews did Syriack. I thought, it would never have been questioned, but that the Judaical Church had enjoyed the Scripture of the Old Testament, in their own vulgar language, and that without the help of a Translation. But we must not be confident of any thing for the future. For the present this I know, that not only the whole Scripture that was given the Church for its use before the Captivity, was written in the Tongue that they all spake and understood, but that the Lord sufficiently manifests, that what he speaks to any, he would have it delivered to them in their own Language; and therefore appointing the Jews what they should say to the Chaldean Idolaters, he expresseth his mind in the Caldee Tongue (Jeremiah 10:11). Where alone, in the Scripture, there is any use made of a Dialect, distinct from that in vulgar use; and that because the words were to be spoken to them, to whom that Dialect was vulgar. And when after the Captivity, the people had learned the Caldee Language, some parts of some books then written, are therein expressed to shew, that it is not this, or that Language, which on its own account, is to confine the compass of Holy Writ; but that that, or those, are to be used, which the people, who are concerned in it, do understand. But what Language soever it was in, it was kept privately in the Ark or Tabernacle, not touched, not looked upon by the people, but brought forth at times to the Priest. What Book was kept in the Ark? The Law, Prophets, and Hagiography? Who told you so? A Copy of the Law indeed, or Pentateuch, was by God's command put in the side of the Ark (Deuteronomy 31:26). That the Prophets, or Hagiography, were ever placed there, is a great mistake of our Author; but not so great as that that follows; that the Book placed in the side of the Ark, was brought forth for the Priest to read in on the Sabbath days; when as all men know, the Ark was placed in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Tabernacle and Temple, which only the High Priest entred, and that once a year, and that without liberty of bringing any thing out which was in it, for any use whatever. And his mistake is grossest of all, in imagining, that they had no other copies of the Law or Scripture, but what was so laid up in the side of the Ark. The whole people being commanded to study in it continually, and the King in special, to write out a Copy of it with his own hand (Deuteronomy 17:18), out of an Authentick Copy; yes, they were to take sentences out of it; to write them on their fringes, and posts of their doors and houses, and on their gates; all to bind them to a constant use of them. So that this Instance, on very many accounts was unhappily stumbled on by our Author, who, (as it seems) knows very little of these things. He was then evidently in haste, or wanted better provision, when on this vain surmise, he proceeds to the encomiums of his Catholick Mother's indulgence to her children, in leaving of the Scripture in the hands of all that understand Greek and Latin (how little a portion of her family; and to a declamation against) the preaching and disputing of men about it, with a commendation of that reverential ignorance, which will arise in men from whom the means of their better instruction is kept at a distance.

Another discourse we have annexed to prove, that the Bible cannot be well translated, and that it loses much of its grace and sweetness, arising from a peculiarity of spirit in its writers, by any translation whatever. I do, for my part, acknowledge, that no translation is able in all things universally to exhibit, that fullness of sense, and secret virtue, to intimate the truth it expresses to the mind of a believer, which is in many passages of Scripture in its original languages; but how this will further the Romanists' pretensions who have enthroned a translation for the use of their whole Church, and that none of the best neither, but in many things corrupt and barbarous, I know not. Those who look on the tongues wherein the Scripture was originally written as their fountains, if at any time they find the streams not so clear, or not to give so sweet a relish as they expected, are at liberty, if able, to repair to the fountains themselves. But those who reject the fountains, and betake themselves to one only stream, for ought I know must abide by their own inconveniences, without complaining. To say, the Bible cannot be well translated, and yet to make use, principally at least, of a translation, with an undervaluing of the originals, argues no great consistency of judgment, or a prevalency of interest. That which our author in this matter sets off with a handsome flourish of words, and some very unhandsome similitudes, considering what he treats of, he sums up, p. 283. in these words: "I would by all say thus much, The Bible translated out of its own sacred phrase into a profane and common one, loses both its propriety and amplitude of meaning, and is likewise divested of its peculiar majesty, holiness, and spirit: which is reason enough, if no other, why it should be kept inviolate in its own style and speech." So does our author advance his wisdom and judgment above the wisdom and judgment of all churches and nations that ever embraced the faith of Christ for a 1000 years; all which, notwithstanding what there is of truth in any of his insinuations, judged it their duty, to translate the Scripture into their mother tongues, very many of which translations are extant even to this day. Besides, he concludes with us in general ambiguous terms, as all along in other things his practice has been.

What means he by the Bible's own sacred phrase, opposed to a profane and common one? Would not any man think, that he intended the originals wherein it was written? But I dare say, if any one will ask him privately, he will give them another account; and let them know, that it is a translation, which he adorns with those titles; so, that upon the matter, he tells us, that seeing the Bible cannot be without all the inconveniences mentioned, it is good for us to lay aside the originals, and make use only of a translation; or at least prefer a translation before them. What shall we do with those men that speak such swords and daggers, and are well neither full nor fasting, that like the Scripture, neither with a translation, nor without it? Moreover, I fear, he knows not well, what he means, by its own sacred phrase, and a profane common one; is it the syllables and words of this or that language, that he intends? How comes one, to be sacred, another profane and common? The languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written, have been put to as bad uses, as any under heaven; nor is any language profane or common so, as that the worship of God performed in it, should not be accepted with him. That there is a frequent loss of propriety and amplitude of meaning in translations, we grant. That the Scriptures by translations, if good, true, and significant, according to the capacity and expressiveness of the languages whereinto they are translated, are divested of the majesty, holiness, and spirit, is most untrue. The majesty, holiness, and spirit of the Scriptures lies not in words and syllables, but in the truths themselves expressed in them: and while these are incorruptedly declared in any language, the majesty of the Word is continued. It is much, that men preferring a translation before the originals, should be otherwise minded; especially, that translation being, in some parts, but the translation of a translation, and that the most corrupt in those parts, which I know extant. And this with many fine words, pretty allusions, and similitudes, is the sum of what is pleaded by our author, to persuade men to forgo the greatest privilege, which from heaven they are made partakers of, and the most necessary radical duty that in their whole lives is incumbent on them. It is certain, that the giving out of the holy Scripture from God, is an effect of infinite love and mercy; I suppose it no less certain, that the end for which he gave it, was, that men by it might be instructed in the knowledge of his will, and their obedience that they owe to him, that so at length they may come to the enjoyment of him. This it self declares to be its end. I think also, that to know God, his mind and will, to yield him the obedience that he requires, is the bounden duty of every man; as well as, to enjoy him, is their blessedness. And, can they take it kindly of those, who would shut up this gift of God from them whether they will or no? Or be well pleased with them that go about to persuade them, that it is best for them, to have it kept by others for them; without their once looking into it. If I know them aright, this gentleman will not find his countrymen willing to part with their Bibles on such easy terms.

From the Scripture, concerning which he affirms, That it lawfully may, and in reason ought, and in practice ever has been segregated in a language not common to vulgar ears, all which things are most unduly affirmed, and, because we must speak plainly, falsely; he proceeds to the worship of the Church, and pleads that that also ought to be performed in such a language. It were a long and tedious business, to follow him in his gilding over this practice of his Church; we may make short work with him. As he will not pretend, that this practice has the least countenance from Scripture; so, if he can instance in any Church in the world, that for 500 years, at least, after it, set out in the use of a Worship, the Language whereof the people did not understand, I will cease this contest. What he affirms of the Hebrew Church keeping her Rites in a language differing from the Vulgar, whether he intend before or after the Captivity, is so untrue, as that I suppose, no ingenious man would affirm it, were he not utterly ignorant of all Judaical Antiquity, which I had cause to suspect before, that our Author is. From the days of Moses to the captivity of Babylon, there was no language in vulgar use among the people, but only that wherein the Scripture was written, and their whole Worship celebrated. After the captivity, though insensibly they admitted corruptions in their language, yet they all generally understood the Hebrew, unless it were the Hellenists, for whose sakes they translated the Scripture into Greek; and, for the use of the residue of their people, who began to take in a mixture of the Syro-Chaldean language with their own, the Targum were found out. Besides, to the very utmost period of that Church, the solemn Worship performed in the Temple, as to all the interest of words in it, was understood by the whole people, attending on God therein. And in that language did the Bible lie open in their Synagogues, as is evident from the offer made by them to our Savior of their Books to read in, at his first entrance into one at Capernaum.

These flourishes then of our Orator, being not likely to have the least effect upon any who mind the Apostolical advice of taking heed lest they be beguiled with enticing words, we shall not need much to insist upon them. This custom of performing the Worship of God in the Congregation in a tongue unknown to the Assembly, renders, he tells us, that great act more majestic and venerable; but why, he declares not. A blind veneration of what men understand not, because they understand it not, is neither any duty of the Gospel, nor any part of its Worship. Saint Paul tells us, he would pray with the Spirit, and pray with Understanding also; of this majestic show, and blind veneration of our Author, Scripture, Reason, Experience of the Saints of God, Custom of the Ancient Churches know nothing. Neither is it possible to preserve in men a perpetual veneration of they know not what, nor, if it could be preserved, is it a thing that any way belongs to Christian Religion. Nor can any rational man conceive, wherein consists the majesty of a man's pronouncing words, in matters wherein his concernment lies, in a tongue that he understands not. And I know not wherein this device for procuring veneration in men, exceeds that of the Gnostics, who fraught their Sacred administrations, with strange uncouth names and terms, intended, as far as appears, for no other end but to astonish their Disciples. But then the Church, he says, as opposite to Babel, had one language all the world over, the Latin tongue being stretched as large and as wide as the Catholic Church, and so any Priest may serve in several Countries administering presently in a place by himself or others converted, which are conveniences attending this custom and practice. Pretty things to persuade men to worship God they know not how; or to leave that to others to do for them, which is their own duty to perform; and yet neither are they true. The Church by this means is made rather like to Babel, than opposite to it: the fatal ruining event of the division of the tongues at Babel was, that by that means they could not understand one another in what they said, and so were forced to give over that design which before they unanimously carried on. And this is the true event of some men's performing the Worship of God in the Latin tongue, which others understand not. Their languages are divided as to any use of language whatever. I believe, on this, as well as on other accounts, our Author now he is warned, will take heed, how he mentions Babel, any more. Besides, this is not one to give one lip, one language, to the whole Church, but in some things to confine some of the Church, to one language, which incomparably the greatest part of it do not understand. This is confusion not union. Still Babel returns in it. The use of a language that the greatest part of men do not understand, who are engaged in the same work, whereabout it is employed, is right old Babel. Nor can any thing be more vain than the pretence, that this one is stretched, as large and as wide as the Catholic Church; far the greatest part of it know nothing of this tongue, nor did ever use a word of it in their Church-service; so that the making of the use of one tongue necessary in the service of the Church is perfectly schismatical; and renders the avowers of that Principle, Schismatics, from the greatest part of the Churches of Christ in the world, which are, or ever were in it, since the day of his resurrection from the dead. And as for the conveniency of Priests; there where God is pleased to plant Churches, he will provide those, who shall administer in his Name to them, according to his mind. And those, who have not the language of other places, as far as I know, may stay at home, where they may be understood, rather than undertake a pilgrimage to cast before Strangers, who know not what they mean.

After an annumeration of these conveences, he mentions, that only inconvenience, which, as he says, attends the solemnization of the churches worship in a tongue unknown, namely that the vulgar people understand not what is said. But, as this is not the only inconvenience that attends it, so it is one; if it must be called an inconvenience, and not rather a mischievous device to render the worship of God useless, that has a womb full of many others, more then can easily be numbred; but we must tye our selves to what our Author pleaseth to take notice of. I desire then to know, What are these vulgar people, of whom he talks? Are they not such as have souls to save? Are they not incomparably the greatest part of Christians? Are they not such as God commands to worship him? Are they not such, for whose sakes, benefit, and advantages, all the worship of the Church is ordained, and all the admistration of it appointed? Are they not those, whose good, welfare, growth in grace and knowledge, and salvation, the Priests in their whole offices, are bound to seek and regard? Are they not those, that Christ has purchased with his blood; whose miscarriages he will require severely at the hands of those, who undertake to be their guides, if sinning through a neglect of duty in them? Are they not the Church of God, the Temple of the Holy Ghost? Called to be Saints? Or, Who, or What is it, you mean by this vulgar people? If they be those described, certainly their understanding of what is done in the public worship of God, is a matter of importance; and your driving them from it, seems to me to give a supersedeas to the whole work it self, as to any acceptation with God. For my part, I cannot as yet discern what that makes in the Church of God, which this vulgar people must not understand; but this, says he, is of no moment. Why so? I pray; to me it seems of great weight. No, it is of no moment, for three reasons. Which be they? 1. They have the scope of all, set down in their prayer-books, &c. whereby they may, if they please, as equally conspire, and go along with the Priest, as if he spoke in their own tongue. But, I pray, Sir, tell me, Why, if this be good, that they should know something, and give a guess at more; it is not better, that they should distinctly know and understand it all? This reason plainly cuts the throat, not only of some other that went before, about the venerable majesty of that, which is not understood, but of the whole cause it self. If to know what is spoken, be good; the clearer men understand it, I think, the better. This being the tendency of this reason, we shall finde the last of the three, justling it as useless, quite out of doors. Nor yet is there truth in this pretence; not one of a thousand of the people, do understand one word, that the Priest speaks distinctly in their whole service; so that this is but an empty flourish. He tells us, 2. Catholick people come together, not for other business at the Mass, but only with fervor of devotion, to adore Christ crucified; in that rite he is there prefigured as crucified before them, and by the mediation of that sacred blood, to pour forth their supplications for themselves and others; which being done, and their good purpose of serving and pleasing that holy Lord, that shed his blood for us, renewed, they depart in peace: This is the general purpose of the Mass; so that eyes and hands to lift up, knees to bow, and heart to melt, are there of more use then ears to hear. For his Catholick peoples business at Mass, I shall not much trouble my self. Christ I know, is adored by faith and love; that faith and love, in the public worship of the Church, is exercised by prayer and thanksgiving. For the lifting up of the eyes and hands, and bowing, and cringing, they are things indifferent, that may be used, as they are animated by that faith & love, and no otherwise. And, I desire to know, What supplications they come to pour forth for themselves and others. Their private devotions? They may do that at home; the doing of it in the Church, is contrary to the Apostle's rule. Are they the public prayers of the Church? Alas, the trumpet to them, and of them, gives an uncertain found. They know not how to prepare themselves to the work. Nor can they rightly say Amen, when they understand not what is said. So that, for my part, I understand not what is the business of Catholicks at Mass; or how they can perform any part of their duty to God in it, or at it. But what if they understand of it nothing at all? He adds, 3. There is no need at all for the people to hear or understand the Priest, when he speaks, or prays, and sacrifices to God, on their behalf. Sermons to the people must be made in the peoples language; but prayers that are made to God for them, if they be made in a language that God understands, it is well enough. This reason renders the others useless, and especially shuts the first out of doors. For, certainly it is nothing to the purpose, that the people understand somewhat; if it be no matter whether they understand any thing at all, or no. But I desire to know, What prayers of the Priest they are, which it matters not, whether the people hear or understand? Are they his private devotions for them in his closet or cell, which may be made for them, as well when they are absent, as present, and in some respect better too? These doubtless are not intended. Are they any prayers that concern the Priest alone, which he is to repeat, though the people be present? No, nor these neither; at least not only these. But they are the prayers of the Church, wherein the whole assembly ought to cry joyntly to Almighty God; part of that worship, wherein all things are to be done to edification; which they are in this, and the Quakers silent meetings, much alike. Strange! that there is no need, that men should know or understand that, which is their duty to perform; and which if they do it not, is not that, which it pretends to be; the worship of the Church. Again, if the people neither need hear, nor understand what is spoken, I wonder, what they make there. Can our Author find any tradition (for, I am sure, Scripture he cannot) for the setting up of a dumb shew in the Church, to edifie men by signs, and gestures, and words insignificant? These are gallant attempts. I suppose, he does not think it was so of old; for, sure I am, that all the sermons, which we have of any of the Antients, were preached in that very language, wherein they celebrated all divine worship; so that if the people understood the sermons, as he says, they must be made to them in a language they understand; I am sure, they both heard and understood the worship of the Church also: but Tempora mutantur; and, if it be enough, that God understands the language used in the Church, we full well know there is no need to use any language in it at all.

But to evidence the fertility of his invention, our Author offers two things to confirm this wilde Assertion. 1. That the Jews neither heard, nor saw when their Priest went into the Sanctum Sanctorum, to offer prayers for them; as we may learn from the Gospel, where the people stood without, while Zacharias was praying at the Altar. 2. Saint Paul at Corinth, desired the prayers of the Romans for him at that distance, who also then used a Language that was not used at Corinth. These reasons, it seems, are thought of moment; let us a little poize them. For the first, our Author is still the same in his discovery of skill in the Rites and Customs of the Judaical Church; and, being so great, as I imagine it is, I shall desire him, in his next, to inform us, who told him, that Zacharias entred into the Sanctum Sanctorum to pray, when the people were without; but let that pass. By the institution and appointment of God himself, the Priests in their Courses, were to burn incense on the Altar of incense, in a place separated from the people, it being no part of the worship of the people, but a typical representation of the Intercession of Christ in heaven, confined to the performance of the Priests by God himself; ergo under the Gospel, there is no need, that the people should either learn or understand those prayers, which God requires by them, and among them. This is civil Logick. Besides, I suppose, our Author had forgot, that the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, does purposely declare, how those Mosaical distances are now removed by Christ, a free access being granted to Believers with their worship, to the Throne of Grace. But there is scarce a prettier fancy in his whole Discourse, then his application of Saint Paul's desiring the Romans to pray for him, when he was at Corinth, and so consequently the praying of all or any of the people of God, for their absent friends, or the whole Church, to the business in hand; especially as it is attended with the enforcement in the Close, that they used a Language not understood at Corinth. But because I write not to men, who care not whether they hear or understand, what is their duty in the greatest concernments of their souls, I shall not remove it out of the way, nor hinder the Reader from partaking in the entertainment it will afford him.

But our Author foreseeing, that even those with whom he intends chiefly to deal, might possibly remember, that Saint Paul had long ago stated this case in 1 Corinthians 14, he finds it necessary to cast a blind before them, that if they will but fix their eyes upon it, and not be at the pains to turn to their Bibles, as it may be some will not, he may escape that sword, which he knows is in the way ready drawn against him; and therefore tells us, that if any yet will be obstinate, and which after so many good words spent in this business, he seems to marvel that they should, and object what the Apostle there writes against praying and prophesying in an unknown tongue, he has three answers in a readiness for him; whereof the first is that doubty one last mentioned; namely, that the prayers, which the Apostle, when he was at Corinth, requested of the Romans for him, was to be in an unknown tongue to them that lived at Corinth; when the only question is, whether they were in an unknown tongue to them that lived at Rome, who were desired to join in those supplications. Surely this argument, that because we may pray for a man, when and where he knows not, and in a tongue, which he understands not, that therefore the worship of a church, all assembled together in one place, all to join together in it to the edification of that whole society, may be performed in a language unknown to them so assembled; is not of such cogency, as so suddenly to be called over again: therefore letting that pass, he tells us, the design of the Apostle in that place, is, to prevent the abuse of spiritual gifts, which in those days men had received, and especially that of tongues, which he lets them know, was liable to greater inconveniences, than the rest there mentioned by him. But what, I pray, if this be the design of the Apostle? Does it follow, that in the pursuit of this design, he teaches nothing concerning the use of an unknown tongue in the worship of God? Could I promise my self, that every reader did either retain in his memory what is there delivered by the Apostle, or would be at the pains on this occasion to read over the chapter, I should have no need to add one word in this case more. For, what are the words of a poor weak man to those of the Holy Ghost speaking directly to the same purpose? But this being not from all to be expected, I shall only mind them of some few things there determined by the Apostle; which if it do but occasion him to consider the text it self, I shall obtain my purpose. The gift of speaking with strange tongues, being bestowed on the Church of Corinth, that they might be a sign to them that did not believe, of the power and presence of God among them (verse 22), divers of them, finding, it seems, that the use of these tongues, gave them esteem and reputation in the church, did usually exercise that gift in the assembly, and that with contempt and undervaluation of prophesying in a known tongue to the edification of the whole church. To prevent this abuse, the Apostle lays down this for a standing rule; that all things are to be done in the church to edifying, and that this, all men, as to gifts, were to seek for, that they might excell to the edifying of the church; that is, the instructing of others in knowledge, and the exciting of the grace of God in them. And thereupon he shows them, that whatever is spoken in an unknown tongue, whether it be in a way of prayer, or prophesying in the assemblies, indeed tends nothing at all, to this purpose: unless it be so, that after a man has spoken in a tongue unknown, he does interpret what he has so spoken, in that language, which they do understand. For, says he, distribute the church into two parts, he that speaks with a tongue (whether he pray or preach) and those that hear; he that so prays and preaches, edifies and benefits himself; but he does not benefit them that hear him: and that because they understand not what he says, nor know what he means. For, says he, such words as are not understood, are of no more use, than the indistinct noise of harps, or the confused noise of trumpets. The words, it is true, have a signification in themselves; but what is that, says he, to them that hear them, and understand them not. They can never join with him, in what he speaks, nor say Amen, or give an intelligent assent to what he has spoken. And therefore, he tells them, that, for his part, he had rather speak five words, that being understood, might be for their profit, than a thousand in an unknown tongue; which though they would manifest the excellency of his gift, yet would not at all profit the church, whether he prayed or prophesied; with much more to the same purpose. It is hence evident to any impartial reader, that the whole strength of the Apostle's discourse, and reasoning in this case, lies in this, that praying or prophesying in the church in a tongue unknown, not understood by the whole church, though known and understood by him that uses it, is of no use, nor any way tends to the benefit of the church; but is a mere confusion to be cast out from among them. The case is no other that lies before us. The Priest says his prayers in a tongue that, it may be, is known to himself, which is no great gift; the people understand nothing of what he says. This, if the Apostle may be believed, is a thing of no use, practised to no purpose; wherewith the people that understand not, cannot join, whereby they are not at all profited, nor can they say Amen, or give a rational assent to what he speaks. Now, says our Author, what is all this to the service of the church? I say, so much to that service, which he pleads for, as that it is condemned by it, as altogether useless, unprofitable, and not to be longer insisted on; yes, and this is so much worse than the case proposed by the Apostles, in as much as those, who prayed and prophesied with tongues, received the gift and ability of so doing, in a miraculous manner from the Holy Ghost. And therefore might with much color of reason plead for the free liberty of the exercise of those gifts, which they had so received; but our readers of the service, do with much labor and pains get to read it in Latin; doing it by choice, without any intimation for such a practice from any gift, that above others they have received.

If all this will not do, there is that which brings up the rear, that shall make all plain. Namely, that whatever is pretended, yet indeed Latin is no unknown tongue, being the proper language of Christians, united to the Christian Faith, as a garment to a body? Which he proves by many fine illustrations and similitudes; telling us withal, that this one language is not spoken in a corner, but runs quite through the earth, and is common to all, as they be ranked in the series of Christianity, wherein they are trained up by the Father of the Family, and which, in reference to religion, he only speaks himself. But because, I hope, there is none of my countrymen so stupid, as not to have the wit of the Cynic, who, when a crafty companion would prove by syllogisms, that there is no such thing as motion, returned him no other answer, but by rising up and walking; and will be able at least to say, that notwithstanding all these fine words, I know, that Latin to the most of Christians is an unknown tongue; I shall not much trouble my self to return any answer to this discourse. That there is an abstraction of Christian religion, from the persons professing it, which has a language peculiar to it; that the Latin tongue has a special relation to religion above any other; that it is any other way the trade-language of religion among learned men, but as religion comes under the notion of the things about which some men communicate their minds one to another; that it is any way understood by the thousandth part of Christians in the world, that constantly attend the worship of God; and so that it is not absolutely as unknown a tongue to them, when it is used in the service of the Church, as any other in the world whatever; are such monstrous presumptions, as I wonder, a rational man would make himself guilty of, by giving countenance to them. For him, whom he calls the Father of the Family of Christians; if it be God, he intends the only Father of the Family, all men know, he [illegible] to any of the sons of men immediately, nor by any prophet by him inspired, communicated his mind in Latin: If it be the Pope of Rome, whom he ascribes that title to, I am sorry for the man; not knowing how well he could make himself guilty of a higher blasphemy.