Chapter 22

The 18. Chapter of the Animadversions about Tongues and Latin Service, is your next task. Of this you say, that it has some color of plausibility, but because I neither do nor will understand the customs of that Church which I am so eager to oppose, all my words are but wind. No such thing as plausibility was aimed at in any part of that discourse. It was the promotion or defence of truth which was designed throughout the whole, and nothing else. For that, are all things to be done, and nothing against it. What you are able to except against in that discourse, will speedily appear. In the mean time pray take notice, that I have no eagerness to oppose either you or your Church; so you will let the truth alone, I shall for ever let you alone, without opposition. It was the defence of that, and not an opposition to you that I was engaged in. In the same design do I still persist, in the vindication of what I had formerly written, and shall assure you that you shall never be opposed by me, but only so far, and wherein I am fully convinced that you oppose the truth. Manifest that to be on your side, and I shall be ready to embrace both you and it. For I am absolutely free from all respects to things in this world, that should or might retard me in so doing. But that I may hereafter speak somewhat more to the purpose in opposition to you, or else give my consent with understanding to what you teach, pray inform me how I may come to the knowledge of the customs of your Church, which you say, I neither do, nor will understand. I have read your Councils, those that are properly yours; your Mass Book, and Rituals, many of your Annalists or Historians, with your writers of Controversies, and Casuists, all of the best note, fame and reputation among you. Can none of them inform us what the customs of your Church are? If you have such Egyptian or Eleusinian mysteries as no man can understand before he be initiated among you, I must despair of coming to any acquaintance with them. For I shall never engage into the belief of I know not what. For the present, I shall declare you my apprehension as to that custom of your Church as you call it, which we have now under consideration, and desire your charity in my direction, if I understand it aright. It is your custom to keep the Scriptures from the people in an unknown tongue; somewhat contrary to this your former custom, in this last age you have made some translations out of a translation and that none of the best, the use whereof you permit to very few, by virtue of special dispensation, pleading that the use of it in the Church among the body of its members is useless and dangerous. Again it is the custom of your Church to celebrate all its public worship in Latin, whereof the generality of your people understand nothing at all, and you forbid the exercise of your Church worship in a vulgar tongue understood by the community of your Church or people. These I apprehend to be the customs of your Church, and to the best of my understanding they are directly contrary, (1.) to the end of God in granting to his Church the inestimable benefit of his word and worship; and (2.) to the command of God given to all to read, meditate and study his word continually. And (3.) prejudicial to the souls of men, in depriving them of those unspeakable spiritual advantages which they might attain in the discharge of their duty, and which others, not subject to your authority, have experience of. And (4.) opposite to, yes destructive of that edification which is the immediate end of all things to be done in public assemblies of the Church. And (5.) forbidden expressly by the Apostle who enforces his prohibition with many cogent reasons (1 Corinthians 14). And (6.) contrary to the express practice of the primitive Church both Judaical and Christian, all whose worship was performed in the same language wherein the people were instructed by preaching and exhortations which I presume you will think it necessary they should well understand; being (7.) brought into use gradually and occasionally through the negligence of some who pretend in the Churches of those days, when the languages wherein the Scripture was first written and whereinto for the use of the whole Church it had been of old translated, as the Old Testament into Greek, and the whole into Latin, through the tumults and wars that fell out in the world, became corrupted, or were extirpated. And (8.) a means of turning the worship of Christ from a rational way of strengthening faith and increasing holiness, into a dumb histrionical show exciting brutish and irregular affections; and (9.) were the great cause of that darkness and ignorance which spread itself in former days over the whole face of your Church, and yet continues in a great measure so to do. And in sum are as great an instance of the power of inveterate prejudices and carnal interests against the light of the truth as I think was ever given in the world.

These are my apprehensions concerning the customs of your Church in this matter, with their nature and tendency. I shall now try whether you who blame my misunderstanding of them, can give me any better information, or reason for the change of my thoughts concerning them. But Carbones pro thesauro, instead of either further clearing or vindicating your customs and practice, you fall into encomiums of your Church, a story of a Greek Bishop, with some other thing as little to your purpose. Fur es ait Pedo; Pedius quid? crimina rasis Librat in Antithetis doctas posuisse figuras Lundatur.

You are accused to have robbed the Church of the use of the Scripture, and the means of its edification in the worship of God, and when you should produce your defensive, you make a fine discourse quite to other purposes. Such as it is, we must pass through it.

First you say, I have heard many grave Protestant divines ingenuously acknowledge that divine comfort and sanctity of life requisite to salvation, which religion aymes at, may with more perfection and less inconvenience be attained by the customs of the Roman Church than that of ours. For religion is not to fit perching upon the lips, but to be got by heart, it consists not in reading but doing, and in this, not in that, lives the substance of it, which is soon and easily conveighed. Christ our Lord drew a compendium of all divine truths in two words, which our great Apostle again abridged into one. Ans. (1.) I hope you will give me leave a little to suspend my assent to what you affirm. Not that I question your veracity as to the matter of fact related by you, that some persons have told you what you say, but I suppose you are mistaken in them. For whereas the Gospel is the doctrine of truth according to godliness, and the promotion of holiness and consolation (which cannot at all be promoted but in wayes and by means of God's appointment) is the next end of all religion; they can be no Protestant divines who acknowledge this end to be better attainable in your way, than their own; because such an acknowledgement would be a virtual renunciation of their Protestancy. The judgement of this Church, and all the real grave divines of it, is perfectly against you, and should you condescend to them in other things, would not embrace your communion, while you impose upon them a necessity of celebrating the worship of God in a tongue unknown to them, among whom and for whose sake, it is publicly celebrated. The reasons you subjoyn to the concession you mention, I presume are your own, they are like to many others that you make use of. The best sense of the entrance of your words that I can make, is in that description they afford us of the worship of your Church as to the people's concernment in it. The words of it may fit perching upon your lips, as on the tongue of a Parrot, or it may be, may be got by heart, or as we say without book, when the sense of them affects not your minds nor understandings at all. If in these vain loose expressions you design any thing else, it seems to be an opposition between reading and studying the Scriptures, or joining with understanding in the prayers of the Church, the things under consideration, and the getting of the power of the word of God to dwell in the heart; which is skilfully to oppose the means and the end, and those placed in that relation not only by their natural aptitude, but also by God's express appointment and command. So wisely also do you oppose reading and doing in general; as though reading were not doing, and a part of that obedience which God requires at our hands, and a blessed means of helping and furthering us in the remainder of it. For certainly that we may do the will of God, it is required that we know it. And what better way there is to come to the knowledge of the will of God than by reading and meditating in and upon the word of truth wherein he has revealed it, with the advantage of the other means of his appointment for the same end in the public preaching or proposition of it, I am not as yet informed. And I wish you had acquainted us with those two words of our Savior, and that one of the Apostle, wherein they give us a compendium of all divine truths. For if it be so, I am persuaded you will be to seek for your warrant in imposing your long creeds, and almost volumes of propositions to be believed as such. But you cannot avoid mistakes in things that you might omit as not at all to your purpose. Our Savior indeed gives us the two general heads of those duties of obedience which are required at our hands towards God and our neighbors; and the Apostle shows the perfection of it to consist in love, with its due exercise; but where in two or three words they give us the compendium of all divine truths which we are to believe, that we may acceptably perform the obedience that in general they describe, we are yet to seek, and shall be so, for any information you are able to give us.

In your following discourse you make a flourish with what your Church has in Gospels, Epistles, good books, anniversary observations, and I know not what besides. But Sir, we discourse not about what you have, but what you have not, nor will have though God command you to have it, and threaten you for not having it. You have not the Scripture ordinarily in a language that they can understand, who if they are the disciples of Christ are bound to read, study, and meditate in it continually; which are therefore hindered by you in the discharge of their duty, while you neither enter into the kingdom of heaven your selves, nor suffer them that would. No, you have burned men and their Bibles together for attempting to discharge that duty which God requireth of them, and wherein so much of their spiritual advantage is enwrapped. Neither have you the entire worship of God in a tongue known to the people, whereby they might join in it, and pray with understanding, and be edified by what they hear (which the Apostle makes the end of all things done or to be done in public assemblies) but are left to have their brutish affections led up and down by dumb shows, postures and gestures, whereunto the Scripture and antiquity are utter strangers. These things you have not, and which renders your condition so much the worse, you refuse to have them though you may, though you are entreated by God and man to make use of them; yes, where great and populous nations under your power, have humbly petitioned you that by your leave and permission they might enjoy the Bible, and that service of God which they could understand, you have chosen rather to run all things into confusion and to fall upon them with fire and sword, than to grant them their request; O curvae in terris animae & caelestium inanes!

But you add, Besides what you mention, what can promote your Salvation; for say you, What further Good may it do to read the letter of Saint Paul's Epistles, to the Romans for example, or Corinthians, wherein Questions, and Cases, and Theological discourses are treated, that vulgar people can neither understand, nor are at all concerned to know. And I pray you tell me ingenuously and without heat, what more of Good could acrew to any by the translated letter of a book, whereof I will be bold to say that nine parts in ten concern not my particular either to know or practice, than by the conceived substance of God's will to me, and my own duty towards him. Sir, I shall deal with you without any blameable heat, yet so as he deserves to be dealt withal, who will not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord. And 1. who taught you to make your apprehensions the measure of other men's faith and practice? If you know not of any thing needful to promote Salvation, but what you reckon up in the usage of your Church, hinder not them that do. It is not so much your own practice, as your Imposition of it on others, that we are in the consideration of. Would it suffice you to reject as to your own interest the means appointed of God for the furtherance of our Salvation, and that you would not compel others to join with you in the refusal of them? Is it possible that a man professing himself a Divine, a Priest of the Catholic Church, an Instructor of the Ignorant, an undertaker to persuade whole Nations to relinquish the way of Religion wherein they are engaged, to follow him and his in ways that they have not known, should profess that he knows not of what use to the promotion of the Salvation of the Souls of men the use of the whole Scripture given by inspiration of God is! Be advised not to impose these conceptions of your fancy and mind, as it seems unexercised in that heavenly treasury, on those who have [illegible], senses exercised therein, so as to be able to discern between good and evil. If no other reason can prevail with you, I hope experience may give you such a despair of success, as to cause you to surcease. (2.) This vulgar people that you talk of (as the Pharisees did of them that were willing to attend to the preaching of Christ, [illegible], John 7, this vulgar rout that knows not the Law) if they are Christians, they are such as to whom those Epistles were originally written, and for whose sakes they are preserved, such as Christ has redeemed and sanctified in his own blood, and given the anointing to, whereby they may know all things, and are partakers of the Promise that they shall be taught of God. The Gospel takes not away the outward differences and distinctions, that are on other accounts among the children of men, but in the things of the Gospel itself there are none vulgar or common, nor as such to be despised; but believers are all one in Christ Jesus (Colossians 3:11; James 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). How it is now I know not, but I am sure that the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, the poor principally received it, and the greatest number of them that were effectually called, was of those whom you speak so contemptuously of, as the Apostle testifies (1 Corinthians 1:26). And the same is made good in all ancient story. Neither are these vulgar people such Ignoramuses as you imagine, unless it be where you make and keep them such, by detaining from them the means of knowledge, and who perish for the want of it, as the Prophet complained of old. I speak not of them who continue willingly ignorant under the most effectual means of light; but of such as being really born of God, and becoming thereby a Royal Nation, a holy Priesthood as they are called, yes, Kings and Priests to God, do conscientiously attend to his teachings. Of these there are thousands, yes, ten thousands in England, who are among the vulgar sort as to their outward and civil condition, that if occasion were administered, would further try your Divinity than you are aware, and give you another manner of account of Paul's Epistles than I perceive you suppose they would. You are mistaken if you imagine that either greatness, or learning, or secular wisdom will give a man understanding in the Mysteries of the Gospel, or make him wise therein. This wisdom is from above, is wrought by the Spirit of God in the use of spiritual means by himself appointed for that purpose. And we know not that men of any condition are excepted from his dispensations of light and grace. 3. To whom, and for whose instruction were those Epistles of Paul written? Were they not to the Churches of those days? To all that were at Rome called to be holy (ch. 1:7), and to the Church of God that was at Corinth sanctified in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:2), with all that everywhere call on his name. And why I pray may not the Churches of these days be concerned to know the things that the Spirit of God thought meet to instruct the former Churches in? Are believers now grown unconcerned in the doctrine of law and Gospel, of Sin and Grace, of Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, the Obedience of Faith, and duties of Holiness, which Saint Paul reveals and declares in his Epistles? What would you make of them? Or what would you make of the Apostle to write things for the standing use of the Church, wherein so few were like to be concerned? Or do you think that there are but few things in the Scripture wherein the souls of the people are concerned, and that all the rest are left for learned men to dispute and wrangle about?

But you say, there are particular Cases in them, that belonged it may be only to them to whom their resolution was directed. But are you such a stranger in the Israel of the Church, as not to know that in the same Cases, or others of a very neer allyance to them determinable by the Apostolical Rules delivered in them, the Consciences of your vulgar people are still concerned? 4. Those Epistles of Paul wherein you instance, were written by divine Inspiration, and given out by the direction of the Holy Ghost for the use of the Church of God in all Ages; This I suppose you will not deny. If so, why do you set up your wisdom built on frivolous Cavils, against the Will, Wisdom, Love and Care of God? I fear you are a stranger to that benefit, strength, supportment, light, knowledge, grace, wisdom and consolation, which true believers, the Disciples of Christ do every day receive by reading, studying and meditating on Pauls Epistles. I wish you would mind some of old Chrysostoms Exhortations to all sorts of persons to the reading and study of them; they are so interwoven in all his Expositions and Sermons on them, that it were lost labor to direct you to any place in particular. 5. The latter part of your Discourse would make me suspect that your converse with the Quakers that you talked of in your Fiat, had a little tainted your judgement, but that I can ascribe the rise of it to another Cause. Your preferring the conceived substance of Gods Will before the letter of the Scripture, is their very Opinion. But what do you mean by the conceived substance of Gods Will? Is it the D[•]ctrine concerning the Will of God delivered in the Scripture, or is it somewhat else? If some other thing, why do you not declare it? If it be no other, why do you distinguish it from its self, and prefer it above it self? Or do you conceive, there is a conceived substance of Gods Will that is taught, or may be by men, better then by God himself? 6. Somewhat you intimate, it may be to this purpose, in the close of this Discourse, p. 96. where you say, the Question between us is not, whether the people are to have Gods Word or no, but whether that Word consist in the letter left to the Peoples disposal, or in the substance urgently imposed upon the people for their practice. And this because you understand not, but mistake the whole business, all your talk in this your eighteenth Chapter vades into nothing. Truly Sir, I never heard before that this was the state of the Controversie between us, nor do I now believe it so to be. For (1.) We say not that the letter of the Scripture is to be left to the Peoples disposal, but that the Scripture is to be commended to their reverend use and meditation, which we think cannot be ingenuously denyed by any man that has read the Scripture, or knows ought of the Duty of the Disciples of Christ. (2.) The Conceived substance of the Word of God, as by any man conceived and proposed, is no otherwise the Word of God, but as it answers what is written in the Scripture, and by virtue of its analogy therewith. (3.) If by urging the substance of the Word of God on the People, you understand their instruction in their Duty out of the Word of God, by Catechizing, Preaching, Admonitions and Exhortations, as you must if you speak intelligibly, why do you oppose these things as inconsistent? May not the people have the use of the Scripture, and yet have the Word preached to them by their Teachers? Did not Paul preach the substance of the Word to the Bereans, and yet they are commended that they tryed what he delivered to them by the Scripture its self which they enjoyed? And (4.) Why do you appropriate this urging of the substance of the Word of God to your usage and practice, giving out as ours, the leaving of the letter of the Scripture to the Peoples disposal, when we know the former to be done far more effectually among Protestants, then among you, and your self cannot deny it to be done more frequently? (5.) You reproach the Scripture by calling it the Letter in opposition to your conceived substance of the Word of God. For though the Literal sense of Metaphorical expressions (by you yet adhered to) be sometimes called the Flesh (John 6:33), and the carnal sense of the Institutions of the Old Testament, be termed the Letter (2 Corinthians 3:6; Romans 2:2), yet the Covenant of God is, that his Spirit and Word shall ever accompany one another (Isaiah 59:21), and our Savior tells us, that his Words are Spirit and life (John 6:63), and the Apostle, that the Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper then any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). There is in the written Word a living and life-giving power and efficacy, which believers have experience of, and which I should be sorry to conclude you to be unacquainted withal. It is the power of God to salvation, the immortal seed whereby we are begotten to God, and the food whereby our souls are nourished. And all this, is not only as to the [in non-Latin alphabet] that which is written, but the [in non-Latin alphabet] the writing, or Scripture it self, which is given by Inspiration from God. For though the things themselves written are the Will of God, and intended in the writing; yet the Writing its self being given out by inspiration, is the Word of God, and only original means of Communicating the other to us: or the Word of God wherein his will is contained; formally so, as the other is materially. (6.) I find you are not well pleased when you are minded of the contemptuous expressions which some of your friends have used concerning the Holy Scripture; but I am now enforced to tell you that you your self have equalled in my apprehension the very worst of them, in affirming that nine parts in ten of it concerns not your particular either to know or practice. For I presume you make the instance only in your self, intending all other individual Persons no less then your self. The Apostle tells us, that all Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. You, that nine parts in ten of it do not concern us to know or practice; that is, not at all. He informs us, that whatever things were written afore time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope; not above one part of ten of what is so written, if you may be believed, is useful to any such purpose. Do you consider what you say? God has given us his whole Word for our use and benefit. Nine parts in ten of it, say you, do not concern us. Can possibly any man break forth into an higher reflection upon the Wisdom and Love of the Holy God? Or do you think you could have made a more woful discovery of your unacquaintedness with your own duty, the nature of faith and Obedience Evangelical, then you have done in these words? You will not make thus bold with the Books that Aristotle has left us in Philosophy, or Galen in Medicine. But the wisdom of God in that writing which he has given us for the Revelation of his will, it seems may be despised. Such fruit in the depraved nature of man will [in non-Latin alphabet] produce. The practice we blame in you, is not worse then the reasonings you use in its confirmation. I pray God neither of them may be ever laid to your charge.

Your following words are a Commendation of the zeal and piety of the days and times before the Reformation, with reflections upon all things among us since, and this I shall pass by, so to avoid the occasion of representing to you the true state of things both here and elsewhere in the ages you so much extoll. Neither indeed is it to any great purpose to lay open anew that darkness and wickedness which the world groaned under, and all sober men complained of. You proceed to other Exceptions and say:

Where Fiat Lux says, That the Pentateuch, or Hagiography was never by any High Priest among the Jews put into a Vulgar Tongue, nor the Gospel or Liturgy out of the Greek in the Eastern part of the Christian Church, or Latin in the Western, you slight this discourse of mine, because Hebrew, Greek and Latin were Vulgar Tongues themselves: I know this well enough: but when, and how long ago were they so? Not for some thousand years to my knowledge. And was the Bible, Psalms, or Christian Liturgy then put into Vulgar Tongues, when those they were first written in, ceased to be Vulgar? This you should have spoken to, if you had meant to say any thing, or gainsay me. Nor is it to purpose to tell me that Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Dalmatian. I know well enough it has been translated by some special persons into Gothic, Armenian, Aethiopian and other particular Dialects. But did the Church either of the Hebrews, or the Christians either Greeks or Latin ever deliver it so translated to the generality of People, or use it in their Service, or command it so to be done as a thing of general concernment and necessity? So far is it from that, that they would never permit it.

I thought you would as little have medled with this matter again, as you have done with other things of the like disadvantage to you. For (1.) I told you sufficiently before what a vanity it was to enquire after a Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew before the Babylonish Captivity, there being no other language but that understood among the generality of the Jewish people. And I then manifested to you, and shall do so further immediately, that the Translation of the Scripture into Syriak which you enquire after, could have had no other design among the Jews in those days, than your keeping of it in Latin has; namely that the people might not understand it. For if you shall persist to think that the Jews before the Babylonish Captivity at least, had any other vulgar language but the Hebrew, you will make all men of understanding smile at you at an extraordinary rate. Some while after the return of the people from their Captivity, they began to lose the purity of their own tongue, and most of them understood the Syrochaldaean, wherein about that time some small parts of the Scripture also were written. In no long process of time a great portion of them living scattered in the Provinces of the Macedonian Empire, and therefore called Hellenists, used and spake the Greek tongue, their own ceasing to be vulgar to them. All these both in private, and in their public Synagogue worship made use of a Translation of the Scripture into Greek, which was now become their vulgar tongue, and that made either by the LXXII. Elders sent from Jerusalem to Ptolomy Philadelphus, or which is more probable by the Jews of Alexandria, to which City multitudes of them repaired, the Nation being made free of it by its founder; or it may be some while after by the Priest Onias, who led a great Colony of them into Aegypt, and there built them a Temple for their worship. So did these Hebrews make use of a Translation, when their own tongue ceased to be vulgar to them. The monster of serving God by rational men with a tongue whereof they understand never a word, was not yet hatched. The other portion of the people, who either lived in Palestina, or those parts of the East where the Greek tongue never prevailed into common use, so soon as their language began to be mixed with the Syrochaldean, and the purity of it to grow into disuse, made use constantly of their Targums, or Translations into that tongue. Neither can it be proved, but that the Jerusalem Jews understood the Hebrew well enough until the destruction of the City and Temple by Titus. So that from the Church of the Jews you cannot obtain the least countenance to your practice. And there lyes in God's dealing with them a strong argument and testimony against it. For if God himself thought meet to intrust his Oracles to his people, in that language which was common to them all, has he not taught us that it is his will they should still be so continued? And is there not still the same reason for it as there was at first? (2.) Farther, the practice of the Latin Church is unavoidably against you. For whereas the Scripture was no part of it written in Latin which was their vulgar tongue, it was immediately both Old Testament and New turned thereinto: and therein used, as in their public worship, so by private persons of all sorts, upon the encouragement of the rulers of it. And no reason of their translation of it, which they made and had from time immemorial, can possibly be imagined, but only the indispensible necessity which they apprehended of having the Scripture in a language, which the people did generally speak and understand. (3.) The case was the same in the antient Greek Church. The New Testament was originally written in their own vulgar tongue, which they made use of accordingly. And as for the old, they constantly used a Translation of it into the same dialect. So that it is impossible that we can obtain a clearer suffrage from the antient Churches, both Jews and Christians, and these both of Latins and Greeks in any thing, than we have against this custom of your Church. But these languages you say have ceased to be vulgar for some thousand years to your knowledge. Bona verba! You know much I perceive, yet not so much, but that it is possible you may sometimes fail in your Chronological faculty. Pray how many thousand years is it think you since Christ's birth, now this year 1663, or since the ruine of the Greek or Latin Empire, and therein the corruption of their languages. I believe you will not find it above three or four thousand at the most, upon your next calculation: though I can assure you an ingenuous person told me, he thought from the manner of your speaking you might guess at some nine or ten. What then? Was the Bible say you put into other vulgar tongues when they ceased to be vulgar? Yes by some they were: Hierom translated it into the Dalmatian tongue; Vlphilus into the Gotish; Beda a great part of it into the Saxon, and the like no doubt was done by others. The Eastern countries also, to whom the Greek was not so well known, had Translations of their own from the very beginning of their Christianity. And for the rest, shall the wretched negligence of men in times of confusion and ignorance, such as those were wherein the Greek and Latin tongues ceased to be vulgar, prescribe a rule and law to us of practice in the worship of God, contrary to his own direction, the nature of the thing itself, and the example of all the Churches of Christ for five hundred years? For besides that in the Empire it was always used, and read in the vulgar tongues, those Nations that knew not the two great languages that were commonly spoken therein, from the time that they received the Christian faith, took care to have the Scriptures translated into their own mother tongue. So Chrysostom tells us, that the Gospel of John, wherein occasionally he especially instances, was in his days translated into the Syrian, Egyptian, Indian, Persian and Ethiopian languages (Homily 1 on John). But you say, Did the Church either of the Hebrews or Christians, Greek or Latin, ever deliver it translated to the generality of the people, or use it in their service, or command it so to be done, as a thing of general concernment; so far is it from that, that they would never permit it. But you do not sufficiently consider what you say. The Hebrew Church had no need so to do. God gave the Scripture to it in their own mother tongue, and that only. And they had no reason to translate it out of their knowledge and understanding. The Greek Church had the New Testament in the same manner, and the Old they translated or delivered it so translated by others to the generality of the people, and used it in their service. The Latin Church did so also. The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament also being originally written in languages unknown vulgarly to them; they had them translated into their own common tongue for the generality of the people, and used that Translation in their public service. The same was the practice of the Syrians and all other Nations of old, that had a language in common use peculiar to themselves. All your plea ariseth from the practice of some who through ignorance or negligence provided not for the good and necessity of the Churches of Christ, when through the changes and confusions that happened in the world, the Greek and Latin tongues ceased to be vulgar, which how many thousand years ago it was, you may calculate at your next leisure. This is that, which in them we blame, and in you much more because you will follow them after you have been so frequently admonished of your miscarriage therein; for you add to your sin by making, that which was neglect in them, wilful choice in you, commanding that not to be done, which they only omitted to do.

But you will not leave this matter; you told us in your Fiat, that neither Moses, nor any after him did take care to have the Scripture turned into Syriack. I desired to know why they should, seeing Hebrew was their vulgar tongue, and the Syriak unknown to them, which I proved from the saying of the Princes of Hezekiah, when they desired Rabshakeh to speak to them in Syriak which they understood, and not in the Jews Language in the hearing of the people to affright and trouble them. This I did for your satisfaction, the thing its self being absolutely out of question, and not in the least needing any proof among those who understand any thing of this business. But you yet attempt to revive your first mistake, and to say somewhat to the instance whereby it was rectified, but with your usual success. Will you therefore be pleased to hear your self talk you know not what in this matter once more? Thus then you proceed, Sir you are mistaken, for the tongue the Princes persuaded Rabshakeh to speak was the Assyrian, his own language which was learned by the Gentry in Palestine, as we in England learn the French; which although by abbreviation it be called Syriack, yet is differed as much from the Jews Language which was spoken by Christ and his Apostles (whereof Eli Eli lama Sabacthani is a part) and was over since that time called Syrian or Syriack, as French differs from English. And if you would read attentively, you may suspect by the very words of the Text, that the Jews Language even then was not the Hebrew. For it had been a shorter and plainer expression, and more answerable to their custom so to call it if it had been so, then by a paraphrase to name it the Jews Language: which if then it was called Syrian, as afterwards it was, then had the Princes reason to call it rather the Jews Language then Syrian, because that and the Assyrian differed more in nature then appellation; though some difference doubtless there was in the very word and name, although Translators have not heeded to deliver it. Shibbolet and Sibbolet may differ more in signification then sound: nor is Brittish and brutish so near in nature as they are in name. And who knows not that Syria and Assyria were several Kingdoms, as likewise were the Languages?

I had much ado at first to understand what it is that you would have in this discourse; and no wonder, for I am sure you do not understand your self. And I am perswaded that if you knew how many prodigies you have poured out in these few lines, you would be amazed at the product of your own imagination. For (1.) you yet again suppose Syriack to have been the vulgar language of the Jews in the dayes of Hezechiah, a thing that never fell upon the fancy of any man before you, being contrary to express Scripture in the Testimony before recited, and all the monuments of those dayes, wherein the Sermons of the Prophets to the people are recorded in the purest Hebrew; neither had the people as yet been carried captive out of their own land, or been mixed with strangers, so as to have lost their language as you imagine, unless you think that indeed the Hebrew was never their vulgar tongue. 2. You suppose, the Syrian and Assyrian at that time to have been different languages, whereof those who understood the one understood not the other: when they were but one and the same called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the tongue of Aram, neither was there ever any other difference between the language of the Assyrians or Chaldaeans, and that which was afterwards peculiarly called Syriack, but in some few words and various terminations, and how far this differed from the Jews language you have an instance in the names given by Jacob and Laben to the same heap of witness (Genesis 31:47), the one calling it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Galead, the other [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] iegar Sahadutha; neither was it at all understood by the common people of the Jews (Jeremiah 5:15). (3.) You suppose that in the language wherein Rabshakeh and the Princes conferred, their Syriack was an abbreviation of Assyriack, because in sound it was so near the other, that they would have him speak in. So that the Jews speaking Syriack, when the Princes desired Rabshakeh to speak Syriack, they meant another language, as much differing from that, as French from English. But you are in the dark, and know not how you wander up and down to no purpose. There is nothing of the words that you pretend to be an abbreviation the one of the other in the Text, nor is there any such relation between them as you imagine, that they should be near in sound, though not in nature. Eliakim entreats Rabshakeh that he would speak [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] aramith, Aramice, that is, as the Greeks and Latins express that people and language Syriace in Syriack; that he would speak the language of Aram: which language was spoken also by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the King and People of Assyria. And truly [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Aram is no abreviation of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Ashur, as I suppose. (4.) You talk of the length of that expression, in the Jews language, when there is nothing in the Text but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Jehudith Judaice, that is, in Hebrew. (5.) Some difference you suppose there was between the Assyrian and Syrian in sound and name, though Translators have not heeded to deliver it; when there is no agreement at all between them: but you say there was more in nature, when there was none at all. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Lashon Arami, the tongue of Aram was the language of Assyria, Ashur being but a Colony of Aram. (6.) So you think that Shibboleth and Sibboleth may differ more in signification than sound. But pray what do you think is the signification of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as the Ephramites pronounced [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], just as much as a word falsly pronounced signifieth, and no more; that is, of its self just nothing at all: for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Sibboleth is no Hebrew word, but meerly [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Shibboleth falsly pronounced. 7. You imagine that the language spoken by Christ, and his Apostles was the same that was spoken in the dayes of Hezekiah, and this you would prove from those words Eli Eli lama Sabacthani, to be that which is now commonly called Syriack, and fancy an Assyrian tongue, as much differing from it, as French differs from English, which manifests your skill in the Oriental languages, for want whereof I do not blame you; for what is that to me? But I cannot take it well that you should choose me out to trouble me with talking about that which you do not understand. For here you give us two languages, the Syriack, and Assyriack, which names in the Original differed but little in sound, but the languages themselves did as much in nature as French and English. And the Syriack you tell us, was that which is now so peculiarly called, but what the Assyriack was you tell us not, but only that when the Princes perswade Rabshakeh to speak [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Aramith, he intended an Assyrian language that was not Syrian. The boys that grind colours in our Grammer Schools, laugh at these Mormoes. (8.) Neither do you know well what you say when you affirm that the language of Christ, and his Apostles was the same that was ever since called the Syriack: for the very instance you give, manifests it to have been a different dialect from it; the words as recorded by the Evangelists being absolutely the same neither with the Hebrew, nor Targum, nor Syriack Translation of the Old Testament: that wherein we have the Translation of the Scripture, and which prevailed in the Eastern Church, being a peculiar Antiochian dialect of the old Aramaean tongue. And that whole language called the Syriack peculiarly now, and whereof there were various dialects of old, seems to have had its beginning after the Jews return from their captivity, being but a degenerate mixture of the Hebrew and Chaldee; whereunto also after the prevalency of the Macedonian Empire many Greek words were admitted, and some Latine ones also afterwards. (9.) You advantage not your self by affirming that Assyria and Syria were several Kingdoms. For as Strabo will inform you, they were both originally called Syrian, and indeed were one and the same, until the more Eastern Provinces about Babylon obtaining their peculiar denominations, that part of Asia, which contains Comogena, Phaenicia, Palestina and Coelosyria, became to be especially called Syria. Originally they were all Aramites as every one knows that can but read the Scripture in its Original language.

And now I suppose you may see how little you have advantaged yourself, or your cause by this maze of mistakes and contradictions. For no error can be so thick covered with others, but that it will rain through. The Jews you suppose to have lost their own language in the days of Hezekiah, and to have spoken Syriac; the Syrian and Assyrian to have been languages as far distant as French and English; that when the Princes entreated Rabshakeh to speak the Syrian language (in non-Latin alphabet) they intended not the Syrian language which was indeed the Jews, but the Assyrian quite differing from it; and so when they desired him not to speak (in non-Latin alphabet) but (in non-Latin alphabet) you suppose them to have desired him not to speak in the Jews language, but to speak in the Jews language which you say was the Syriac. And sundry other no less unhappy absurdities have you amassed together.

But you will retrieve us out of this labyrinth, by a story of what a Greek Bishop did and said at Paris in the presence of Doctor Cousins now bishop of Durham, how he refused the Articles of the English Church, and did all things according to the Roman mode, asserting the use of Liturgies in the vulgar Greek. To which I shall say no more, but that it was at Paris and not at Durham; Graeculus esuriens in caelum jusseris, ibit.

I have myself known some eminent members of that Church in England, two especially; one many years ago called Conopius, who if I mistake not, upon his return obtained the honor of a Patriarchate, being sent here by the then Patriarch of Constantinople; the other not many years ago, called Anastatius Comnenus Archimandrite as his Testimonials bespoke him, of a Monastery on Mount Sinai. Both these I am sure made it their business to inveigh against your Church and practices, having the arguments of Nilus against your Supremacy at their fingers ends. And if the Greek Church and you are so well agreed as you pretend, why do you censure them as heretics and schismatics, and receive only some few of them who are renegades from their own tents? What may those whom you proclaim to be your enemies expect from you, when you deal thus severely with those whom you give out to be your friends? But as for this matter, of the Scripture, and prayers in an unknown tongue, though they transgress not with so high a hand as you do, the old Greeks being not so absolutely remote from the present vulgar, as the Latin is from our English, and the languages of diverse other nations whom you compel to your Church service in that tongue, and besides they have the Scripture translated into their present vulgar tongue, for the use of private persons; yet we approve not their practice, but look upon it as a great means of continuing that ignorance and darkness which is unquestionably spread over the major part of that Church: which in some places as in Russia is to such a degree, as to dispose the people to barbarism. We know also that herein they are gone off from the constant and Catholic usage of their forefathers, who for some centuries of years from the days of the Apostles themselves, who planted churches among them, both had the Bible in their own vulgar tongue, and made no use of any other in the public service of their assemblies. And that their example in your present degenerate condition, which in some things you as little approve of as we do in others, should have any great power upon us, I know as yet little reason to judge.

Your last attempt in this matter is to vindicate what you have said in your Fiat, as you now affirm, that the Bible was kept in an Ark or Tabernacle, not touched by the people, but brought out at times to the Priest that he might instruct the people out of it. To which you say, I answer, that the Ark was placed in the Sanctum Sanctorum which was not entered into but by the Priest and that only once a year. And reply, But Sir I speak not there of any Sanctum Sanctorum, or of any Ark in that place; was there or could there be no more Arks but one? If you had been only in these latter days in any Synagogue or Convention of the Jews, you might have seen even now how the Bible is still kept with them in an Ark or Tabernacle, in imitation of their forefathers, when they have no Sanctum Sanctorum among them. You may also discern how according to your custom, they cringe and prostrate at the bringing out of the Bible, which is the only solemn adoration left among them; there be more Arks than that in the Sanctum Sanctorum; if I had called it a Box or a Chest, or a Cupboard you had let it pass; but I used that word as more sacred.

The oftener that you touch upon this string, the harsher is the found that it yields. I would desire you to free your self from the unhappiness of supposing that it tends to your disreputation to be esteemed unacquainted with the Jews language and customes. If you cannot do so, you will not be able to avoid suffering from your own thoughts, especially if you cannot for bear talking al out them. This was all that in your former discourse you were obnoxious to, but this renewal of it has rendred your condition somewhat worse then it was. For failures in skill and science, are not in demerit to be compared with those in morality, which are voluntary and of choice. Your words in your Fiat, after you had learnedly observed that the Bible was never in Moses time nor afterwards by any high Priest translated into Syriack for the use of the people, are, Nay it was so far from that, that it was not touched nor looked upon by the people, but kept privately in the Ark or Tabernacle, and brought for that times by the Priest who might upon the Sabboth day read some part of it to the people. I confess your expression in the Ark or Tabernacle was somewhat uncouth, and discovered that you did but obscurely guess at the thing you ventured to discourse about. But I took your words in that only sense they were capable of; namely that the Bible was kept in the Ark, or at least in the Tabernacle, that is some part of it, whereunto the people had no access. And he must be a man devoid of reason and common sense, who could imagine that you intended any thing but the sacred Ark and Tabernacle, when you said that it was kept in the Ark or Tabernacle. For not only by all rules of interpretation is the word used indefinitely to be taken in sensu famosiori, but also your manner of expression will admit of no other sense or intention. Now herein in the Animadversions I minded you of your failure, and told you that not the whole Bible as you imagined, but only the Pentateuch was placed, not in, but at the sides of the Ark. That the Ark was kept in the Sanctuary, that no Priest went in there, but only the High Priest and that but once a year, that the book of the Law was never brought forth from there to be read to the people; and lastly that whatever of this kind you might fancy, yet it would not in the least conduce to your purpose, it being openly evident that besides the public lections out of the Law, that people had all of them the Scripture in their houses, and were bound by the command of God to read and meditate in them continually. What say you now to these things? (1.) You change your words and affirm that you said it was kept in an Ark or Tabernacle, as though you meant any Ark or Chest. But you too much wrong your self; your words are as before represented, in the Ark or Tabernacle, and you remembred them well enough to be so, which so perplexeth you in your attempt to rectifie what you said. For after you have changed the first word, the addition of the next leaves you in the briars of nonsense; in an Ark or Tabernacle, as though they were terms convertible; a Chest or a Tent. I wish you would make an end of this fond shooting at rovers. (2.) You apply that to the practice of the present Jews in their Synagogues, which you plainly spake of the antient Jews, while their Temple and Church state continued, wherein again you intrench upon morality for an evasion. And besides you cast your self upon new mistakes. For (1.) the book kept in a Chest by them, and brought forth with the veneration you speak of, is not the whole Bible as you imagine but only the Pentateuch which was read in their Synagogues on the Sabbath dayes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as James tells us (Acts 15:21). Only whereas their Law was particularly sought after to be destroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes, they supplyed the room of it with the other parts of the Scripture divided into Haphters answerable to the Sections of the Law. Nor (2.) is that brought out to, or by a Priest, but to any Rabbi that precides in their Synagogue worship; for they have no Priest among them, nor certain distinction of Tribes; so that if you your self have been in any Synagogue or Convention of the Jews, it is evident that you understood little of what you saw them do. (3.) For their prostration at the bringing out of the book which you seem to commend as a solemn adoration, it is down right idolatrous, for in it they openly worship the material roll or book that they keep.

But what is it that you would from hence conclude? Is it that which you attempted in your Fiat, namely that the people among the Jews had not the Bible in their own language, and in common use among them? You may as easily prove that the Sun shines not at noon day. The Scripture was committed to them in their own mother tongue, and they were commanded of God to read and study it continually, the Psalmist pronouncing them blessed who did accordingly. And the present Jews make the same duty of indispensable necessity to every one among them, after he comes to be filius praecepti, or liable to the keeping of any command of God. The rules they give for all sorts of persons, high and low, rich and poor, young and old, sick and in health, for the performance of this duty, are known to all, who have any acquaintance with their present principles, practices, state and condition. And you shall scarcely meet with a child among them of nine years old who is not exercised to the reading of the Bible in Hebrew. And yet though they all generally learn the Hebrew tongue for this purpose in their infancy, yet least they should neglect it, or through trouble be kept from it, they have translated the whole Old Testament into all the languages of the nations among whom in any numbers they are scattered. The Arabic translation of the Mauritanian Jews, the Spanish of the Spaniards and Portuguese I can show you if you please. Upon the whole matter, I wish you knew how great the work is, wherein you are engaged, and how contemptible the engines are whereby you hope to effect it. But such positions, and such confirmations are very well suited. And this is the sum of what you plead afresh in vindication of your Latin service and keeping the Scripture from the use of the people. If you suppose yourself armed hereby against the express institution of Christ by his Apostles, the example of God's dealing with his people of old, the nature of the things themselves, and universal practice of the Primitive Church, I really pity you, and shall continue to pray for you, that you may not any longer bring upon yourselves the blood of souls.