the time of their health, as to need the least spiritual assistance that is possible, in the time of their sickness and that what they do need, they would all apply for early, when it might be of great benefit to them, and not content themselves with calling in the minister at last for mere form's sake, when he can do them little good, or none. Another point, in which we differ from the Church of Rome, is, that all their public prayers are in the Latin tongue, ours in our own. This sure at least is no heresy, that, when we pray to God, we all know what we say. Our practice justifies itself. But how is theirs justified? Reason and common sense plainly condemn it. Antiquity is no less against them: for every Christian Church originally had their own service in their own tongue. That of the Western world was in Latin, only because Latin was their common language: and therefore, it should have been no longer in Latin, when that ceased to be their common language. And for Scripture, read but the 14th chap. of 1 Corinthians, and see, what St. Paul would have judged of this Romish practice. Even when there was a miraculous gift of tongues in the Church, and men prayed, or prophesied in strange languages by inspiration; even then he requires such persons to keep silence, unless another were ready to interpret publicly what they spoke : for, says he, Brethren- -Except ye utter words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the air. If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all: yet in the Church, I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. It immediately follows, and very fitly to the present purpose: brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. For never sure was greater childishness, than to be satisfied with the mere outward show of prayers to God, perhaps without understanding one word of them, which is not praying at all; nor greater malice, that is, more wicked and cruel cunning, than to keep the poor people in this darkness, and plead for it with such unfair pretences as they do. Some of them tell us very gravely, that Latin, far from being an unknown tongue, is the best known of any in Europe. And if it were; yet if this best known tongue is notwithstanding unknown to ninety-nine persons in a hundred, why must they all be confined to it, and not have each their own prayers in their own tongue ? Why, that variety would be very inconvenient, they say, to travellers. But whose inconvenience is most to be consulted? That of whole nations, or of a few persons that come amongst them occasionally? But vulgar tongues, they say, are perpetually changing, and expressions growing improper and unintelligible. I answer: our having our Bible and Prayer-Book, in the vulgar tongue, undoubtedly prevents its changing near so fast as it would otherwise. But when it does change, let them, where it is needful, be changed to it. For which is worse, to take this little trouble of altering a few words and phrases once in a hundred years, or to let people go on for ages together, with prayers and lessons, of which they understand not one word? But they alledge farther, that some of their prayers, indeed a great part of the mass, it would be useless to have said in their own language; for the priest is ordered to speak it so low, that it cannot be heard: as if one fault would excuse another, instead of making it greater. But many of their prayers, they say, may be understood: for though spoken in Latin, there are printed translations of them in English. But still, great part of them is not translated, unless it be by some very modern indulgence* and that which is, nothing but our making them ashamed of themselves hath forced them to of late in these parts of the world against their will. For we know that when, within this last century, some well meaning bishops of their own Church in France, had published the mass in the vulgar tongue, for the people's use, the then Pope declared them sons of perdition to all the world, and condemned what they had done, as if it were the overthrow of religion †. So that, for aught we know, the same liberty taken here may fall under the same condemnation, when a proper time comes. Or were the contrary ever so certain, still putting their prayers into English for the people, only shows that they ought to be spoken in English by the priest: for this round-about way is evidently a most absurd one; that he should be praying in one language, and they following him by guess, as well as they can, in another. Besides, multitudes of their poor people have never heard of these translations, or at least, have them not: multitudes more are unable to read them: and all these must be left quite in the dark. But we are * The English translator of the order and canon of the mass, hath omitted many of the ceremonies, particularly above twenty crosses out of less than thirty. Tennison on Idol. p. 5. + Tillotson, Serm. 246. told, they have a good intention in general: they reverence what they do not understand, and this is sufficient. Now for the purposes of spiritual dominion, this may be sufficient: and such devotions, as many of theirs are, will, we own, be more reverenced for not being understood. But for the edification of the people, it is far from being sufficient, to have good intentions in general, and no meaning in particular: to pray to God for they know not what; and hear lessons read, which they can learn nothing from. Another thing, akin to the former, in which we differ from the Church of Rome, is, that we allow and exhort all persons to read the holy Scriptures diligently. They, on the contrary, have expressly decreed, that, since the promiscuous allowance of Bibles in the vulgar tongue does more harm than good, (these are the very words of the Index published in consequence of the Council of Trent's order,) no one shall be suffered to read translations of Scripture, even though made by Catholics, as they call themselves, unless the Bishop or Inquisitor, by the advice of the Curate or Confessor, give him leave in writing: and whoever transgresses this rule, shall not be absolved till he gives up his Bible. Nay, throughout the whole kingdom of Spain, all Bibles in their own tongue are absolutely forbidden. And in all Popish countries, getting one, by the means here prescribed, being a matter of time, and form, and difficulty, and suspicion, the generality seldom put themselves to the trouble of it. So that in many parts of the world there are great multitudes of that Communion, who perhaps have never either read or heard in their own tongue one chapter of the Bible in their whole lives. Or if any one does ask for leave, it is never granted where they dare refuse it, excepting to such as they are well assured beforehand will see nothing there but what they are bidden. So that where they have permission to read the Scripture, they have none to understand it. Besides that, this permission, even in those countries where they are obliged to indulge it the most freely, as in our own, is but during pleasure, and may at any time be taken away when it will serve the turn better nor dare the poor deluded people, upon pain of damnation, help themselves. And as to Protestant translations, having one is looked on as a mark of heresy; for which in this very nation, poor creatures have been burnt, and their Bibles with them. Which practice now, think you, is the righter, theirs or ours? What authority can there be on earth to forbid any part of mankind from reading what Heaven hath revealed to them. It is the law of our lives, the foundation of our hopes; God hath given it to us, and man hath no right to take it from us. But they tell us, it is from kindness they do it: for there is great danger that the Scripture may be misunderstood and perverted: unlearned and unstable men*, St. Peter hath declared, may wrest it to their own destruction. Now this is possible indeed: and so it is possible every thing may be applied to an ill purpose: health, strength, food, liberty, common daylight but is this a reason for taking away any of them? It is possible that persons may do themselves harm by having the Scriptures: but is it not something more than possible, that they may suffer harm from the want of them; and be destroyed, as the Prophet tells us, for lack of knowledge+? Why do not these persons, who are so very cautious in this |