A discourse concerning the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue Williams, John, 1636?-1709. 1685 Approx. 110 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 31 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A66394 Wing W2702 ESTC R1943 12497780 ocm 12497780 62571 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A66394) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 62571) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 951:76) A discourse concerning the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue Williams, John, 1636?-1709. [4], 56 p. Printed for Richard Chiswell ..., London : 1685. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Attributed to John Williams. cf. NUC pre-1956. Errata: p. [4] Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. Catholic Church -- Liturgy. 2007-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-07 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2008-04 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2008-04 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A DISCOURSE Concerning the CELEBRATION OF DIVINE SERVICE IN AN Unknown Tongue . LONDON , Printed for Richard Chiswell , at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard . M DC LXXXV . ADVERTISEMENT . CArdinal Hosius ; Sanders ; Epist . Cler. Gall. Extract . ex Regist . Fac. Par. Procez , &c. quoted in this Tract by the page , refer to a Book , called , Collectio quorundam gravium Authorum , qui Sacrae Scripturae aut divinorum officiorum in vulgarem Linguam Translationes damnarunt , &c. printed at Paris , 1661. The Quotation , page 2. though out of Sixtus Senens . are the Words of Ambrosius Compsae , who severely condemning Cajetan for the aforesaid Saying , It is better , &c. gives this as a Reason that that Opinion primò à Diabolo inventa est . ERRATA . PAg. 1. Marg. lin . 3. for 1 read 2. p. 8. l. 20. r. were often . p. 21. marg . dele In Genes . Lit. L. c. 8. & in Ps . 99 , p. 25. l. 26. dele little . p. 28. l. 1. after together , r. for Conjuration . p. 45. marg . l. 9. dele i. p. 48. l. 26. r. Sfentopulcer . A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE CELEBRATION OF Divine Service IN AN Unknown Tongue . UPon this Argument the Church of England doth fully declare it self in these Words , It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God , and the Custome of the Primitive Church , to have publick Prayers in the Church , or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the people . But if we consult the Doctors of the Church of Rome about it , we shall find them , as in most other points , differing extreamly amongst themselves . Mercer , a very learned person , and Professor of Hebrew at Paris , is so free as to say , Temerè fecerunt , &c. They amongst us have done rashly , that brought in the Custome of praying in an Vnknown Tongue , which very often neither they themselves , nor our people understand . And Cardinal Cajetan saith , Melius est , &c. It is better for our Church that the publick Prayers in the Congregation be said in a Tongue common to the Priests and people , and not in Latin. Others of them are of another Mind , and say that the having Divine Service in a Tongue known to the people is new and prophane , and the Doctrine requiring it Diaboli calliditatem sapit , smells of the craft of the Devil . And that the Church in making use of the Latin Tongue therein , received it by inspiration from the Holy-Ghost ; as a late Author saith . With what consistence soever the former sort may speak to Truth and Reason ; yet I am sure the later speak with consistence enough to the Opinion , Declarations and Practice of their Church ; as is evident from the Council of Trent ( the present Standard of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome ) which I find thus Englished to my Hands by a noted person of their Church . Though the Mass contain [ great ] instruction for Gods faithful people , yet it seemed not expedient to the Fathers [ of the Council ] that it should be celebrated every where in the Vulgar Tongue : Wherefore retaining in all Churches , the antient Rite [ or rather in all places the antient Rite of every Church ] approved by the Holy Roman Church , the Mother and Mistress of all Churches ; lest Christs Sheep should hunger , and the Children asking Bread , none should be found to break it to them , the Holy Synod commands Pastors and all that have care of Souls , that during the celebration of Mass , they should frequently either by themselves , or others , expound some part of those things , which are read in it ; and among other things let them explain the Mystery of the most Holy Sacrifice , [ the Words are , Some Mystery of this Holy Sacrifice ] especially on Sundays and Feasts . And they conclude , If any one shall say , that Mass ought to be celebrated only in the Vulgar Tongue , let him be Anathema . To this I shall add for a conclusion , the Judgment of the late Pope Alexander the Seventh , in a Brief he sent to the Clergy of France about a Translation of the Missal into that Language , at that time newly published ; in which he saith , that Some Sons of Perdition had arrived to that madness , as to Translate and Publish it , &c. A Novelty we abhor and detest as the Seed-plot of disobedience , rashness , sedition , and schism , and of many other evils , and therefore that French Missal , or what shall hereafter be published in any other manner , we condemn , reprobate and forbid . From all which we may perceive , what an evident repugnancy there is betwixt the Doctrine of the Church of England , and that of Rome in the matter before us : And therefore for the better understanding the Case and discerning which is in the Right , and which in the Wrong , I shall discourse of it in the following order . First , I shall consider the Phrase , an Vnknown Tongue . Secondly , I shall enquire into the lawfulness and expediency of celebrating Divine Service in a Tongue not understood by the People . For so much is affirmed by the Council of Trent , and denied by the Church of England . Thirdly , I shall enquire , whether the celebrating Service in a Tongue not understood by the people , hath been the antient custome of every Church ? For so much also is affirmed by that Council , and denyed by the Church of England . Fourthly , I shall consider , whether the Provision made by the foresaid Council , of having Some part of the Mass expounded , be sufficient to countervail the mischief of having the whole in a Tongue not understood by the people , and to excuse that Church in their injunction of it ? Fifthly , I shall enquire whether upon the whole , the publick Service of God ought not to be celebrated in a Tongue vulgarly understood ? Which Proposition whosoever holds , is anathematized by the foresaid Council : And yet is owned by the Church of England . SECT . I. Of the Phrase Service in an Unknown Tongue . Toward the fixing the sence of this Phrase , we are to observe , I. That there is the Vulgar Tongue of a Country , which is universally understood by the Natives of what rank or quality soever . Such was the Latin Tongue formerly in Rome ; such now is English with us . Before we dismiss this , it is to be further considered , 1. That there are different Dialects or wayes of expressing and pronouncing the same Tongue : which differences of Words , or pronunciation do not so alter the Tongue , but that throughout under all these variations it agrees in much more than it differs ; so that he that speaks the one , is generally understood by him that useth the other . Such anciently were the different Dialects of the Greek Tongue , well known to the learned : And such are the Northern , Southern and Western wayes of speaking amongst our selves in this Nation . 2. Where there are these different Dialects , there generally is one way of speaking , which either from the eloquence , or fashionableness of it , so far prevails , as to be the Standard of the Tongue , and to be used in Writing Books , Letters , &c. and is understood by all . Such I conceive was anciently that which is called the common Dialect in Greek : And of the like kind is that which is spoken in and about the Court , and by Scholars and persons of a liberal education amongst us ; and elsewhere . 3. If a Tongue in process of time , by a mixture of other Nations , or by the removal of a people from one Country to another , or by any other cause comes to be so altered , as the Mother and Original Tongue is not to be understood ( as Ledesma saith it is in Spain ) then it is no longer a Vulgar Tongue , but is to be reckoned amongst the unknown . II. There is a common Tongue , which though not the Mother or National Tongue , is however with that commonly and generally understood . Thus it was antiently in many places with the Greek and Latin. The former of which , was once the common Tongue of a great part of the then known World , and continued so to be from the time of Cicero , to that of S. Jerom , for the space that is of 400. if not 500. Years . Insomuch , that not only the Scriptures were read in Greek in the publick Congregations from Aegypt to Constantinople ; as S. Jerom informs us ; but the Christians also had their Worship ( as is confessed ) and the Fathers preached to them in that Language . So did S. Chrysostome , S. Basil , S. Cyril and S. Athanasius in their several Sees of Antioch , Caesarea , Jerusalem , and Alexandria . And the Latin was so well known , understood , and commonly spoken together with the Vulgar Tongue in diverse Countries , ( through the industry of the Romans in their several Provinces ) that the Vulgar was scarcely more . Thus we find it in the Proconsular Africa , where ( though less accurately spoken than at Rome ) it was so well understood , that S. Austin saith , he learned that Language of his Nurse , and at play , and did write as well as preach in it for the use of the Vulgar : And calls it our Speech , whereas the Punick was the Vulgar Tongue of that Country . And such a common Tongue is French in Flanders , Lingua Franca in the Streights , and English in some parts of Wales . III. There is a Learned Tongue , which though common amongst the Learned , yet they being few in comparison of the Vulgar , that understand it not , it cannot be called a common Tongue : Such are Greek and Latin now . IV. There is a Tongue understood and spoken by none in a Nation , or so few , as are next to none ; and which if used in Divine Offices would be wholly unintelligible . Such are Persick and Indian with us . The use of all this niceness , is partly to clear the state of the Question , and partly to prevent many of the Objections which the case is cumbred with : And without the observing of which , the Dispute will be turned from the point that is controverted , to that which is not . As it happens for the most part among those of the Church of Rome that undertake the management of this Cause ; who do either distinguish where they are not to distinguish , or do not distinguish where they should distinguish . For sometimes they oppose the Dialects of a Tongue to that Tongue of which they are the Dialects : At other times they oppose the common Tongue to the Vulgar : Sometimes they confound the Learned Tongue with the common : And then again oppose the learned and utterly unknown , as if these two were of as different kinds as known and unknown . To give an instance of each of these : Do they undertake to shew how unfit and unreasonable it is to translate the Service or Scriptures into a Vulgar Tongue ? they endeavour to make it out by shewing how unfit it is to think of Translating . and how unreasonable it is to expect they should be translated into the several Dialects of each Tongue ? Would they farther shew that the Divine Offices , &c. were not of old so translated ? they attempt to prove it from their not having been translated into different Dialects . As if the Dialects of a Tongue differed as much from each other , and all from the main Tongue of a Nation , as a learned Tongue differs from the Vulgar . Which is ( to speak charitably ) for want of observing , that the Dialects are but several modes of speaking the same Tongue ; and that ordinarily there is some common Standard , which ( as I have said ) over-rules the rest , and is a guide common to all : As here in England , notwithstanding there be several Dialects , and that there is one in Scotland differs much from them all ; yet there is but one Translation of the Bible , and one Service for the use of the whole , and that is fully if not equally understood by all . Furthermore , would they prove , that anciently the Christian Churches used not a Vulgar Tongue in Divine Service ? they presently multiply Authorities to shew , that in many places they used Greek and Latin , and that Greek and Latin were oftentimes not the Vulgar Tongues where they were so used . As if the common Tongue ( for such were those two in elder times , where they were not the Vulgar ) was opposed to the Vulgar , as much as unknown is to known ; and each was inconsistent with the other . Thus they tell us from S. Jerom , That the Vulgar Tongue in Galatia was in effect the same with that of the Treviri in Germany : And yet there , and in the neighbouring Countries , they had the Scriptures , if not their Divine Service in Greek . Not observing that Greek was the common Tongue of those parts , and that both that and a Vulgar were there freely and generally spoken ; as Greek and Latin , as well as the Gallick Tongues were so frequent in Massilia , that it was called Trilinguis , as S. Jerom shews in the same Dissertation of his . So that these two , the Common and Vulgar , are so far from being inconsistent , that ( notwithstanding the bold saying of our Country-man Sanders , That the common people understand nothing but their Mother Tongue . ) The experience of all Ages , as well as our own shews that they are frequently met together . But to proceed , would they demonstrate that they do and may lawfully use the Latin now in Divine Service , they attempt with great industry to prove that both that and the Greek were antiently used therein . And so they confound the learned and the common Tongue , and compare those times and places , in which the Latin and Greek were commonly known and understood , with our times and places , in which neither of them are understood but by the Learned . Lastly , Would they shew that S. Paul , in 1 Corinthians , 14. doth not oppose Service in Latin , they undertake to shew , That he opposeth no other Service than what is altogether unknown and no Body understands , as Persick and Arabick , and that he doth not condemn a Learned Tongue ; thereby supposing the Learned Tongue and Tongue altogether unknown to be different in kind , whereas they only differ so , that the one is rarely understood and by very few , in comparison , and the other is understood by none . Now in all this they say little or nothing to the purpose . For if they plead for their Latin Service , as Greek was in Galatia , and Latin in Africa , who is their Adversary ? For these Tongues were ( as I have shewed ) in those and the like places as well or little less spoken and understood than the Vulgar and Mother Tongues . And the Protestants do not think it unlawful to have the common Service in a Tongue which is commonly understood ( though it be not the Vulgar Tongue of the Nation ) especially in Maritim and Provincial Countries , where there is a concourse of diverse Nations , and where either these several Languages are understood , or there is a compound Language that serves for all , as the Lingua Franca before spoken of . But if they plead for Latin , as it is now ( when a Dead and Learned Tongue ) that is where it is not known at all , as in the West-Indies ( where yet it is as much used by those of the Roman communion in Mass , as in Europe ) or where it is not known to the Vulgar people , as it is with us , and every where else , then they speak to the purpose , ( for that the Reformed do oppose ) but then the way of arguing hitherto taken notice of is of no use to them in the World ; and is no more to the purpose than if they would undertake to prove that there is at this day a famous University at Athens , and that Latin is the Vulgar Tongue now at Rome , because these were so formerly . So that if we will know where the Controversie lies , and what is contended for and against , we must restore things to their proper places ; and I think all may be brought to an Issue , by putting and resolving this plain Question , viz. SECT . II. Qu. Whether it be lawful and expedient to use such a Tongue in the publick Worship of God , as is not vulgarly or commonly understood by the people ; according to the way at this day required and practised in the Church of Rome ? If we would enquire into the lawfulness of such things as appertain to Divine Worship , we must apply our selves to the Holy Scripture ; being in matters of that nature to determine of Right and Wrong , Lawful and Unlawful , according to the Directions , Commands , and Prohibitions of it . If we would be satisfied about their Expedience , we must consider the Nature , Ends , and Use of what we enquire about . This therefore is a proper method for the Resolution of the foregoing Question : But because the Apostle ( in his Discourse upon this Subject , 1. Cor. 14. ) doth argue from the ends and use of the several Offices belonging to Divine Worship , and because the like Order may give some light and force to what follows ; I shall first of all , I. Treat of the Ends for which Divine Worship , and the several Offices of it were instituted . II. Consider whether those Ends may be attained when the Worship is performed in a Tongue not understood ? III. Whether the Worship so performed as to leave those ends unattainable , will be accepted by God ? IV. I shall consider the Apostle's Discourse upon this Argument ; and whether it can be reasonably concluded from thence , That Divine Worship so administred as not to be understood of the people is unlawful . I. In the first of these the Masters of Controversie in the Romish Church do proceed with great tenderness and no little obscurity . For would we know what the Worship is they would have in an Unknown Tongue ? they answer , it is the publick only they defend . For as for private , saith one , It is lawful for every one to offer his lesser Prayers to God in what Tongue soever he pleaseth . And saith another , All Catholicks are taught to say their private Prayers in their Mother Tongue . As if it were possible to assign such a vast difference betwixt them ( when the Dispositions , Reasons and Ends , required and intended , are the same ) that what is lawful , expedient and necessary in the one , is unlawful , inexpedient and unnecessary in the other ; Or as if the saying private Prayers in Latin , was never heard of , practised , or encouraged in their Church . Again , Would we understand to what purposes the Divine Offices do serve ; and whether the Edification , Instruction and Consolation of the people be not some of those Ends. Bellarmin answers , 1. ) That the principal end of Divine Offices is not the instruction or consolation of the people , but a Worship due to God from the Church . As if there were no regard to be had to the special ends of those Offices , such as the Instruction and Consolation of the people : Or as if God could be honoured by that Worship , where those ends are not regarded . 2. ) The Rhemists add , That Prayers are not made to teach , make learned , or increase knowledge , though by occasion they sometimes instruct ; but their especial use is to offer our Hearts , desires and Wants to God , &c. As if there were no Offices in God's Worship appointed for Instruction , and increase of Knowledge ; and which are performed in an Unknown Tongue amongst them , as well as Prayer . Or as if their Adversaries did either deny it to be the special use of Prayer , To offer our Hearts , &c. to God : Or did affirm that the special use of it is , To teach , make learned , and increase knowledge ; as they with others do falsly suggest , and would fain have believed . But to set this in a better light ; and that we may understand what are the Ends and Uses for which Divine Worship was appointed , and after what manner they are to be respected ; It is to be observed , 1. That Divine Worship in its first notion respects God as its Object ; and so the end of it in general , is the giving Honour to him by suitable Thoughts , Words and Actions . 2. That he hath appointed several wayes and Offices by which he will be so honoured ; and in which , as the Honour doth terminate in him , so there redounds from thence benefit to the Church . 3. That the Benefits redound to the Church according to the nature of those Offices , and the special Ends they were designed unto ; As the Word of God is for our instruction and comfort , &c. The Lord's Supper for the encrease of Faith in God , and love to him through Jesus Christ . The Praising of God is to raise our Affections , and to make us more sensible of his goodness , and to quicken us in our duty . The especial use of Prayer ( that I ▪ may use the Words forecited ) is to offer up our Hearts , Wants and Desires to God ; and that by conversing with him , we may be the more ardently excited to the love and adoration of him ( as the Trent Catechism doth express it ) 4. That those Offices are to be performed so as may effectually answer those Ends , and as we may receive the benefits they were appointed for : From whence it follows , 5. That if the Offices of Divine Worship are to be performed by Words , those Words and that Tongue ( in which they are administred ) must be such as will not obstruct but promote , and in their nature are qualified to attain those Ends. And if those Ends cannot be attained without the Tongue , in which the Service is performed , be understood : It makes that means as necessary in its kind as the End ; and it is as necessary that the Tongue used for those Ends in Divine Worship , be understood , as that those Ends should be respected , or that there should be a Tongue used at all . For it is not God but Man that is immediately respected in the Words ( since there is no more need of Words to God , than of Words that are vulgarly understood ) and so it is not for him but Man , that this Tongue or that , or indeed that any Tongue at all is used . And if it be requisite that there be a Tongue and Words used in publick Worship , and which all persons present are supposed to joyn in , and receive benefit by ; then it is as necessary for the same reason to use Words significant and understood , as to use any Words at all . For , saith S. Austin , what doth the soundness of Speech profit , if not followed with the Understanding of the Hearer ? Seeing there is no reason at all for our speaking , if what we speak is not understood by them , for whom , that they might understand , we spoke at all . From what hath been said , we may be able to vindicate such Arguments of the Protestants for Divine Service in a known and vulgar Tongue , as were taken from the Ends of Worship , against the replyes made to them by their Adversaries of the Romish Church . As , 1. The Protestants argue in general , that the End of Divine Offices is for the Edification , Instruction and Consolation of the people ; but these Ends cannot be attained in a Tongue not understood by them . To this it is replyed , That the Proposition is false , because the chief end of Divine Offices is not the Instruction or Consolation of the people , but a Worship or Honour due to God. An Answer that became not so great a Man. For ( 1. ) He argues as if those Ends were opposed , which are not only consistent , as Principal and Subordinate , but also inseparable in the Case ; such are the Honour of God , and the Edification of the Church . ( 2. ) The Answer is not to the purpose , unless it could be proved , That either the Edification of the People , is no End of the Divine Offices ; or that the Worship is compleat , though that End be not respected or attained in them . But if it be an End , and the Service defective without that End be pursued ; then it is not , that this is a subordinate End , and the other a Principal , that will destroy the force of the Argument , and justify the use of an Unknown Tongue , when persons are not edified by it . 2. The Protestants argue in particular that there can no profit proceed to the Church from Prayers not understood . To this it is answered , That it is false , because the Prayer of the Church is not made to the people , but to God for the people . And so there is no need that the people understand , and it is sufficient if God understands . But ( 1. ) if this Argument hold , it will prove that which they do decline , and be a Reason as well for Private as Publick Prayers in an Unknown Tongue . For Private Prayer is also made to God , and by this way of reasoning it will follow , That it is sufficient that God understands it , though it is not understood by him that useth it . ( 2. ) Grant we to them what is not to be denied , That Prayer is not made to the people , but to God for the people : Yet grant they must and do to us , that , It is the offering up our Hearts , Wants and Desires to God , and is to excite us to the Love and Adoration of him . But if we cannot offer up our Hearts , Wants and Desires to God , nor be excited to the Love and Adoration of him , by what we do not understand ; then it is as necessary for us to understand , as it is to have those Qualifications when we pray . For both are supposed ; for that we pray , respects God , but that we speak in publick Prayer respects the Church . And though the principal End ( as they call it ) be regarded , and it be an Honour and Worship given to God : Yet if the less principal be neglected , and the Service is not ordered to the encrease of Faith , Love and Devotion in those that offer it ( as it cannot be where the Words , and so the things prayed for in those Words , are not understood ) it makes the Honour , said to be given to God , next to none : And it is much at one , whether there was no end at all propounded in Worship , or such an End , as through a defect in it shall render the service no better in it self , and no more acceptable to God , than if there were none . But of this more anon . II. I shall consider whether these Ends for which Divine Service is appointed , can be attained , when it is performed in a Tongue that is not understood ? The Apostle saith , That the Offices of Divine Worship are intended and should be ordered for the Edification of the Church , 1 Cor. 14. 4 , 5. That is , say the Rhemists , ( explaining that Phrase ) For increase of Faith , true Knowledge , and a good Life . But when this comes to be applyed to the Case of Divine Service administred in an unknown Tongue , they set aside the increase of Knowledge and Instruction , as if it were not concerned in it . So doth Bellarmin , who saith , Though the Minds of common people be not instructed by Service in an Unknown Tongue ; yet their affections are not without the benefit of it . If this Argument signifies any thing , it must be either because Divine Service is not a means appointed for our Instruction , and then he must thwart not only the Apostle ( who saith it is for Edification , and consequently for Instruction , a Branch of it ) but also their own Church in the Council of Trent , which saith , That the Mass doth contain great ▪ Instruction for the faithful . Or else he must say that the means of Instruction may be rendred ineffectual at the pleasure of the Church , ( as it is granted it is by being in an unknown Tongue ) and yet neither the Church be blamed , nor the Institution of such Means for such an End be disparaged , nor the Souls of Men receive any damage by the want of that Instruction , and the Means appointed for it . So that as far as Instruction is an end , and the Divine Service is a means for that End , it is granted that the keeping it in an Unknown Tongue doth defeat that end : For he saith , That the Minds of common people are not instructed by Service in an Vnknown Tongue . And now what an usurpation is this upon God , to withhold that Means that he has appointed , or to defeat the Means of that End that he hath appointed it for ? What an injury to the Souls of Men ? And how much accessary must that Church be to the Miscarriage and Damnation of such as perish for want of that Knowledge and Instruction the Service and Offices of the Church do contain , and they might receive from it ? But suppose that end be lost , and the peoples Minds be not instructed , yet their Affections are not without the benefit of it . This is spoken with a Caution and Reservation becoming one that saw farther into the consequences of what he said , than he cared to own . He saith at large , their Affections are not without the benefit of it : But how the Affections could be benefited , without the Mind is instructed ; or what the Benefit is which the Affections are not without , he is sparing to tell us . But however the Rhemists advance a little farther ; for they with no little confidence do determine , It is plain that such as pray in Latin , though they understand not what they say , do pray with as little tediousness , with as great Affection and Devotion , and oftentimes more than others , that pray in a Tongue they understand . The Cardinal told us , That the Affections are not without benefit , though the Mind be not instructed : But now it is to a Demonstration plain ( in these Men's account ) that not only the benefit is as great , as if people do understand , but oftentimes greater than if they did understand . So that what more self evident , than that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion ? But yet as plain as it is , the Saying is so downright a Contradiction to the common sense of Mankind , that I think a Man may venture as roundly to assert , that it is plain , a Man may see without Light , as that he may pray with Affection and Devotion , though he do not understand , and with as great as if he did : And he may with as good a Grace maintain , That the best way to see , is to put out the Light , as affirm with them , That such as pray in Latin , though they do not understand , oftentimes pray with more Affection and Devotion than they that do understand . But because this is asserted with so much confidence , and that , To say that people are not profited without they understand , is condemned not only as an erroneous , but wicked assertion ; I shall look back , and ( leaving the extravagancy of the latter as self-exposed ) consider whether the Affections are not without benefit , and that the Soul can be devout and affected , where the Understanding is not instructed , nor the Mind is concerned in the Service we are conversant in ? The resolution of which depends upon the consideration of the Soul of Man , and the several faculties of it . Concerning which it shall suffice to observe , 1. That in all reasonable and deliberate Acts , there is more or less so necessary a concurrence of the prime faculties of the Soul , viz. the Understanding , Will and Affections , that none of them can be said to be excluded . 2. That in all such Acts if the Understanding be not the leading faculty , and of such influence , that the others cannot act without it ( which must be supposed , for how can a person affect or choose what he doth not know ? ) Yet without that , the Acts cannot be termed reasonable . So Cassiodore , No body doth any thing wisely which he doth not understand . 3. That in the Acts of Religion , the presence of the understanding is as much required as in any other rational Acts whatsoever ; The renewing of the Mind being there the Spring of all spiritual Action ; and the whole called from thence a reasonable Service . And therefore if in other Cases the Affections cannot move or be profited without the help of the Understanding , then as little can it be supposed in Religion , and the Offices belonging to it , where the Understanding is Sonus Cordis , ( as S. Austin calls it , applying it to our purpose ) The note of the Heart . Now to say , That the Affections are not without profit , though the Mind be not instructed ; and that they that do not understand , do pray with as little tediousness , and as great Affection and Devotion as they that do understand ( not to repeat the rest of the stuff before cited ) is to say that the Affections have no dependance in Nature upon the Understanding ; or that Religion requires less of us than any other reasonable Acts whatsoever ; and that what we cannot do without being Lunaticks or Ideots in other matters , we may there creditably do , and speak , and act , as absurdly as we will , with allowance . But this kind of Doctrine is only to serve a turn , being fitted to those that are fitted for it , and to whom nothing can be absurd , which some Men say : For there are those amongst them cannot digest it ; and do determine otherwise . So Salmeron the Jesuit , If any one prayes privately , and the things prayed for are not understood by him , he wasts his time : So he that speaketh publickly in an Vnknown Tongue , which others do not understand , he doth yield no Fruit ; and then certainly others receive none . This the Council of Trent doth acknowledge , when it declares ( as abovesaid ) It seems not expedient to the Fathers , That the Mass be celebrated in the Vulgar Tongue : And presently adds , Lest the Sheep of Christ should hunger , and when the little ones ask bread , there is none to break to them ; The Holy Synod commands all that have the care of Souls , frequently , &c. to expound somewhat of it . So that they grant without such Explication , the Faithful may hunger and be without profit ; for what need would there be of Exposition , if the people may be as devout without it as with it ? I shall conclude this with that of S. Austin , We ought to understand , that we may sing with humane reason , not as it were with the Voice of Birds . For both Parrots , and Crows , and Pies , and the like , are often taught by Men to pronounce what they do not know — But to sing with understanding is granted by the Divine Will to mankind . So that according to him , if we set aside the Understanding , the Parrot of the Cardinal Ascanius , had it been taught the Lord's Prayer , or other Forms of Devotion , as well as the Creed , might have contended in competition with those that hear , and sing , and pray , with Words , without understanding . Since whatever Affection and Devotion is pretended to without Knowledge , is like a Vision of a Man 's own Heart , and not of Divine Illumination , that doth either proceed from Imagination or Imposture . But that we may not think this Assertion of theirs [ that there may be profit without understanding , and Devotion without knowledge ] to be unreasonable , they both produce Experience , and endeavour also to give a rational account of it . The former is appealed to by the Rhemists ; As for Edification , that is , for increase of Faith , true Knowledge , and a good Life , the experience of a few Years hath given all the World a full demonstration , whether our Fore-Fathers were not , &c as devout , as we are in all our Tongues , translations and English Prayers . And we are told , That the people know what is done in the general , to wit , That God is worshipped and honoured ; That the Priest prays to him ; That good things are asked of him for the people ; and thanks given to him , that the memory of Christ and his Passion are celebrated , and the Sacrifice offered to God. This no Clown is ignorant of ; and this is enough . This is somewhat like the course taken by Socrates , that said , He only pray'd in general , because what particular things were good for him , the Gods knew better than himself . But whether this be done among them , with as much reason ; and whether with any respect to our Religion , and the several Offices of it , is now to be consider'd . For our satisfaction herein we may observe , I. They grant , That the people can and do understand no more by their Service than the general intent , and Points of it . II. That the people cannot apply these Generals to the particular Points of it . So the Rhemists ; The simple people are not bound to know to what Petition their part pertaineth , &c. It is enough that the people can tell this holy Oraison [ the Pater noster ] to be appointed to call upon God , &c. III. That no more is necessary ; and though they are to ask special things of God , yet it-is not needful to understand what , or how , or when , or if at all they are specially prayed for . For then they would understand the specials . But now this state of the Case will not solve the Point . For , I. This is contrary to the Apostle , who doth maintain , That as the publick Service of God is to be ordered so , as to be for the edification of the Church ; so the Church cannot be edified , without the Offices are administred in a Tongue that shall as distinctly and particularly signifie and point to the thing thereby to be expressed , as a Trumpet or the like Instrument doth give notice by a distinction of Sounds , when to advance or retreat , when to fight and when to forbear . And that every person , the unlearned as well as the learned , may know how to apply his Amen thereunto ; but which he can no more do without understanding the Tongue , than He can know what motion or posture he is to observe that hath the Trumpet sounding to him without any distinction , and whose Sounds and Notes being confounded , give no direction to those that are to be guided by it . So Aquinas , How shall he say Amen , when he knows not what is pray'd for ; because he cannot understand , Quid boni dicas , nisi quod benedicas ; What good thou sayest , except that thou dost bless ? II. The nature of the thing is against it . For as the Offices are various , and distinguished by their Ends and Uses ; and we cannot attain those Ends , nor make use of those Offices , without the understanding of those Ends and Uses : So there are particular things respected in those Offices , which unless we also respect , we lose the benefit of them ; but that we cannot do without a particular knowledge of them . As for example , the Romish Catechism faith , That Prayer is the Interpreter of the Soul , and is directed to God or the Saints . That therein Men do confess their sins , and pray for the pardon of them ; that they beg for others and themselves things Temporal , Spiritual and Eternal ; that therein also they give Thanks for whatever good they have received , and do enjoy . Now as these things are of different kinds , so according to their kind they require different dispositions , and so what are suitable to the one will not be suitable to the other . But if the knowledge be only general , that cannot produce special dispositions ; and he that ventures to be particular therein , may rejoyce and give Thanks when he is to mourn and confess ; may mind Earthly things when the Prayer is for Heavenly ; may imprecate when he should bless ; and instead of Ora pro nobis , may say Miserere nobis , that is , make a Saint to be God , and apply that to the Officer of the Court of Heaven , which he should address only to the Judge . He may be all the while in a posture of contradiction to the Church , and have his dispositions so little suited to the solemnities of it , that the Priests may say to such , with some little variation , in the Words of the Gospel , We have piped unto you , and ye have mourned ; we have mourned unto you , and ye have danced . So that unless they will say , There are no need of particular dispositions , according to the kinds , and special uses of the Offices of Religion , they must say , That Service in an Unknown Tongue , is not for the edification of the Church . So Aquinas again , He who doth hear and not understand , is not edified as far as he understands not , although he undestand it in general . III. If this were true , That a confused general knowledge is sufficient , yet this will not help them , or justifie them in the use of an Unknown Tongue : For even the general knowledge they pretend to , doth not proceed from the Tongue ( for that they understand not ) but is obtained some other way , that is by some actions and Postures , some particular Words and Phrases , some Ceremonies and Signals given in the administration of their Service : And which would signifie as much for the most part without the Tongue and Words , as with the Tongue that is not understood . IV. I shall add , That whereas they pretend experience in the case , and which for the present we shall not so far question , as utterly to deny , but that there may be , and is some Devotion amongst the ignorant sort of them ; yet so far as this Devotion of theirs is real , it must be because of somewhat understood , but so far as it is without Instruction , so far unquestionably it proceeds only from the imagination ; and if it rises from no better or higher a cause , whatsoever semblance it may have of Devotion , yet it hath no right to that Character . I shall make this clear by an instance or two . Not many years since , in a certain City of Brabant , there was for ornament a large Statue erected at a Conduit near the Market-place , to which the Country people as they passed to and fro , did often pay their Devotions ( not discerning any difference betwixt that and an image of a Saint ) so much to the publick scandal , that ( to prevent any such mistake for the future ) it was by command transformed into a little Boy , with a change also of the posture . Now if we would enquire into this Devotion , it is much what the same we are discoursing of . There wanted not an inward disposition , that inclined the people to it ; there wanted not outward expressions , for they bowed before it , kissed the Feet of it , said their Pater nosters , &c. before it , and all with as much Devotion , as if it had been the Image of S. Roch , or S. Sebastian , or S. Michael himself ( the Protector and Patron of the place ) . And yet all this being applyed to a common , and not a religious Object , and being only the Fruit of Imagination and not of Instruction , it deserved another name than Devotion , and was not so accounted by themselves . And now , why what is given , suppose to a right Object , but without knowledge , should not be equivalent to the other , that was intended to a right , but was addressed , by mistake , to a wrong , is not easie to discern ? Furthermore , Let us suppose a Case , A person being beforehand possessed with a report of certain persons met together upon a design of Conjuration , comes to the place , and finds the Company there assembled ; and hearing all that they say , performed in a Language he understands not , he presently is seized with a pannick fear , and is every moment in expectation of the foul Fiend's appearance at their Summons , but is all this while abused , and under a mistake , for the persons were there met for Religious Worship , and so the ground of his fear imaginary . On the other hand , a person comes into a place , where he finds several met together , who using much the like postures as if they were at their Devotions , and also Words he understands not , but what for ought he knows , are the same that are used in the Church Service , he falls upon his Knees , pulls out his Beads , says an Ave Maria , or Pater noster , or what he has been used to in that kind . And now can there be any reason after all to conclude , That this Mans Devotion arose from any other cause than the others Fear , and that both did not proceed from the imagination ? And can there be any reason to think , that what proceeds from such a cause , is fit to be Sainted , and be entitled to the name of true Piety and Devotion ? So that to talk of Devotion without Instruction , or Instruction sufficient to create it , is to talk against the sense of Mankind , in which there may be , for ought I see , as much of mystery , but no more sense than in the wonted saying of Anthony of Padua , produced by Bellarmin on this occasion , That is a perfect Prayer , in which the mind is so swallowed up into God , that it doth not understand its own Words . In this they agree , that in both Cases the Words and the Understanding are separated , but in this they differ , That His Understanding was ( as it seems ) beyond the Words ; but in our Case the Words are beyond the Understanding . In both there is no need of Words , and where they are used , they cannot be the means of Devotion ; which is no more to be found without the understanding , than the Understanding can be , can attend , or be moved by Words that it hath no knowledge of . So that let them either take away the Words altogether , and use no Tongue in their Service , and turn all into mummery and pageantry : Or else let them use such Words as will stir up religious Affections in the faithful , and answer the End for which they are used in publick ( as they confess ) ▪ For though we should be of the same mind with Bellarmin , That Instruction is not in the Sense , but in the Words ; yet how a Man can understand the sence contained in the Words , without understanding the Words containing the sence , is as hard to understand , as how we can be Religious and Devout , without understanding , and for we know not what . But to proceed to another Question . III. Let us consider , Whether the worship so performed , as to leave those Ends unattainable , will be accepted by God ? Divine Worship respects God as its Object , and so the End of it is the giving Honour to him by suitable Thoughts , Words and Actions ( as has been before observed ) but how that honour is to be given , as the nature of the thing , and Divine Institution are the Rule ; so when that Honour is given to him , the Ends , for which the Worship it self is appointed and the Offices of it do serve , must determine . And if these Ends are not respected , nor can be attained in the way of its ministration , we may be confident , That as the Worship is not then worthy of God , so it is not accepted by him . Now , As it has been already shewed what those Ends are , so it has been proved , that those Ends are not to be attained , where the Service is not in a Tongue known to the people , and so consequently will not be accepted by God. And for this we have the judgment of the Romish Church , when they discourse practically upon this Argument , and without respect to the controversie before us . Of this I shall give an instance in Prayer , ( a point most of all insisted upon ) of which it is said in general in the Romish Catechism , That it is of special concernment after what manner we pray ; for although Prayer be a saving good , yet unless it be rightly performed , it doth not profit . And elsewhere they insist upon several things that render our Prayers ineffectual , as the ignorance of what we pray for ; and the want of attention or assent to what we pray , &c. And certainly if the Prayer without these Ends be not acceptable to God , then such a ministration of it , as renders those Ends unattainable , cannot be lawful to us , or be thought approved by him . But how well and truly soever they speak in a case remote from Controversie , yet when they come to controvert the Point in hand , they do in effect unsay all that they have said ; and then the Prayers used in the Church , though not at all understood by the people , are magnified for their use and benefit to Man , and for their acceptance with God. Thus the Rhemists , We doubt not but it is acceptable to God , and available to all necessities , and more agreeable to the use of all Christian people to pray in Latin than in the Vulgar , though every one in particular , understandeth not what he saith . And ( saith Cardinal Hosius , ) When done to give honour to God , it is acceptable to him , and no understanding of Words can be compared to it . To say that our Prayers are hindred of their vertue through ignorance or want of attention , &c. And that they be acceptable to God , though we understand not what we say , are things irreconcileable . But setting aside the contradiction in it , they are not without some pretences to prove that the efficacy of the Divine Offices doth not depend upon the peoples understanding them . Now I might ease my self of these kind of Pleas , because they suppose that which has been already disproved , viz. That the affections can be benefited without the understanding . But yet because they are frequently produced to prove as well the no necessity of Service in a Vulgar Tongue , and the lawfulness of having it in an Unknown Tongue , as that a Service of that kind is acceptable to God , and efficacious to the people , I shall before I conclude this Head ( to which they more peculiarly belong ) take them into consideration . Now their Arguments are taken partly from Scripture , and partly from some cases supposed to be parallel to this . Object . 1. They say , That the Children in the Temple , as well as the people cryed , Hosanna to the Son of David , Matth. 21. 16. whereas they understood not what they said : And yet this was our Saviour pleased with , and defended them in . But this is said with very little Reason : For Answ . 1. It is more probable that they did understand , than that they did not : Hosannah being a form of solemn acclamation ; and as easie to be understood by them in the signification ; so also in the application of it to Christ upon this occasion ; which , saith S. John 12. 17 , 18. was , Because the people had heard that he raised Lazarus . And whereas our Saviour applyes that of Babes and Sucklings to the case , that was not because these that cryed Hosannah were such , but that because God never wanted Instruments of his Glory , but could make use of such as were mean and unfit in themselves for it . 2. Supposing they did not understand , where is the consequence , that because young Childrens Prayers proceeding from the instinct of God's Spirit be acceptable to God , therefore the voices of other simple folk , now in the Church , though they themselves understand not what they say , be marvellous grateful to God , as the Rhemists say . As if an extraordinary case should be a Rule for us in an ordinary ; and that Prayers proceeding from Children , by the instinct of God's Spirit , and who were little less miraculously empowered to do it , than the Ass of Balaam ( if they were Sucklings , and such as could scarcely speak , as Ledesma would have it ) should teach us to choose what we do not understand . Or as if what was grateful to God from Children , who were in no capacity of doing better than following of others , though they did not understand , should excuse , nay recommend the Service of those that are in a capacity of understanding , and yet understand no more of what they offer to Almighty God in particular , than if they were Babes and Sucklings , and such as had no understanding . The Apostle in 1 Cor. 14. 20. doth upon this occasion exhort , Be not Children in understanding , so as to think God pleased with that which doth not benefit us ; or so as to think , That he who is so merciful as to accept according to what a Man hath , should also be so remiss as to accept him that bringeth not what he hath . That when God hath given us a Tongue and Understanding , we should be debarred of the use of both in his Worship and Service , and yet our Service and our selves be as well accepted , as if both were employed therein . Certainly what will avail , where there is no capacity , will not avail when there is a capacity ; and therefore it is a mean way of arguing , and will receive the same answer , That they that have no use of Reason , are truly and efficaciously baptized , and so there is no need of understanding ; and it would have confuted it self , if they had added , ( as they should ) therefore those that have 〈◊〉 understanding , may as lawfully act , and shall be as certainly accepted , though they use not that understanding , as if they did . Object . 2. Among the Jews the Prayers of the Priest , when he entred into the Holy of Holys , were accepted , though the people were without , Lev. 16. 17. and Luk. 1. 9 , 10. Therefore the Service of the Church may be so said , as all the people understand it not , and also be accepted . Answ . 1. It is acknowledged on both sides that the High Priest's entring into the Holy of Holies , was typical of Christ , and the Atonement made by him , and consequently what the people could not bear a part in . But since the people are concerned with the Priest in the Offices of our Religion , and are to set their Amen to it , there is no parity betwixt the case then and the case now . 2. How is this a proof that they had their Service in an Unknown Tongue ? Or if they were to have it in a Known Tongue , how can they infer , That the High Priest might have used an Unknown Tongue , when praying with the people , and that this should have been as acceptable to God , and as beneficial to them , as if it had been understood ? Obj. 3. But they say , it proves thus much , That Prayers though made for them , that do not hear or are absent , are effectual ; and then why not as well for them that do not understand them though present ? This is an Argument they much insist upon . But , 1. If this were of any force , then we need no more to pray for our selves , because others pray for us , than we are not bound to understand what we pray , because thosethat pray for us do understand . 2. The Dispute is not , Whether persons in some cases may not be benefited by the Prayers of others , though they do not understand them , as when the Church prays for the absent as well as the present , and Christ in Heaven intercedes with success for his Church here , and those that are present pray for Children , Lunaticks , and delirous : But whether such Prayers are acceptable to God , which a person himself is obliged to joyn in , and yet so little understands , as he knows not what he prays for , whether for himself or others ; nor can be certain whether indeed he prays at all . Monica prayed for her Son Austin with that Fervour and Devotion , with such passion and continuance , that S. Ambrose told her , It was impossible a Son of such Prayers and Tears should miscarry : But if she had prayed in a Language she understood not , she would not have known what she prayed for , and she would then have found no Tears for her Prayers ; or if she had had Prayers and Tears , they had both been lost with her Son. And although the Priest be a publick person , and offers up our Prayers to God , yet this doth not at all exclude the faithful from a share in them : And therefore as the Priest is the Mouth of the Congregation , and as such , he must use a Tongue the Congregation understands : So the Congregation is to attend to him , and to give their Amen , and Assent to what he in their name offers to God : And he is neither Priest nor Mouth to them , if he prevents them in their part , and renders them uncapable of bearing a part in it , by using a Tongue they understand not . And therefore it 's as necessary the Congregation should understand as the Priest , and if he do otherwise , he can no more justifie himself , than if he did celebrate the Service in a Tongue he himself knew nothing of , and which neither the one nor the other did understand . So that upon the whole , we have reason to conclude with Sanders , That an Vnknown Tongue is not profitable for the people ; though he will not allow it for that Reason to be unlawful . And that is the thing I shall now particularly enquire into , by considering , IV. Whether from the Apostle's Discourse upon this Argument , it can be reasonably concluded , That Divine Service so administred , as not to be understood of the people , is unlawful ? In the Apostle's Discourse upon this Argument , 1 Cor. 14. there are two things agreed in betwixt the contending parties . I. That the Service of God is so to be ordered , as may be for the edification of the Church , v. 4 , 5 , 12. And that what is inconsistent with the general , much more the universal Edification of it , is not to be allowed . II. That an Unknown Tongue in such Assemblies and Offices as the Apostle speaks of , is inconsistent with , and cannot be for the publick Edification , v. 2 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 16. But though it be thus far agreed , yet they afterwards divide upon it from the Protestants . For , 1. Some of the Church of Rome do say , That it is evident from this place of Scripture , that a Vulgar and Known Tongue was not used in those days in Publick Worship . 2. That if so be such was then used , yet the Apostle doth not forbid the use of an Unknown Tongue in it . The first do wholly found what they have to say , upon Verse 16. How shall he that occupieth the room of the Vnlearned [ or Idiot ] say Amen , at thy giving of Thanks ? This shews [ say they ] that such giving of Thanks was not accustomed to be made in the Vulgar Tongue ; for had the Service been in the Vulgar , there needed no Man to have supplyed the place of the Idiot . This at first sight may seem a pretty Argument to one that understands no more than Latin and English ; but the mischief of it is , that it 's not true . Of this mind is Bellarmin , &c. who saith , 1. That the Greek Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , according to the use of that Tongue , doth not signifie one that is in the stead of an Idiot or unlearned , but thereby are meant all rude unlearned Men. So Chrysostom and Theophylact expound it , &c. 2. There was no such custom in Apostolical times , and long after , of one to answer in the place of the Vulgar ; but that the people were wont to answer , as is evident from Justin Martyr , &c. After this Argument has been so clearly relinquished , it might have been omitted by us , had it not been re-assumed with no little assurance and triumph by others since Bellarmin's time . II. Those among them that do quit this , yet hold that the Apostle doth not forbid a Tongue so unknown , as the Latin is now , in Divine Worship . And for this they offer several Arguments , which will be all comprehended , and I conceive cleared , by considering , 1. What is meant by the Unknown Tongue , which the Apostle condemns ? 2. What by the Assemblies , in which such an Unknown Tongue is forbid ? 3. What by the Service used in those Assemblies ? 4. How far the Apostle's Prohibition is to be extended ? Quest . 1. As to the first . They say , That the Tongues condemned were miraculous and extraordinarily infused , but what they plead for is acquired and learnt . A. But supposing the Tongues were miraculous ; yet what is this to the case in Hand , when they were not condemned for being miraculous ( for as such they were Gifts from God and Signs to Men ) but as they were abused , and used neither to the Glory of God , nor the Edification of the Church . And by parity of reason , every Unknown Tongue , as well what is acquired as infused , is condemned also . The Miraculous Tongue was forbidden , when it did not profit , when it was a speaking to the air , when he that spoke was a Barbarian to him that heard , and when he that heard could not say Amen to him that spoke , Verse 2 , 9 , 11 , 16. And if a Tongue acquired be as much unknown as a Tongue infused , the Reasons being common to both , the one is as much prohibited in those circumstances as the other . Nay , according to their way of arguing , it will follow , That if Tongues miraculously infused , which were a sign to them that believed not , might not be used in the Cases abovesaid , then much less may such as are acquired , by Education and other humane wayes . But they say farther , That the Apostle speaks of a Tongue which no one understands in the whole Church , but not of that which is understood by some , at least by him that officiates . But for this they offer no manner of proof , neither is there any . For ( 1. ) the Apostle speaks of such a Tongue as is not for the Edification of the Church ; but if some only understand it , those that do not understand , are no more edified by the understanding of the rest , than if none understood it . ( 2. ) There are two sorts of persons concerned , one that can say Amen , and another that cannot , whom the Apostle calls Vnlearned . But the Unlearned are as well ( as he saith ) to be respected as the Learned ; and the Unlearned being ordinarily more than the Learned ; it must consequently be such a Tongue which all or the most did understand that he pleads for ; and such a Tongue , which none or the fewest did understand , that he pleads against . Lastly , They say , The Apostle condemns a Barbarous Tongue , but not that which is understood by Learned and Civil people in every great City , as Hebrew , Greek and Latin. So the Rhemists . And we are further told , That all Tongues are Barbarous , except those three . But all this is spoken very precariously . For the Apostle excepts no Tongue , as a Tongue , from being barbarous . For that is barbarous with him that is not understood , whether it be Hebrew or Arabick , Greek or Scythian , Latin or Dalmatick . In this Sence Ovid took it , speaking of himself in Exile , amongst the Getae , Barbarus hic ego sum , quia non intelligor ulli : I am here a Barbarian , because I am not understood by any . And in this sense it is here taken by ancient Expositors . Thus S. Jerom , Every Speech which is not understood is barbarous . Thus S. Chrysostom , and indeed several also amongst themselves . So that upon the whole it is manifest , that the Apostle means by an Unknown Tongue , that which is not understood of the People . Quest . 2. What are the Assemblies in which the Apostle condemns the use of an Unknown Tongue ? The Champions of this Cause in the Church of Rome , do alledge , That much of the Chapter refers to Spiritual Conferences and collocutory Exercises then used in lesser Assemblies , which they endeavour to prove more especially from the Directions given by the Apostle , Verse 27 , &c. If we should grant that part of the Apostle's Discourse refers to such Conferences , yet what is this to that part of it that treats of Publick Worship ? Or indeed what is it to the purpose at all , when there were mostly the same Offices used in one as the other , and the same End prescribed to the use of them in both ? Those that do thus distinguish , have not ventured to tell us where the Apostle doth treat of the one , and where of the other : And it is evident that he applies his Argument of Edification to the whole , and then proceeds from one Office to another , from Prophesying to Praying , and Singing , if not also to the Lords Supper . Now where the End is common to all , without distinction , the means conducing to that End are in all alike to be observed . And if in those lesser Assemblies ( when they expounded , prayed or sung ) they were to use a Tongue known to the Assembly , because without so doing , the Ends of their so assembling would have been defeated , then certainly it was , if not more , yet at least as necessary , that the same order be observed when the whole Church came together into one place . Quest . What was the Service used in those Assemblies , and that was forbidden to be celebrated in an Unknown Tongue ? Some of the Church of Rome will understand it only of preaching ; and those that do grant it to respect Prayers , yet will have it understood of such Prayers as were inspired . But what though the Prayers were inspired , when they were to be uttered in a Tongue known to the Church , and were not to be used if they were not for the Edification of the Church ; as they were not if not understood ? And is not the Reason as full against Prayers not inspired , when they are not understood ? The Question is not about Prayers , inspired or not inspired ; but known and unknown ; according to which all the Offices of the Church are to be tryed , as to their lawfulness and expedience . But let the Prayers be as they will , yet say they , The Apostle treats of them occasionally only . Supposing this so to be , yet that is not to the purpose , for the Question is not whether the Apostle , treats so expresly of Prayer as of prophesying ; as whether the prohibition of an Unknown Tongue , and the Argument taken from the End of Divine Offices lie not as expresly against praying as prophesying in that way ? And whether the Words , If I pray in an Vnknown Tongue , my Spirit prayeth , but my understanding remaineth unfruitful , &c. v. 14 , 16. are not as plain as he that speaketh [ or prophesyeth ] in an Vnknown Tongue , speaketh not unto Men , &c. If the Prohibition be the same , and the reason of the prohibition be the same in both ; then it is not the being expresly or occasionally handled , that can make so vast a difference , as that the former shall be lawful , and the latter unlawful . Quest . 4. How far is the Apostle's prohibition to be extended ? This will be determined partly from what hath been before said , and partly from the current of the Apostle's Discourse , who as he lays down that general Rule , Let all things be done to Edifying ; so upon that principle , he prohibits the use of an Unknown Tongue , as inconsistent with it , Verse 14. If I pray in an Vnknown Tongue , my Spirit prayeth , but my understanding remaineth unfruitful . Where he doth not speak of a better and worse , and prefer that which is understood before that which is not ( as they would have it ) but he speaks of a good and bad ; and so doth absolutely condemn an Unknown Tongue for the unprofitableness of it . For , saith he , My Spirit prayeth , not the Affection , but the Spirit in the gift of an Unknown Tongue ( as many of the Antients , and some of themselves expound it ) But my understanding remaineth unfruitful , to my self , that is , if I do not understand it ; and to others , if they do not understand me , as the Apostle doth explain it , Verse 16. So that from the whole we may with good Reason conclude , That the administration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue is as unlawful as express Scripture can make it : And that after all their attempts to decline , pervert and overthrow it , the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians , remains in full force against the Opinion and Practice of the Church of Rome ; and is a sufficient Reason on their part , to keep the Scriptures in an Unknown Tongue , as long as their Service is , contrary to the Scripture , celebrated constantly in it . SECT . III. I shall enquire , Whether the celebrating Divine Service in a Tongue not understood of the people , hath been the antient Rite of every Church ? I. I shall consider whether it hath been an antient Rite ? II. Whether from the time of its having been a Rite , it hath been the Rite and Custom of every Church ? Both of these are affirmed by the Council of Trent . Qu. I. Whether it hath been an antient Rite ? Antient is a Term of an uncertain date , and seems to have been chosen by the Council upon mature deliberation ; lest peradventure if it had been determined , it might have been so late , as to be of no authority in it self ; or so early , as , for want of truth , it might have given a foul shock to its own Authority . But however , because nothing can be antienter than what is first , let us consider how Service was administred in Apostolical times , and so downwards , as much before the Council as any thing can be reasonably said to be antient by it . I have already accounted for the Apostle's sence in this matter , which Cassander calls ( after S. Chrysostome in loc . ) an Apostolical Command for Service in a Tongue understood of the people . And if we take a step lower , and so proceed , we shall find an uncontroulable Evidence for it , both as to the Judgment and Practice of the Church . In the first place ( setting aside the pretended Liturgies of S. James and S. Clement , which are however plainly for it , as is acknowledged ) is Justin Martyr , that flourished about 150 years after Christ , who relates , That after the Bishop had concluded his Prayer and giving of Thanks , all the people did assent to it with an Amen . Which they could not have done , as the Apostle and Fathers affirm , unless they understood what was prayed for . To this purpose doth Clemens Alexandrinus also write , who lived toward the close of the second Century . Origen , who lived about the middle of the third Century , saith , The Greek Christians in their Prayers used the Graecian , and the Romans used the Roman Words , and each prays and praises God in his own Tongue . And the Lord of all Tongues doth hear those that pray to him in all Tongues , &c. S. Cyprian at the same time , doth say , That the Mind in Prayer doth think of nothing else but what is prayed for . And therefore the Priest before Prayer doth prepare the Minds of the Brethren , by saying , Lift up your Hearts , that when the people doth answer , We lift them up unto the Lord , they may be admonished , that they ought to think of nothing but the Lord. For not the sound of the Voice , but the Mind must pray to the Lord. Dionysius Alexandrinus , that lived in the same Age , in a Letter to Xystus Bishop of Rome , doth write of a person that having been baptized by Hereticks , upon the hearing the Questions and Answers at the Baptism of the Orthodox , questioned his own Baptism . But saith he , we would not rebaptize him , because he had for a good while held Communion with us in the Eucharist , and had been present at our giving of Thanks , and answered , Amen . S. Basil , who flourished about the year 370 , putting the Question , How the Spirit prays , and the Mind is without Fruit ? answers , It is meant of those that pray in a Tongue unknown to them that hear . For when the Prayers are unknown to them that are present , the mind is without Fruit to him that prays , &c. And as to the Practice of the Church in the publick Service , he declares , That the people had the Psalms , Prophets and evangelical Commands : And when the Tongue sings , the Mind doth search out the sence of the things that are spoken . And he relates how the Christians used to spend the Night in Prayers , Confessions and Psalms ; one beginning , and the rest following . And that the noise of those that joyned in the Prayers , was like that of the Waves breaking against the Shoar . With him we have S. Ambrose agreeing ( that lived much about the same time ) who saith , It is evident that the Mind is ignorant , where the Tongue is not understood ; as some Latines that are wont to sing in Greek , being delighted with the sound of the Words , without understanding what they say . And again , the unskilful hearing what he doth not understand , knows not the conclusion of the Prayer , and doth not answer Amen , that is , it is true , that the Blessing may be confirmed . For by those is the confirmation of the Prayer fulfilled , that do answer Amen , &c. And he doth shew what an honour is given to God , what a reverence is derived upon our Religion , and how far it excells the Pagan , that he that hears understands , and that nothing is in the dark . And he saith , This is a symphony , when there is in the Church a concord of divers Ages and Vertues : that the Psalm is answered , and Amen said , &c. Toward the latter end of the same Century lived S. Chrysostome , who saith , That the people are much concerned in the Prayers , that they are common to them and the Priest ; that in the Sacrament , as the Priest prays for the people , so the people for the Priest . And that those Words and with thy Spirit , signifie nothing else — And what wonder is it , That in the Prayers the people do talk with the Priest ? And elsewhere he saith , That the Apostle shews that the people receive no little damage , when they cannot say Amen . To conclude , Bellarmin saith , That in the Liturgy which bears this Fathers name , the parts sung by the Priest , Deacon and People , are most plainly distinguished . To him let us add S. Jerom his cotemporary , who declares that at the Funeral of Paula in Jerusalem , the multitude did attend , and sung their Psalms in Hebrew , Greek , Latin and Syriack , according to the Nations they were of . And we are further told , That at Bethlem there resorted Gauls , Britains , Armenians , Indians , &c. and there were almost as many Choirs of Singers as of Countries ; of a different Tongue , but of one and the same Religion . And the same Father tells us , That at Rome the people sounded forth Amen , like to the noise of Thunder . Next let us consult S. Augustine , of the same time , who saith , That no body is edified by what he doth not understand . And , That the reason why the Priest lifts up his Voice in the Church when he prayeth , is not that God , but the people may hear and understand , and joyn with him . And that whereas the Bishops and Ministers of the Church were sometimes guilty of using barbarous and absurd Words that they should correct it that the people may most plainly understand , and say Amen . And elsewhere ( as has been quoted before ) exhorts that they be not as Parrots and Pies that say they know not what . Thus far our Authorities do proceed with little interruption . For Bellarmin doth grant , That not only in the times of the Apostles , all the people were wont to answer in Divine Offices ; but that the same was a long time after observed both in the Eastern and Western Church , as is evident from S. Chrysostome , S. Jerom , &c. Now having derived the Title thus far for above 400 years , we need not be much solicitous for what was introduced afterwards ; but yet for a farther confirmation , I shall add some Testimonies of a later date . Such is that known Edict of the Emperour Justinian ( who dyed Anno 565. ) in which it is thus enacted , We command all Bishops and Priests to celebrate the holy Oblation , and the Prayers in sacred Baptism , not in a low , but such a Voice , as may be heard by the people ; that thereby their Hearts may be raised up with greater Devotion , and Honour be given to God ; for so the Holy Apostle teacheth , in the first to the Corinthians , For if thou only bless with the Spirit , &c. To this I shall add that of Isidore Hispalensis , that lived in the end of the fifth Century , who saith , That it behoveth that when it is sung in the Church , that all do sing ; and when Prayers are offered , that all do pray ; and when there is reading , that all do read , and silence being made , that all hear . This is also agreeable to the former Opinion of the Church of Rome it self ; and for proof of which , what can we desire more than the Declarations of Popes and Councils ? and this we have . For we read of a permission given by the Pope to the Moravians , at the instance of Cyril ( who had converted them and other Nations of the Sclavonians ) to have Divine Service in their own Tongue ; and that he and the Conclave were induced to it ( when not a few did oppose it ) by a Voice from Heaven , that said , Let every Spirit praise the Lord , aud every Tongue confess to him , as Aeneas Sylvius , afterward Pope , relates . And Pope John the VIII . ( not long after , in Anno 880. ) writes thus to Sfento opulcer , a Prince of the Sclavonians , We command that the Praises and Works of our Lord Christ , be declared in the same [ Sclavonian ] Tongue . For we are admonished by sacred Writ , to praise the Lord , not only in three , but in all Tongues , saying , Praise the Lord all ye Nations , praise him all the people . And the Apostles filled with the Holy Ghost , spake in all Tongues . And S. Paul admonisheth Let every Tongue confess ; and in the first to the Corinthians , he doth sufficiently and plainly admonish us , that in speaking we should edifie the Church of God. Neither doth it hinder the Faith or Doctrine , to have the Mass sung , or the Gospel and Lessons well translated , read , or other divine Offices sung in the same Sclavonian Tongue ; because he who made the three principal Tongues , viz. Hebrew , Greek and Latin , made all to his praise , &c. And conformable to this is the Decree of the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. Anno 1215. that because in many parts , within the same City and Diocess , there are many people of different manners and Rites mixed together , but of one Faith , We therefore command that the Bishops of such Cities or Diocesses provide fit Men who shall celebrate Divine Offices , according to the diversity of Tongues and Rites , and administer the Sacraments . This may be further confirmed by the very ▪ Offices of the Church of Rome ; but this is sufficient to shew that the Church of Rome hath departed from Scripture , Antiquity , and it self , when it doth require that Divine Service be performed in a Tongue unknown to the people : and that it was never the opinion of the Fathers , nor any Church , nor even of the Church of Rome , that it is most expedient to have it so performed . So little was it then thought that religious things the less they are understood , the more they would be admired ; and that to preserve a reverence for them , and the people from dangerous errors , it is requisite to keep them from being understood . So little was it pleaded , that there are any Tongues sacred in themselves ; and that as the three upon the Cross of Christ , are to be preferred before others , and to exclude the rest ; so the Latin as next to the head of Christ , is the most venerable of the three . So little was it then thought that there is a certain kind of Divinity in Latin , and something more of Majesty , and fitter to stir up Devotion than in other Tongues . So little were they afraid , that Latin would be lost , if the Service were not kept in it ; or however , so little evident is it , that they valued the preservation of that Tongue above the Edification of the Church . Lastly , So little did they think of the expedience of having the Service in one common Tongue , as Latin , That Christians wherever they travel , may find the self same Service , and Priests may officiate in it as at home . As if for the sake of the few that travel , the many that stay at home should be left destitute , and for one Mans convenience , 10000. be exposed to eternal perdition . These are Arguments coined on purpose to defend the Cause , and so are peculiar to the Church that needs them . II. Let us consider , Whether from the time of its having been a Rite , it hath been the Rite of every Church . To this I shall only produce their own Confessions , for it is acknowledged that the Armenians , Aegyptians , Habassines , Muscovites and Sclavonians , have their Service in a Tongue known to the people . And their giving them the hard Names of Hereticks , Schismaticks and Barbarous , will not save the Council from being fallible , when it saith , It is the rite of every Church . But were there no such Churches in the World , that herein practised contrary to the Church of Rome , yet it would no more justifie her , than it can make that good which is evil , that expedient which is mischievous to the Church of God , or reconcile one part of the Council to the other , that when it hath declared , The Mass contains great instruction for the people , yet adds , That it is expedient and an approved Rite , that it be not celebrated in the Vulgar Tongue . But say they , this is granted , If there were no interpretation , but that is provided for by the Council , for it is ordered , That lest Christs sheep should hunger , all that have the care of Souls shall frequently expound , &c. And that we are now to consider . SECT . IV. Whether the Provision made by the Council of Trent , for having some part of the Mass expounded , be sufficient to countervail the mischief of having the whole celebrated in a Tongue not understood of the people , and to excuse the Church of Rome , in the injunction of it ? This is the last refuge they betake themselves to ; confessing that without an Interpretation S. Paul is against them , but with this , they plead , he is for them . But what shall we then think of the case in their Church at a time , when as the people could not understand , so the Priests could not interpret , and wanted both the gift , and had not acquired so much as the art of it ? What shall we think of their case , and their Church , that hath neither provided nor doth use such an Interpretation as the Apostle speaks of , but what differs as much from it in respect of the light it gives to the people , as both that and the Tongue they use , do in the way by which they are obtained ? If it were a translation , what a ludicrous thing would it be for a Church in its constant Service to take , suppose , the Lord's Prayer in pieces , and first pronounce it in Latin , and then in English ? But as they do not permit their Offices , not the Horae B. Virginis , Breviary , or Mass Book to be translated into a Vulgar Tongue : So the verbal translation of it , during the celebration of Mass , was never thought of by the Council , but was thereby condemned , as the cause and seedplot of many errors ; as we are informed in a Letter , wrote upon the occasion of Voisin's translation , by the whole Clergy of France , to Pope Alexander the Seventh . And whatsoever the Exposition did refer to ( let it be what it will ) yet it was not to the devotional Part , as Sanders declares ; who ( after he had pleaded that an Unknown Tongue with interpretation , was the perfect fulfilling of S. Pauls advice ) perceiving a difficulty behind , throws all off with this , If the Interpretation of Prayers be laid aside for a season , it is however not to be thought , that it is to be omitted for ever , &c. So that at most , no more was intended than a short exposition of some doctrinal Point or Ceremony ( which might as well be called an Exposition of the Breviary , or any other Book , containing much the same things , as the Missal ) And it is probable that so much as this also was never intended , which if ever , is very rarely practised amongst them . Insomuch as Ledesma saith , That the sence of the Council was , That the people should be instructed only by Sermons , Indeed they would rather have this go for an Argument , than dispute it . They do as the Irish by their Bogs , run over it lightly , for fear if they tread too hard , it will not support their cause but stifle it . And therefore they wheel off again , and then tell us , That it being a known set Form , in one set Language , those that are ignorant of it at first , need not continue so , but by due attention and diligence may arrive to a sufficient knowledge . As if the poor people are inexcusable , if they do not arrive to a sufficient knowledge of the Tongue ( which must be learned before the things ) without other helps than their own attention and diligence ; when the Priests and others are trained up to the knowledge and understanding of Latin by Rules , Masters , and frequent exercise . Surely they had the Mass in Latin , when the Learned themselves did not understand it , as Valla saith . They had the Mass in Latin , when the greatest part of the people did not understand it , as Faber relates . They had the Mass in Latin , when not only the people but the Priest and Deacons , rarely understood what they prayed , for as Billet , &c. confess . And where was then their attention and diligence , that to their lives end , either daily rehearsed it , or often heard it , and yet never understood it ? And is it not so still , when notwithstanding all the noise of Exposition , Manuals and Primers , &c. for the use of the Vulgar , yet ( setting aside some little Forms , and the Ceremonies of it ) they are so ignorant of the Contents of the Missal or Mass Book , that as to the matter of it , they know it not from the Breviary ; nor would know it from the Alcoran , if read in the same Tongue , alike pronounced , and the same falls and postures were used in the reading of it ? So that what more plain than the means they have provided is not sufficient for to instruct and edifie the people ; and that after all , they do hold this instruction unnecessary , and that the people are safe without it ? And this is the case , for it is generally resolved by their Casuists , both for Priest and People , that they do their duty and merit , when they say their Prayers , though they do not understand ; so Eckius , so Salmeron , &c. And if it were otherwise , very few would do their duty , when so very few do at all understand what they say , as Cardinal Tolet doth determine . So indulgent are they ; and very reasonable is it that they should be so , that when they have put out the peoples Eyes , they should take good care to make the way broad and smooth for them . But in good earnest , can we think this way as safe as it is broad , and that there is no Ditch into which both Priest and People , if alike blind , may fall and perish ? And if there be , must not the case of that people be very lamentable that are wholly left to the ability and sincerity of their Priest ? who if he wants the former , may , through ignorance , turn the most solemn part of their Service , as it happens , into Nonsense or Blasphemy . And if he wants the latter may use a Spell for Prayer , and the antient charm of Abracadabra for Ave Maria ( as a learned person hath observed ) . Nay instead of baptizing in the sacred Name of the Father , &c. he may do by the person , as a Jew under the profession of a Priest , is said to have done by a certain Prince in the last Age , and baptize him in the horrid name of the Devil . There is then nothing so absurd or wicked , which , according to the case , may not be practised . And neither Prayers be Prayers , nor Sacraments Sacraments , nor persons Christians , as long as the Priest doth alone know , or neither Priest nor People understand . But supposing that there be no defect in either of these , and that the whole Service is faithfully and understandingly performed ; yet if the Tongue in which it is performed be not understood of the people , there can be no understanding of the sence contained in it ; and where the sence and matter is not understood , there cannot be ( as I have shewed ) those dispositions of Soul , that attention of Mind , that Faith which gives the Amen to our Prayers , &c. and which renders the Service acceptable to God and beneficial to our selves ; and consequently a service so contrived , as shall defeat those ends , is one of the greatest mischiefs that can befal a Church , and must render the Romish Church inexcusable in the injunction of it , and justifie those that have reformed it . SECT . V. We are come to enquire , Whether upon the whole , the Service of God ought not to be celebrated in a Tongne vulgarly understood ? The Church of Rome doth anathematize , and doom to Hell , those that hold a Vulgar Tongue necessary in Divine Service ; and doth both absolutely forbid their own Missal to be so translated , and persecute those that have so used it . And yet they cannot , dare not say it is unlawful in it self . For it is better to have it in the Vulgar than not at all ; saith one . It is matter of Discipline , saith a second . It hath been granted in some cases , is acknowledged by others . And it is most expedient to have it in the Vulgar , saith a fourth . And if so , why this diligent care to prevent and suppress it ? Why this out-cry against it ? Why this Severity ? What need of such Decrees and Anathemas of Councils ? What need such Commands of the Popes for Princes to oppose it with all their force ( as that of Gregory VII . to Vratislaus of Bohemia ) what reason is there for a general Convention of the Clergy of a Kingdom to proceed against a translation of their Missal ? When if we consult the ends for which the publick Service was instituted , if we consult the reason of the thing ; if we consult Scripture , or Fathers , or the practice of the Church for about seven hundred Years together , we shall find that it is not only expedient , but necessary to have it in a Tongue understood of the people , and that the Church of Rome that is so forward in its Anathema , is under a precedent , and greater one , even that of the Apostle , Whosoever shall preach any other Gospel , let him be Anathema . So that which is most to be respected , the Anathema of Heaven , or that of the Council ; the command of God , or a Decree of a Pope ; the Church of God in its best times , or the particular Church of Rome in latter Ages ; whether the edification of the Church of God , or the will and interest of a corrupted Church , is not difficult to conceive . And therefore we may end as we began , with the Church of England . It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God , and the custome of the Primitive Church , to have publick Prayers in the Church , or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the people . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A66394-e330 Article 24. Comment . in Eccles . 5. 1. In 1 Ep. Corinth . c. 14. Stapleton . Quaest . quodl . Quaest . 2. Sixtus Senens . Biblioth . l. 6. annot . 263. Portraiture of the Church of Jesus Christ , c. 14. Conc. Trid. Sess . 22. ● . 8. S. C. Answ . to Dr. Pierce , c. 15. Retento ubique cujusque Ecclesiae an . iquo ●itu . Sanctissimi hujus sacrificii aliquod mysterium . Canon 9. Collectio quorundam Author . &c. cum Dicretis , &c. 1661. De Script . Div. & Missae sacr . celebr . ling. vulg . c. 20. ● . 5. Ci● . pro Archi● . Hiero● . Tom. 9. l. 2. prooem . ad Galat. Tom. 3 praef . l. in pa●alip . Ledesma c. 33. L. Valla Eleg. praef . Ledesma , c. 3. 2. 7. L. 1. confess . c. 14. Retract . l. 1. c. 20. In Ps . 138. De verb. Apostol . Serm. 24. De Doctr. Christ . l. 2. c. 14 Ledesma , c. 9. n. 4 , 5 , 9. c. 20 n 2. Sanders orat . de Ling. Offic. Eccl. Ledesma , c. 9. n. 6. Lizettus de SS . in vulg . non vert . p. 51. Bellarm. de verbo , l. 2. c. 15. Orat. ut antea . Ledesma , c. 9. n. 1. c. 27. n. 9. Ledesma , c. 27. n. 9. Sanders orat . Bellarm. de verb. l. 2. c. 16. P. Sanctae not . in Epist . P. Molinaei , c. 17. n. 6. T. G. First reply to Dr. Stiling fleet , sect . 3. De verbo , l. 2. c. 16. Sect. obj . quart . Annot. 1 Cor. 14. p. 463. Censur . propos●t . Erasmi , prop. ● . Poncet discour . de L' Advis . ch . 1. Rhen. Annot. Part. 4. c. 2. Sect. 7. 8. De Doctr. Ch●ist . ● . 6. 16 Bellarm. de verbo , l. 2. c. 16. Sect. Obj. 4. Bellarm. ibid. Sect. Obj. 2. Ledesma , c. 13. n. 11. ut supra . Pag. 461. De verbo , l. 2. c. 16. Sect. Obj. 2. Sess . 22 c. 8. Annotat. in 1 Cor. 14. p. 462. Ledesma , c. 13. n. 13. Censura proposit . Erasmi , prop 5. In Psalm . 46. Rom. 12. 1 , 2. In Genes . Lit. L. c. 8. & in Ps . 99. In 1 Cor. 14. Exposit . in Psalm . 18. Rhodiginus , l. 3. c. 32. Jerem. 23. 16. Pag. 401. Hosius , p. 9. Ledesma , c. 21. n. 23. P. 463. 1 Cor. 14. 7 , 8 , 9 , 16. In 1 Cor. 14. Part. 4. c. 1. Sect. 3. c. 2. Sect. 2 , 4 , 10. c. 4. Sect. 3. 7. c. 6. Sect. 2. de orat . Domin . Catechis . c. 6. Sect. 3. Ibid. De verbo , l. 2. c. 16. Sect. Obj. 2. praeterea . Catechis . Trid. p. 4. c. 8. Sect. 3. De verbo . l. 2. c. 16. Sect. Object . 4. Part 4. c. 8. Sect. 1. Ibid. c. 2. Sect. 4 Annot in 1 Cor. 14. p. 462. Et Annot. in Mat. 21. 16. De ling. vernac . p. 9. Ledesma , c. 13. n. 1. Annot. in Matth. 21. 16. Bellarm. l. 2. de effectu Sacram. c. 32. Rhem. annot . p. 461. Ledesma , c. 13. n. 7. Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel , c. 52. Ledesma , ibid. Bellarm. de verb. l. 2. c. 16. Sect. Obj. 2. Ledesma , ● . 13. n. 13. Bellarm. ibid. Orat. de ling. Offic. Eccles . Ledesma , c. 27. n. 5 , &c. Sanders , orat . de lingua , &c. De verbo , l. 2. c. 16. Sect. alii ergo . Rhem. annot . p. 458. Marg. V. Petrae sanctae c. 17. ● . 5. Touchstone of the reformed Gospel , c. 52. p. 138. Ledesma , c. 26. Rhem. annot . p. 461. Bellarm. ibid. Sect. vera igitur . Sect. at objicies . Sect. in posteriore . S. C. p. 176. Annot. p. 461. Harding in Jewel . divis . 3. p. 116. Joh. Baptistae de Rubeis Rationale , l. 2. c. 9. Sanders orat . &c. In loc . Salmeron . Iyra in loc . Bellarm. c. 16. init . Rhemists annotat . p. 462. Bellarm. ibid. Sect. Vera igitur . Sect. ad hanc igitur . Rhemists annot . in 1 Cor. 14. 26. p. 460. Sanders orat . p. 64 , 66. Bellarm. Sect. in posteriore . Rhemists annot . p. 460. S. Chrysost . Homil. 35. Theophylact. Salmeron in loc . Hieren . in loc . De Offic. pii viri , p. 865. Salmeron in 1 Cor. 14. Sect. His igitur . Apolog. sub fin . Contra C●s . l. 8. p. 402. Cantabr . In orat . Dom. n. 22. Apad Euseb . Eccles . Hist . l. 7. c. 8. Tom. 2. Arg. brev . ●eg . 278. Tom. 1. in Psal . 28. Tom. 2. Epist . 63. Cler. Neocaes . Tom. 1. Hexameri . Hom. 4. sub fin . In 1 Cor. 14. v. Nam siora . ero . Ibid. Quis supplet locum . Ibid. Si a. omnes prophetant . Tom. 3. Comm. l. 7. in Lu● . 15. p. 169. Par. 1614. In 2 Cor. c. 8. Homil. 18. 〈◊〉 . In 1 Cor. 14. Hom. 35. L. 2. c. 16. Sect. idem etiam . v. Chrysost . Tom. 4. Par. 1621. Tom. 1. Epitap . Paulae ad Eusto●hium . E●ist . Paulae ad Marceilam . Tom. 10. prooem . 2. ad Galat. Tom. 3. in Genes . l. 12. c. 8. Lib. de Magis●ro c. 1 , & 7. De Catechis . rud . c. 9. In Psal . 18. C. 16. Sect. sed neque . Novel . 123. See this vindicated in Bishop Jewels reply to Harding's answ . p. 128. De Eccles . off . l. 1. c. 10. Aentas Sylvius Hist . Bohem. l. 1. c. 13. Anno 860. Concil . Tom. 24. Epist . 2. 7. Paris , 1644. Can. 9. Vid. Cassandei Liturg. c. 36. Epist . Cleri Gall. collect . p. 63. Epist . P. Alex. 7. in Collect. p. 69. Hosius , p. 64. Bellarm. Sect. Septimo . P. Sanct. c. 17. n. 3. E. W. Truth will out , p. 45 , 47. Boterus , c. 22. Portraiture , c. 14. p. 224. Bellarm. l 1. de missa , c. 11. Sanders orat . p. 72. Rhem. Annot. p. 461. Cassander . Liturgie . c. 11 , 13 , 15. Ledesma , c. 33. n. 5. Bellarm. c. 16. Sect. obj . ult . Salme on . in 1 Cor. 16. Sect. septimo . S. C. Answ . to D. Piece , ● . 175. Sanders orat . p. 63. Extract . ex regist . Facult . P●r. an . 1525. Collectio ▪ p. 8. Censurae , An. 1655 ▪ p. 18. Procez . contr . Voisin An. 1660. p. 55. &c. Epist . Cleri An. 1660. p. 62. Orat. &c. p. 63. Cap. 15. Sect. Decret . Con. Trid. n. 2. S. C. Answ . p. 176. Elegant . Praef. In 1 Cor 14. Cassand . Liturg . c. 36. Sixt. Senens . Biblioth . 6. Annot. 263. S. C. p. 176. Salmeron . in 1 Cor. 16. Disp . 3. Instruct . Sacerd . c. 13. n. 5 , & 6. D. Stillingfleet Answ . to T. G. c. 3. Sect. 3. B llarm . c. 16. sub fin . T. G against D. Stilingfleet , Sect 8. n. 3. p. 28. Ledesma , c. 33. n. 1. Cassander . de off . pii viri , p. 865. Art. 24.