of his mind be raised by words that signify nothing to his mind? Or if he doth understand them, why may he not as well raise his devotion with them, by reading them to himself alone, as by reading them out to the people, seeing by reading them to himself, he follows the Apostolic precept of suppressing his unknown tongue, and of "speaking only to himself and to God?" But if words are necessary in public prayers upon the people's account also, then it must be either to direct them what to pray for, or to unite their desires in the same petitions; neither of which can be performed by such words as they do not understand: so that I cannot apprehend of what use the reading or speaking the Latin prayers can be in a mere English auditory, (suppose) it is no more than breathing of so many empty sounds (that signify nothing) into the empty air, whilst the priests and people are mere barbarians to one another, that like two senseless echoes, speak and respond they know not what, and to no purpose. 4thly, The Scripture expressly declares praying in an unknown tongue to be contrary to the design and nature of religious worship; which being* "a reasonable service," requires that our rational faculties should closely attend to, and concur with it; for the life of divine worship consists in the internal acts of the mind, such as desire, and love, and hope, and fear, and reverence, &c. And unless these concur with the external significations of our worship (that is, our words and actions), and inform and animate them, it is all but a dead formality. But how is it possible for us to join these inward affections of our minds, with those outward significations of our worship, when we know not what they signify? How should I accompany my kneeling or prostration in prayer, with my inward awe and veneration, while I am perfectly ignorant of the meaning and signification of those gestures? And when I lift up my hands and eyes to heaven, how can I exert with it an inward aspiration of my soul to God, if I do not know that by the one I signify the other? In short, how is it possible for my mind, in any instance, either in fact or fiction, to join the thing signified with the sign, when I know not what the sign signifies? And as it is in actions in prayer, so it is in words, to which it is impossible for us to join those desires and hopes which they express and signify, if we do not know their signification. Whilst therefore men say their prayers in an unknown tongue, it is impossible for them to *Rom. xii. 1. join their affections with them; and whilst their affections are separate from them, they are so far from being acceptable prayers, that they are only so many empty sounds in the ears of God. And upon this very topic the Apostle himself disputes against praying in an unknown tongue, in the 15th and 16th verses of the aforecited chapter: "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit (or gift of tongues), and I will pray with the understanding also;" i. e. as he who hath not the gift of tongues is wont to pray, viz. in a language that he, and those who pray with him, understand. "I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit (or thy unknown tongue), how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned (or hath not thy gift), say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" Where the Apostle makes it necessary, in all public prayer, that he who is the mouth of the congregation, should pray, or at least interpret his prayer in the vulgar language of the people; and that for this reason, because, unless the people understand the language of his prayer, they are not capable of praying with him; and if they cannot pray in a language they do not understand, then an unknown tongue is utterly inconsistent with the nature of prayer. And hence, in the following verse (where he still pursues this reason), he supposes it necessary for those who are to join in the public service, "to be edified," i. e. (as it is notoriously evident from the whole context) to understand the sense and meaning of the words. This is the Apostle's own argument, and when once our adversaries have made it appear, that men may truly pray in a language unknown to them, for my part, I shall readily yield, that they have fairly baffled us and St. Paul together: but in the mean time this argument stands in force against them, in despite of all their cavils and evasions, which shall be considered in their proper place. 5thly, The Scripture makes praying in an unknown tongue utterly inconsistent with that joint concurrence of devotion that is required in public worship. That in all our public assemblies for divine worship, it is required that we should join our hearts and affections in the same confessions, petitions, and thanksgivings, is evident, as from sundry other arguments, so particularly from that response, Amen, which the people of God did always make at the close of their public prayers; by which they expressed the consent of their hearts and affections with those petitions and thanksgivings that were So in their public offered up in their public assemblies. imprecations upon themselves and others, the Jews were expressly commanded to respond Amen ;* and in the close of the psalm of praise which David offered to be sung by the choir in the temple, we are told, that "all the people said Amen, and praised the Lord;" and so also when Ezra, in a public assembly of the Jews, blessed the Lord the great God, it is said, that "all the people answered Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands." And this practice of theirs the Psalmist himself expressly orders and directs, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting, and let all the people say Amen."§ And accordingly we find this very practice continued in the Primitive Church; for so Justin Martyr|| tells us, that the people always concluded the Divine service with a solemn εὐφημία Αμὴν. By all which it is evident, that the people of God always esteemed themselves obliged to concur in their hearts and affections, and to make some expression of their concurrence with the public prayers, which, how is it possible for them to perform when those prayers are read to them in a language which they do not understand? How can their hearts follow, where their understandings cannot lead? And in short, how can they hope, desire, or give thanks for they know not what? Nay, and when they know not whether the words which they hear, contain a petition or a thanksgiving? And this is St. Paul's own argument, ver. 15, 16: “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." I do in your allow that you may lawfully use your gift of tongues public worship; but then you must be sure that you interpret your tongue, that so you may be intelligible to others, "else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?"¶ Where it is first implied, that the common people ought to say Amen; that is, to consent with their hearts and affections in the public prayers, and to express their consent in them. And, secondly, it is expressly asserted, that this they are not capable of performing, if they do not understand the language * Deut. xxvii. 15. Nehem. viii. 6. || Apol. 2. + 1 Chron. xvi. 36. § Psal. cvi. [48.] of their prayers; and if the unlearned Corinthians could not say Amen to those inspired prayers, for this reason, because they knew not what he who dictated and pronounced them, said; for the same reason, neither can the common people in the Roman Church say Amen to their Latin prayers, because they know as little what is said, when they are read to them. So that by expressing her public prayers in a language unknown to the people, the Church of Rome renders their duty of saying Amen to them impracticable. 66 6thly, The Scripture represents prayers in an unknown tongue as a great indecency in public worship: for what an extravagant spectacle would it seem to a stranger that knows nothing of the matter, to see a company of people assemble together, with a mighty appearance of devotion, only to see or hear a priest officiating to them in a form of words, of which neither they or he himself perhaps understands one syllable. Suppose that this stranger should go from one to another round the congregation, and ask them every one in their ear, "Good sir, you seem to be mightily concerned and affected with what yonder man in the gay garment is reading; for my part, I understand not one word that he says, I would fain know whether you do?" And suppose they should all of them answer, "No truly, friend, we understand no more than you.' But why then do you ejaculate your eyes, lift up your hands, and beat your breasts as if you did understand them?” "Why as for that, we can give no other reason, but that we believe they are very devout words, and it is an old fashion among us thus to behave ourselves whilst they are reading." What would this stranger think of these people? Would he not laugh at their simplicity, and be apt to suspect some flaw in their brain-pans? And yet just thus doth St. Paul represent the case, ver. 23: "If therefore the whole Church be come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" But why will they say so? Because those that come to your meeting, knowing that you meet upon a religious account, come with an intent to understand your way of worship, to hear what you pray for, and to learn what you teach; instead of which, you only fill their ears with a loud rattle of unintelligible sounds, which convey no other notion to their minds, but only this, that you are out of your wits, seeing, like so many madmen, you speak and hear without any end or aim for to what purpose can you speak, when : you do not speak to be understood? Or to what purpose can you hear, when you do not hear to understand? And if speaking in an unknown tongue was so great an indecency in those Corinthian assemblies, as that in St. Paul's opinion it represented them more like congregations of madmen than of worshippers; I doubt, if St. Paul had the censuring of the Latin worship in the Roman Churches, where, in most places, scarce one in five hundred understands it, it would hardly pass for a very reasonable service. 7thly, The Scripture declares an unknown tongue in divine service to be of no other use, but only to give evidence to the truth of the Christian religion, which use it serves not as it is acquired by natural means, but as it is miraculously infused; for the gift of tongues was one of those miracles by which God gave testimony to the truth of the Gospel, which it testified no otherwise than as all other miracles did, viz. as it was a sensible effect of the Divine power, and this is all the use that the Apostle allows it in the public exercise of religious worship, ver. 21, 22: "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord;" i. e. though I intend to speak unto them in a miraculous manner, viz. by inspiring those by whom I intend to speak with the miraculous gift of speaking unknown languages, yet still they will continue obstinate in their unbelief; from whence he infers in the next verse, "C Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; but prophecy serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe;" ie. the great end of speaking unknown languages in your religious assemblies is, that by this miraculous gift you may convince unbelievers of the truth of the religion you teach : but the gift of prophesying, or explaining to the people the holy Scripture in their vulgar language, serves for the edification of believers, and not for the conviction of infidels. Seeing therefore that the proper use of speaking in an unknown language in religious assemblies, was to give a miraculous attestation to the truth of Christianity; it thence necessarily follows, that when speaking an unknown language in our religious assemblies doth not serve this use, it serves no religious use at all; but the Latin tongue, as it is used in the religious assemblies of the Roman Church, can be no miraculous attestation of the Christian religion (unless you will suppose it a miracle for a Mass priest to understand it), and therefore it can |