until the first Reformers discovered it, rubbed off the rust of it, and restored it to its original lustre.

What thing in the world was ever more astonishing than this uncharitable and cruel usage of the people in the Church of Rome? And can any one tell, which to wonder at most, the insolence of their superiors in imposing upon men this senseless way of serving God, or the patience, shall I call it, or rather stupidity of the people in enduring to be so intolerably abused?Why should reasonable creatures be treated at this rude and barbarous rate? As if they were unworthy to be acquainted with the will of God; and as if that which every man ought to do, were not fit for every man to know; as if the common people had only bodies to be present at the service of God, but no souls, or as if they were all distracted, and out of their wits, and it were a dangerous thing to let in the light upon them.

But to speak more distinctly, there are two things they are charged with, and which they are not able to deny their performing the public service of God in an unknown tongue, and depriving the people of the use of the Scriptures.

As for their performing the service of God in a tongue unknown to the people, I will begin with St. Paul, who, in the 14th chapter of the 1st Cor. shews the unreasonableness of this thing, and how contrary it is to the edification of Christians. His discourse is so plain and so well known, that it is unnecessary to insist upon it. Erasmus in his annotations upon this chapter, breaks out (as well he might) into admiration at the practice of the Church of Rome in his time. "Hac in re mirum quam mutata sit ecclesiæ consuetudo." It is wonderful, says he, how the custom of the Church is altered in this matter. St. Paul "had rather speak five words with understanding and

so as to teach others, than ten thousand in an unknown tongue." Why "does that Church doubt to follow so great an authority, or rather how does she so dissent from it ?"

As for the practice of the ancient Church, let Origin bear witness. "The Grecians," says he," in their prayers, use the Greek, and the Romans the Latin tongue; and so every one according to his language prayeth unto God and praiseth him as he is able."

And not only in Origin's time, but for more than the first six hundred years, the service of God was always performed in a known tongue. And this the learned men of their own tongue do not deny. Cardinal Cajetan, as Cassander tells us, said it was much better this custom was restored, and being reproved for saying so, he said he learned it from St. Paul. And Bellarmine himself confesses, that the Armenians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Russians, and others used their own language in their Liturgies in his time.

But it is otherwise now in the Church of Rome, and has been so for several ages: and it seems they lay great stress upon it, not only as a thing of great use, but necessity. For Gregory VII. Hildebrand of infernal memory, forbids Ladislaus, Prince of Bo hemia, to permit to the people the celebration of divine offices in the Sclavonian tongue; and commands him to oppose them with all his forces. It seems he thought it a cause worthy the fighting for, and that it was much better the people should have their throats cut, than suffered to understand their prayers.

Let us reason this matter a little calmly. Is it necessary for men to understand any thing they do in religion? And is not prayer one of the most sólemu parts of religion? And why then should not men understand their prayers as well as any thing else they do

in religion? Is it good that people should understand their private prayers? That we thank them they allow, and why not public as well? Is there less of religion in public prayers? Is God less honoured by them? Or, are we not as capable of being edified, and of having our hearts and affections moved and excited by them? Where then, lies the difference? The more one considers this, the more he will be at a loss what tolerable reason any man can give, why people should not understand their public devotions as well as their private? If men cannot heartily and devoutly pray alone, without understanding what they ask of God, no more, I contend, can they heartily "and devoutly join in the public prayers which are made by the Priests, without understanding what they are. If it be enough for the Priest to understand them, why should not the Priest only be present at them; unless the people do not meet to worship God, but only to wait upon the priest. But by saying the Priest understands them, it seems it is better some body should understand them than not; and why is not that which is good for the Priest good for the people?

Now, the true state of the controversy is, whether it be fit that the people should be edified in the service of God; and whether it be fit the Church should order things contrary to edification? For it is plain that the service of God in an unknown tongue is useless and unprofitable to the people; nay, it is evidently no public service of God when the Priest only understands it. For how can they be said to be public prayers if the people do not join in them? And how can they join in that they do not understand? And to what purpose are lessons of Scripture read, if people learn nothing by them? And how should they learn when they do not understand? This is, as if one should pretend to teach a man Greek out of an Ara

bic or Persian book of which he understands not one syllable.

As to their depriving the people of the use of the Holy Scriptures, our blessed Saviour exhorts the Jews" to search the Scriptures ;" and St. Paul charges the Christians, that "The word of God should dwell richly in them;" and the ancient Fathers of the Church do most earnestly recommend to the people the reading and study of the Scriptures; how comes the case now to be so altered? Sure the word of God is not changed; that certainly abides and continues the same for ever.

I cannot see what objections can be made against the people's reading the Scriptures which would not have held as well against the writing and publishing of them, at first, in a language understood by the people, as the Old Testament was by the Jews, and the Epistles of the Apostles by the Churches to whom they were written, and the Gospels both by Jews and Greeks. Were there no difficulties and obscurities then in the Scriptures capable of being wrested by the ignorant and unlearned? Were not people then liable to error, and was there no danger of heresy in those times? And yet these are their great objections against putting the Scriptures into the hands of the people.. Which is just like their arguing against giving the cup to the laity from the inconveniency of their beards, lest some of the consecrated wine should be spilled upon them ; as if errors and beards were inconveniencies lately sprung up in the world, and which mankind was not liable to in the first ages of Christianity.

But if there were the same dangers and inconveniencies in all ages, this reason makes against the publishing of the Scriptures to the people at first, as much as against permitting them the use of them now. And, certainly, if you pry into the matter all these objec

tions are against the Scripture itself; and that which the Church of Rome would find fault with, if it. durst, is that there should be no such book in the world; and that it should be in any body's hands,

*

So conscious are the Romish Prelates of the gross absurdity and the manifest folly of their own doctrine, and the plain contradictions that it bears in many of its articles to Scripture, and the clearest reason; that they dare not permit the meanest subjects of their church to look into the Scriptures, or make any enquiry or search into the articles of their faith, or trust a child of twelve years old without an oath to bind him firm to their superstitions.

It has been decreed by many of their councils, (see Binius's Collection of Councils, tom xi. part I p. 430, 693, 722, 724, and 725.) that all males at fourteen and females at twelve years of age, shall abjure all heresy extolling itself against the Holy Catholic Roman Church, and orthodox faith; and shall swear also, that they will hold the faith which the Roman Church teacheth and holds. This is determined by a council met at Toulouse in France, A. D. 1229. can. 12. By a council held at Beziers, A. D. 1246, can. 31. By a council held at Alby, can. 11, 12. Moreover, this oath, by the decrees of the council of Toulouse and Alby is to be renewed upon them every two years. And all that do come in and confess their heresy must take the same oath, saith the council of Beziers, can. 5..

All consuls, governors of castles, authorities and barons must be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abjure heretics, with the favourers and abbetters of them, saith the provincial council of Narbon, can. 15,

No layman, upon penalty of excommunication, must dispute publicly or privately touching the Catholic Faith, saith Nicholas III. Bullar, Rom. tom. i. p. 182.

No Layman must have any books of the Old or New Testament, except the Psaltery, the Breviary, and the hours of the blessed Virgin, (three New Testament Books of the Roman edition) any of which they must, by no means, have in the vulgar tongue, council of Toulouse, can, 14, council tom. xi. p. 430.

And so great is their aversion to the Bible, when translated into intelligible language, that on the 20th of April, 1544, the English Bible, at the instigation of the Romish Bishops, was publicly burnt in London by order of Queen Mary. And on the 25th of January, 1791, a Bible was found hanging at the gallows, in the island of St. Vincent.

Must not such unworthy arts and treatment give just reason to all considering persons to suspect the truth of that religion which is supported by oaths, abjurations, and the vilest calumnies; stopping men's mouths, and not permitting them to ask that reason of their faith which all men are obliged, by their Christianity, to be "in readiness to give to all that ask "it," 1 Pet. hii. 15., and by withholding of those Scriptures of the Old Testament, "which are able to make them wise unto salvation, 2 Tim. iii. 15, which, by the law of Moses were to be continually read unto, continually talked of by the people, Deut. vi. 7, to which they, by the Prophets, were advised to go, and by which they might pass judgment on those who spake unto them of religious matters, Isaiah viii. 20, which our Lord doth enjoin them both to hear and " search," John v. 39; as also his Apostles did, commending them who "from their youth had known," and who, upon occasion, "search the Scriptures, 2 Tim. iii. 15,” and also those of the New Testament which were purposely written in the plainest language of the world, Acts xvii. 11; that all might know them, and in great simplicity of speech, 2 Cor. xii; that they might understand them; and which were carefully left to be a rule of faith and manners to