object for which Christians should assemble: By the same track of sentiment, they have been led to accommodate their offices, to the being used with or without the accompaniment of a sermon. It is not from the want of due esteem of the benefit of the latter, but from respect to the prominent importance of the other. For the same reason, the said Churches keep up the practice of the primitive Church, in regard to what were called her stationary days, in which her assem blies were held within the compass of the week. It is certainly the case, that there are a considerable propor tion of Christian people, who cannot conveniently, and who ought not to leave their worldly occupations, for a compliance with these intermediate occasions of del votion. On the other hand, there are in every populous vicinity, not a few who may profit by this mean of keeping alive the flame of devout affection. The present discussion affords a suitable occasion for intimating to such, the sense which the Church entertains on the subject of meetings held occasionally for prayer, and for the reading and the hearing of the holy Scriptures. Such meetings she sanctions and recommends; requir ing however that they be conducted in that spirit of sober and rational devotion, which is here supposed to breathe in all her institutions; and to be the same which inspired the religious exercises found in the Scriptures, and in what remains of the best ages of the Christian Church.

The importance thus attached by the Church to the devotional part of the publick service, should make it a ground of gratitude with her members, that they enjoy it in a known language; being in this particular relieved from a restraint, under which all Christendom was laid for many ages, and continuing on the far greater part of it to the present day. The subject is introduced in this place, because of the scantiness of the limits, which could be allowed to it in the lectures; while yet it seemed expedient to notice the only plausible defence offered, for the veil of an unknown tongue, thrown over the publick service of the Church.

The defence is, that in the time of our blessed Saviour, the service of the synagogue-which he attended -was not in Syriack or Chaldee, the language of the country, but in Hebrew, to which the Jews had become unaccustomed. On this it shall be remarked as follows: First, the fact is not here admitted; and secondly, if admitted, it would be irrelative to the case.

The fact is not admitted by the present writer; be. cause, while he is sensible of the imperfection of his means of information, in not having access to the Talmuds, and the Rabbinical writers, he finds their testimony otherwise reported, than in the position sometimes made, and here doubted of. According to the statement of that prodigy of learning, Dr. Lightfoot, on 1 Cor. xiv. 2, although the prayers generally were in Hebrew, there was after the discourse a prayer in the vulgar tongue, and the reason is given "because the common people were then present." And the very learned Joseph Basnage, in his history of the Jews, after speaking of the matter as a conjecture of an author of the name of Voisin, states as follows-" Maimonides, cited by him, says nothing relating to the subject. The Sanhedrim's decree, conformable to the Pope's decision concerning the language to be used in divine service, is chimerical, and there never was any such thing. The Jews do not all understand Hebrew, but they have the forms of prayer in the language they understand. There needs but a little use and custom to prevent their mistaking, and to answer amen with understanding, as St. Paul requires." What is here alluded to from the apostle, is presumptive evidence to the point; since he speaks of it as a matter of undeniable propriety, that the worshipper should give such a testimony of his assent; and yet takes for granted that it cannot be given, without an understanding of the prayer.

Cardinal Bona,* treating of this part of the subject, and defending the practice of his Church, says, that after * Rerum Lit. lib. i. cap. 5.

.

the disuse of the Hebrew in common, the people continued to use it, in singing the Psalms and reading the Scriptures. And he professes to give as the reason, that God would not have the Scripture changed, although the people changed their language. Here, although the Psalms are said to have been sung in Hebrew, it is not said, that all the prayers were in the same language; which would have been more to the purpose of the pious and learned cardinal, had he considered it as a fact. He omits to mention concerning reading the Scriptures, what all accounts agree in, that after the reading performed by one person, there was an interpretation by another of the passage read: a circumstance strongly illustrative of the different objects of the two different bodies; especially when it is considered, that the readings among the Jews were of the law and the prophets generally, and not a few select parts of them, as in the other instance.

But it is further here contended, that were the facts as stated on the other side, it is irrelative to the point: since it would still remain certain, that the apostles, in the planting of Churches, acted on the opposite principle, which ought therefore to govern. Had the pray. ers of the Jews contained erroneous matter; or had their being put up in stated forms been inconsistent with the nature of prayer; it may well be supposed, that they would not have been graced by the presence of the author of the better dispensation begun in him. But however he may have contemplated the pursuing of an opposite course in this his new economy; he may have seen it not unlawful to be a witness of an arrangement made under a preceding economy-"waxing old and ready to vanish away;"* and in the mean time,having its affairs ordered by a national magistracy, with which the said blessed Saviour had no commission to interfere.

That the Scriptures were read to the people in the vulgar tongue in the time of Justin, is evident *Heb. viii. 13.

from what he says, that after the reading, the president exhorted the people to the imitating of the examples and the following of the instructions which they had heard. If the Scriptures were so read, it could hardly have been otherwise in regard to the prayers; for which there would have been less excuse, in the circumstance of divine inditement. But Origen is more particular in this matter; for he testifies,† that "the Greeks and the Romans used their respective languages in their prayers; and so every one, in his own dialect, prayed to God and gave thanks, as he was able."

The less needs to be said in proof of this point; as the aforesaid cardinal distinctly states, that when Christianity was first preached and received in different nations, the Hebrew tongue, or the Greek, or the Latin was used, accordingly as one or another of them was prevalent in any country. But herein he discovers his prejudice, that he does not perceive the same reason to apply to every country and in every age. The reasons which he gives for the law of his Church in this particular, relates to the preservation of religion in its purity. This reason, acted on consistently, would go to the extent of requiring the Old Testament to be read in Hebrew, and the New in Greek; and would dispense with the Latin. Let it however be acknowledged, that there are literary reasons both of a classical and of a religious nature, for cultivating a knowledge of each of the three languages in question: those of a religious nature being the more to be regarded, on account of the pointed enmity to the cultivation of them, manifested by infidels of modern times; in which they are also joined by many persons, who are not aware of the motives and the tendency of the efforts of the others. Certainly, the cultivation of these languages ought to be an object with all lovers of literature; and should especially be held

覺 Apol. Thirlby, p. 96. + Contra Celsum. lib. 8.

in estimation with those, by whom the concerns of any religious communion are directed. But experience has shown, that each of the languages in question may be cultivated, without being made that of the prayers of the common people. If to the poor especially the gospel is to be preached; why should there be stopped up from them the channel of instruction, which is through the medium of evangelical prayers, set before them in the publick service; and on that account, the more likely to be impressive.

It is not here unknown, that what at first induced the continuing of the use of the Latin tongue in the Italian Churches, when it had ceased to be the common language of the people, was the variety of dialect prevailing after the irruption of the Northern nations; until, from the mixture of them, there arose what is now called the Italian. But it so happened, that what was thus began, proved a convenient engine of power in the hands of the growing greatness of the papacy. It became in time the mean of causing the rites of all the Churches to give way, to those of the Church which came gradually to be considered as the mother and the mistress of them all. Before that revolution, there were, for instance, the Ambrosian Liturgy-the Mosarabick, and the Gallican; subsisting through many ages in flourishing and famous Churches. They all at last submitted to the strong arm of the "Ordo Romanus:" And that this was effected in a great measure by the celebrating of the services in an unknown tongue, cannot be doubted of by any.