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 <gap>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.