2. They fay, that our Savior Chrift allow'd the Childrens crying Hofanna to be praifing God, altho' they did not understand the meaning of that Hebrew word. But how will our Adverfaries prove, that the Children did not know what Hofanna fignify'd? It do's not appear, (as I fhall prove hereafter) but that the Jews were even at that time well acquainted with the Hebrew Language. However, fuppofe they neither did, nor cou'd fpeak it; 'tis plain, that Hofanna was an ufual form of Acclamation among the Jews and therefore I cannot imagin, why the Jewish Children might not understand that Word; as well as our Children, who are infinitely greater ftrangers to the Holy Tongue, do understand the Word Amen; fince the one has as much Hebrew in it, as the other.

3. They tell us, that the Jewish Church_per form'd their public Devotions in the Hebrew Language, even when they did not understand it ; viz. from the time of the Babylonish Captivity to that of our bleffed Lord. But this pretended example is built upon fuch principles, as our Adverfaries will find it very difficult to prove. For,

First, It fuppofes, that the Hebrew Tongue was utterly loft in the Babylonish Captivity whereas they have no fufficient argument to ground this Affertion upon. 'Tis true, Ezra the Priest brought the Law before the Congregation both of Men and Women, and thofe that cou'd understand, &c. and be read therein, &c. before the Men and the Women, and thofe that cou'd understand, &c. And the Levites caus'd the People to understand the Law, &c. So they read in the Book, in the Law of God, diftinctly, and gave the Senfe, and caus'd them to understand the eading, Nehem. 8. 2, 3, 7, 8. But it cannot be

concluded

concluded from this Chapter, that the People did not understand the Hebrew Language, in which the Law was written. For by thefe phrafes, all that cou'd hear with understanding, and those that cou'd understand, are meant, not fuch perfons as cou'd understand the Language in which the Law was written; but fuch as tho' they were not at the age of Men and Women, are able nevertheless to hear and understand their duty. These Perfons therefore, both Old and Young, were gather'd together to learn the Law; and the Levites caus'd the People, by reading diligently and diftinctly to them, to understand the Law; for they gave the Senfe, where 'twas difficult or doubtful; and caus'd them to understand the reading, or what was read to them, by a careful and exact expofition of it.

This being a natural and eafy Comment upon that Text, which is the only paffage that seems to favor the opinion of our Adverfaries, it plainly follows, that the Scriptures will not prove, that the Hebrew Language was utterly loft in the Babylonifh Captivity. 'Tis probable indeed, that by fo long continuance in a ftrange Land, the People might have learnt many forein words, and by that means have deftroy'd the purity of the Holy Tongue, wherein the Law was written: but it cannot be made appear, that the Language was fo much alter'd in the fhort space of 70 Years, as to become unintelligible to those who had formerly spoken it as their Mother Tongue. But if it were granted (tho' I believe 'twill never be prov'd) that the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue were almoft, or even utterly loft; yet,

Secondly, This pretended example of the Jewish Church fuppofes alfo, that the Priefts did not tranflate their Temple-Service for the benefit of

M 4

the

the Congregation. Whereas there is not the leaft fhadow of reafon for this Affertion; Nay, we have very good grounds to believe the contrary. For tho' they were very unwilling to communicate their Sacred Writings to other Nations; yet we have no cause to fufpect, that they wou'd keep their own People in Ignorance of their own Law, or that they wou'd lock up their public Prayers in an unknown Tongue. And therefore, fince the performance of public Prayers in an unknown Tongue is so very abfurd and impious a practice, as I have already fhewn; and fince God himself had deliver'd them their Prayers in a known Tongue, as appears by the Pfalms, &c. which were the folemn parts of the Jewish Devotion; therefore they cou'd not but think it to be God's Will, that their Prayers fhou'd be tranflated, if ever the People fhou'd chance to forget the Tongue in which they were firft Penn'd. Wherefore we ought in charity to believe, that they did thus tranflate them; efpecially fince we have not the leaft reafon to fufpect the contrary.

Thirdly, This pretended example fuppofes alfo, that if the Jewish Nation did not understand the Hebrew Language, and if their public Service were not tranflated; yet they were not guilty of fin in offering fuch ridiculous Service to their 'God, as Prayers in an unknown Tongue moft certainly are. But it will never be prov'd, that this was an innocent cuftom; nor do we efteem fuch a practice lefs culpable in the Jews, than in our Adverfaries of the Church of Rome. And therefore they must not hope to justify their crime, by fhewing that the Jews have committed the fame in former daies.

If it be said, that our Savior did not blame

the

the Jews for that practice, and that he therefore thought it innocent; I anfwer, 1. That if it were certain, that the Jews did ufe it, 'tis poffible our Savior might have blam'd them for it; altho' that paffage be not Recorded in Scripture. For the Scripture do's not Record every paffage of our Savior's Life; but fuch things only, as the Wif dom of God thought it convenient to tranfmit to Pofterity. And we defire our Adverfaries to fhew, if they can, that the Jews had no faults, but what ftand corrected by our Savior in the Hiftory of the Gofpel. 2. That I am the rather inclin'd to believe, that the Jews did not use it, because it do's not appear, that our Savior blam'd them for. it. However, we are by no means fure, that ever it was us'd; and therefore we cannot conclude from the filence of Scripture, that our Lord approv'd it. Nay, 3. Suppofe (against the dictates of common Senfe) that it was allowable in the Jews to pray in an Unknown Tongue; yet it is not allowable in us, who are fo plainly commanded by St. Paul to pray otherwife.

Well then; fince it do's not appear that the Jews did ever pray in an Unknown Tongue; or that it was an innocent action, if they did it ; certainly our Adverfaries cannot juftify themselves by the pretended example of the Jews. And therefore, fince our Adverfaries have not the leaft command or example, which can warrant the use of Prayers in an Unknown Tongue; and fince the words of St. Paul and the very nature of public Prayer do fo plainly require a known Tongue; I think I may fafely conclude, that the Scriptures do command us to perform public Prayers in a known Tongue. II. I am now to fhew, that the Church of Rome

do's

But it is fo very

do's tranfgrefs that command. notorious, that the Church of Rome do's ufe the Latin Tongue in her public Service, which tho' fome few may poffibly underftand, yet the far greater part of the Congregation knows nothing of; this, I fay, is fo very notorious, that I fhall not waft any more words upon it.

To conclude therefore, fince the Scriptures do command us to perform public Prayers in a known Tongue; 'tis plain, that the Popish Practice of performing public Prayers in an Unknown Tongue is forbidden in the Scriptures. And fince the Church of Rome requires all Men, upon pain of Damnation, to approve and ufe this forbidden practice; 'tis too too certain, that the Church of Rome do's in this, as well as other inftances, impofe fomething as neceffary to Salvation, which is forbidden by the Word of God.

TH

CHA P. XIII.

Of the Worship of Angels and Saints.

'HE laft Inftance which I fhall produce, of fomething impos'd by the Church of Rome as neceffary to Salvation, tho' 'tis forbidden by the Word of God, is their Doctrin concerning the Worship of Angels and Saints.

In the 20th Article of the Popish Creed we have these words, And I do likewife firmly believe, that the Saints Reigning together with Chrift are to be bonor'd and pray'd to. From hence it is apparent, that Saints (or holy Men departed this

life)