AS the Apoſtles of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, and many other primitive miniſters of the Goſpel, were ſent forth with an extenſive commiſſion, to teach all nations, and gather them into the Chriſtian church, ſo they were endowed with power from on high, ſuited to the deſign of their miſſion. They were not only ſanctified to an eminent degree by the ſpecial grace of GOD; but alſo furniſhed with various extraordinary, and miraculous powers: among theſe was the gift of Tongues; which was an ability to ſpeak with eaſe, and propriety various languages, which they had not learned in the ordinary way of gaining the knowledge of them. Hereby two important ends were anſwered; one was this, that hereby they were enabled to teach and inſtruct the different nations, to which they were ſent, by ſpeaking to them intelligibly in their own native tongue—the other; that ſuch an inconteſtable miracle afforded ſtrong proof of their extraordinary miſſion, ſo that they might be juſtly regarded, as true meſſengers of the LORD OF HOSTS.

This gift of tongues appears to have been an abiding, permanent endowment, when once beſtowed: otherwiſe 'tis inconceivable how they could have been able to abuſe it, as many in the Corinthian church evidently did. They were unduly elated with this, and other miraculous gifts, and thence diſpoſed to make a vain oſtentation of it, by exerciſing it needleſsly in their worſhiping aſſemblies, where there was no occaſion for working a miracle, by ſpeaking in an unknown tongue, whereby the hearers received no inſtruction or edification.

For this the apoſtle very juſtly reproves them in this chapter, ſhewing them the unprofitableneſs, the great impropriety, and even abſurdity of ſuch a practice; obſerving to them, that the gift of tongues was intended to be a ſign to them that believe not, as other miracles were: and not to be uſed with thoſe, who had already believed, and profeſſed the Chriſtian Faith, and only needed farther inſtruction in the truths of the Goſpel, which they had embraced upon ſufficient evidence.

He leads them to conſider, that while any of them ſpake in the church, in a language not underſtood by the aſſembly, either in praying, ſinging or preaching, it was impoſſible they ſhould profit, or edify their hearers, who could not, under theſe circumſtances, bear any part in the worſhip, or ſay, Amen to their prayers, or thankſgiving, however juſt and pertinent they might otherwiſe be. Indeed the caſe was very plain. The apoſtle therefore declares to them, that altho' he had reaſon to acknowledge with gratitude to GOD, the gift of tongues, and his ability to ſpeak divers languages, more than all of them, anſwerable to his extenſive commiſſion, as the apoſtle of the Gentiles, yet he was far from an inclination to ſpend his time in a worſhiping aſſembly of profeſſing Chriſtians, in diſplaying theſe his gifts, without any advantage to the hearers; and affirms, under inſpiration, that in the church he had rather ſpeak five words with his underſtanding, that is, intelligibly, or in a known tongue, than ten thouſand words of gibberiſh, in an unknown language.

It is plain from the text, as well as ſeveral other paſſages in this chapter, that ſpeaking with the underſtanding intends ſpeaking intelligibly, or ſo as to be underſtood by the hearers, in direct oppoſition to ſpeaking in an unknown tongue. This is very evident from the reaſon here aſſigned by the apoſtle, viz. that by his voice he might teach others alſo, which he could not do by uttering ever ſo many pompous, unintelligible ſounds. The text clearly teaches us this DOCTRINE, That it is a matter of great importance, that all teaching or ſpeaking in the chriſtian church, ſhould be in the moſt plain intelligible manner, and not in an unknown tongue.

This is very forcibly expreſſed by the apoſtle's compariſon of five intelligible words, with ten thouſand unmeaning ſounds, or words of doubtful ſignification, and his giving the preference to the former. So that taking the expreſſion in literal exactneſs, it is above two thouſand times better to ſpeak intelligibly, than in an unknown tongue.

We may briefly conſider what is required in ſpeaking with the underſtanding, or intelligibly:— and offer a few conſiderations to ſhew the importance of it in the church.

I. We may briefly conſider, what is required in ſpeaking with the underſtanding, or intelligibly.

Now as this is directly oppoſed to ſpeaking in an unknown tongue; and as perſons may uſe a language unknown either to themſelves, or their hearers, or to both, in order to avoid each of theſe, it is neceſſary,

1. That thoſe who ſpeak in the church ſhould themſelves have as clear ideas, as may be, affixed to the words they uſe. I ſay, as clear ideas as may be, becauſe there are ſome ſublime Myſteries aſſerted in the ſacred Oracles, of which we can have but very imperfect and inadequate conceptions in the preſent ſtate—Such are the doctrines of the Trinity, the Union of the human and Divine Nature in the Perſon of the one MEDIATOR. Here we may have clear ideas of the truths aſſerted; altho' when we would attempt to illuſtrate the manner, in which theſe aſſertions are true, our conceptions muſt be very imperfect, by reaſon of the incomprehenſibleneſs of the ſubject, or our not having any thing in the ſenſible world, that bears any near reſemblance to it. But where the nature of ſubjects is ſuch, as bears any conſiderable proportion to the meaſure of our ſcanty intellectual capacities, we ſhould be careful to get the cleareſt ideas of them, when we attempt to ſpeak about them; and not deal out meer empty, unmeaning ſounds, without knowing what we intend. When perſons in ſpeaking thus, uſe words without any clear ideas affixed to them, they are chargeable with uſing an unknown tongue in a double ſenſe: for if they know not what they mean themſelves, 'tis certain their hearers cannot underſtand what their meaning is. This great abuſe of language is extremely common among the leſs thinking part of mankind, eſpecially when they converſe about things of a religious or moral nature. How common is it to hear them prattle out the words they have learnt, as Parrots do, without any clear, fixed meaning to them in their own minds? So that a more difficult queſtion can't be put to them, than to aſk them, what they mean. And it would be well, if there were leſs of this to be found in the diſcourſes of thoſe, who are under advantages for knowledge and learning, and make pretenſions to it.

This great miſchief in the uſe of language, ariſes very much from learning firſt the words uſed to convey the more complex ideas of moral and religious ſubjects, and reſting in the bare words, without taking due care and pains to get clear and determinate ideas annexed to them in their minds.

This is to be carefully avoided by all thoſe who ſpeak in the chriſtian church.

2. They ſhould ſpeak with propriety, or uſe words in the plain, generally received ſenſe, which eſtabliſhed cuſtom hath affixed to them.

Altho' words are mere arbitrary ſigns of our ideas, yet cuſtom fixes and determines their meaning. And he that would talk to others in a known tongue, muſt uſe them in the ſenſe, in which they are generally uſed and underſtood in that language; otherwiſe he is guilty of the groſs impropriety of calling darkneſs light, and light darkneſs. He may not affix to them a new and different ſenſe, and uſe them to ſignify this new meaning, unleſs he gives ſuitable notice of it, by defining the meaning of the terms he uſes. This is ſo plainly requiſite to ſpeaking intelligibly, that 'tis needleſs to enlarge upon it.

3. It is neceſſary, that thoſe who ſpeak in the chriſtian church, ſhould adapt their language and diſcourſes to the underſtanding and capacity of their hearers in general.

There will indeed be ſome in every chriſtian aſſembly of ſo low attainments in knowledge, as not to underſtand even plain diſcourſes. Theſe are to be taught and inſtructed more privately; as it is highly improper that the public teaching ſhould be brought down ſo low, as to be adapted, and as it were confined to a few ſuch, to the neglect and injury of a much greater number. The obſervation only intends, that all public teaching or inſtruction in the church ſhould be ſuited to the underſtanding and conception of the generality of the hearers, which may be done in our aſſemblies, without deſcending to a very low, groveling or puerile manner of diction. This great maſter of language, the apoſtle Paul, who alſo had the gift of divers tongues, commends himſelf to the Corinthians, as having uſed great plainneſs of ſpeech with them in his inſtructions, 2 Cor. iii. 12. This is highly neceſſary in all teaching, as it is the firſt and principal deſign of all ſpeaking, to communicate our ideas clearly to thoſe with whom we converſe. If therefore any perſons in public teaching indulge themſelves in the uſe of ſuch a ſublime ſtile, abounding with lengthy intricate periods, or frequently introduce abundance of ſuch hard words or lofty expreſſions, as are unintelligible to their hearers, they are guilty of a very unpardonable fault, and miſs the great end of edifying their hearers. For ſo far as the language uſed is unintelligible to them, it is an unknown tongue; and then it matters not, as to the important purpoſe of their inſtruction, whether it be Engliſh, or Hebrew. If any public teachers practiſe thus under the notion of excellency of language, or goodneſs and elegance of ſtile, they greatly miſs-judge as to the moſt eſſential quality of a good ſtile, which is intelligibleneſs, or perſpecuity. And if there be any, who affect the uſe of ſuch hard words, and ſcholaſtic phraſes with a view to gain the reputation of profound learning, among the common people, they are herein profoundly ſilly, and ridiculouſly vain. Such language thus uſed juſtly deſerves the title of high ſwelling words of vanity.

4. That they avoid, as much as poſſible, the uſe of ambiguous words, or thoſe of a double and doubtful meaning. There is a vaſt number of words in every copious language, to which men have annexed more meanings than one; and ſo they are uſed, and may be underſtood, in different ſenſes. And hence a perſon's uſing ſuch words doth not clearly determine, or ſatisfy the hearers, what the ſpeaker means by them, becauſe they are of doubtful ſignification. They are, as the apoſtle obſerves in the context, like a trumpet that gives an uncertain ſound, and ſo doth not certify the army, whether they are called to prepare for battle, or to retreat from the enemy. They are words not eaſy to be underſtood—they dont give ſuch a diſtinction in the ſound, i. e. do not convey ſuch a certain determinate meaning, as that it can be known, what is ſpoken, or intended by the ſpeaker. This is a defect, and imperfection neceſſarily attending human language in ſome meaſure; and therefore ought not to be increaſed and promoted; but to be avoided and remedied, as much as poſſible. This is juſtly complained of, as a fruitful ſource of much confuſion in diſcourſes, of great miſunderſtandings and diſputes in the world. And to affect this ambiguity of expreſſion in ſpeaking, is to affect one of the greateſt imperfections of language. This muſt be utterly unbecoming the character of a philoſopher, and much more beneath the character of a goſpel miniſter, a meſſenger of the Lord of Hoſts. And therefore thoſe who would ſpeak in the church with the underſtanding, ſhould carefully avoid it, as much as they can, and never uſe any expreſſions of a doubtful meaning in matters of religion, while they can find others more free from ambiguity, and which will more preciſely and determinately convey the ſentiments of their minds, and make known to their hearers the meſſages they bring from GOD. And the deſigned uſe of ſuch ambiguous expreſſions, when ſpeaking in the church, either in praying, preaching, or any other way of declaring to the church our ſentiments upon religious ſubjects, is evidently affecting to ſpeak in an unknown tongue, which is ſo plainly condemned by the Holy Ghoſt in the text. It would be very ſhocking indeed, to ſuppoſe that any miniſter, ſpeaking in the name of GOD, uſes ſuch doubtful ambiguous language, on deſign to conceal what he really takes to be the truth of GOD, revealed in his word. To ſuppoſe this, without ſtrong evidence, would be groſſly uncharitable; while it is the profeſſed deſign of the goſpel miniſtry clearly to lay open, and explain the great truths of the goſpel, and declare the whole counſel of GOD.

But if this be a defect ſo neceſſarily attending all languages, how can it be avoided in ſpeaking? I anſwer,

5. By uſing great care in defining and explaining our words, where there is any danger of a miſunderſtanding. For altho' this may not always abſolutely anſwer the deſired end, yet it is the moſt natural, and indeed the only poſſible remedy for this imperfection of language, as is very judiciouſly pointed out by Mr. Locke, and many others upon this ſubject. And if proper care be taken in this matter, we may conſiderably remedy this defect of language, convey our ideas with clearneſs, avoid the inconveniency, and abſurdity of ſpeaking in an unknown tongue. Nor will it be ordinarily neceſſary to ſpend much time in defining our words: it may therefore be eaſily done, and ought always to be carefully practiſed, when we apprehend there is any danger of being miſunderſtood; or whenever they that hear us deſire an explanation of the words we uſe. This is the great end, and advantage of all expoſitions on the ſcriptures by preaching or printing. The only pertinent deſign of all this muſt be to point out and explain the true ſenſe and meaning of ſcripture-expreſſions, which meaning is the Scripture itſelf, the object of faith, the word and truth of GOD, which liveth and abideth forever. This hath alſo been ever regarded, and aimed at, as one great end of thoſe human compoſures, called Confeſſions of Faith. They are only an open, plain, honeſt definition of what a church or perſon means by ſcripture-expreſſions; and their aſſent to them is only a declaration of their belief of the word of GOD, i. e. of the truths or propoſitions revealed in the word of GOD. And all this with a deſign to avoid the irrational practice of ſpeaking in the church in an unknown tongue. For in however plain and determinate language the holy Scriptures were firſt delivered, it is undeniably evident in fact they are got to be ambiguous, and of doubtful meaning in the mouths of profeſſing chriſtians: ſo that by the ſame ſcripture-expreſſion one will underſtand and mean one thing, and another will mean quite a different thing. This is not owing to any defect of the ſacred Scriptures, properly ſpeaking: but partly to the unavoidable imperfection of human language, which is the channel, wherein divine truths are conveyed to us, and more eſpecially to the perverſeneſs of men, who have been labouring from age to age to wreſt them from their true genuine meaning, as they were firſt given by Inſpiration of GOD. The expreſſions of Scripture having been monſtrouſly tortured and wreſted by various ſects of nominal chriſtians for ſeventeen hundred years, it is not in the leaſt ſtrange, that they are become ambiguous, by reaſon of the various different, and contrary ſenſes affixed to them by the many different ſects in the chriſtian world. Notwithſtanding this, the Scriptures indeed in the mouth of God, and as they are his language to us, are ſufficiently clear, plain and determinate in their meaning; ſo that by comparing ſcripture with ſcripture, the true ſenſe thereof may be diſcovered and determined in all important points by them that are honeſtly deſirous to know the truth, as it is in JESUS. So that this ambiguity of ſcripture-expreſſions doth not properly belong to the ſcriptures, conſidered as the word of God to us; but as theſe ſame expreſſions are uſed by men of contrary ſentiments, they are evidently become of uncertain, doubtful meaning in their mouths. And that this is true in fact, is demonſtrably evident from hence, that both Proteſtants and Papiſts will readily give their aſſent fully and plumply to the ſacred ſcriptures, while they differ as widely in their real belief concerning the true ſenſe of ſcripture, even in very eſſential points, as Heaven from Hell, or Light from Darkneſs. In what intelligible ſenſe can it be ſaid, that both theſe believe the ſcriptures, i. e. the truths which GOD hath revealed, concerning thoſe important points, wherein they ſo widely differ? The utmoſt that can be rationally underſtood, from their declaring their belief of the holy ſcriptures to be the word of GOD, is ſimply this, that they believe there is ſome ſenſe or other, which may be put upon theſe ſcripture-expreſſions, which ſenſe they believe to be true, and deſignedly revealed from GOD. What hath been here obſerved concerning Papiſts and Proteſtants, is well known to be true with regard to all the different ſects of chriſtians in the known world, however monſtrouſly erroneous, or diametrically contrary to each other, their religious ſentiments may be.

I mention theſe things to ſhew, that the expreſſions of ſcripture, both in the original languages, altho' they are words taught by the Holy Ghoſt, and alſo in our tranſlation of the Bible, however judiciouſly choſen by the tranſlators, are in fact come to be of a doubtful, uncertain meaning, in the mouths of men, and are therefore in a great meaſure an unknown tongue; or, to uſe the apoſtle's ſimile, are like a trumpet that gives an uncertain ſound. And certainly thoſe muſt be endowed with a very extraordinary diſcernment, who can be fully ſatisfied of the ſoundneſs of a perſon's Faith, by a declaration of his belief of the holy ſcriptures; or underſtand with clearneſs what a perſon means, when he ſpeaks in an unknown tongue. This is truly a very peculiar ſagacity, which is far from being common to men.

After what hath been here ſaid, it may ſeem the leſs ſtrange, that ſuch an ambiguity, or uncertainty of meaning ſhould have happened to the ſacred ſcriptures, as they are uſed by men, when we conſider a very notorious fact of a ſimilar nature, reſpecting the doctrinal articles of the church of England, which are very intelligibly expreſſed, and have been compiled but a few years, comparatively ſpeaking; and yet they are become ſo very ambiguous, and of ſuch uncertain meaning, by the dexterity and ſubtlety of learned expoſitors, that they are now underſtood by thouſands to mean almoſt any thing, or nothing, and are readily aſſented to, and ſubſcribed by huge multitudes of the Epiſcopal Clergy, who no more believe them in the true, natural, genuine ſenſe of the Compilers of them, than they believe the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, or the Infalibility of his burleſque Holineſs, the Biſhop of Rome. And when ever this comes to be evidently the caſe with a tranſlation of the Bible, or any other compoſition, uſed in ſpeaking in, or to the church, common ſenſe teaches the neceſſity of finding out words and expreſſions of a more certain, determinate ſignification, whereby we may intelligibly communicate our ideas, in order to avoid the abſurd conduct of ſpeaking in an unknown tongue.

To make this further evident, I proceed,

II. To offer a few conſiderations, ſhewing the importance of ſpeaking intelligibly in the chriſtian church, in oppoſition to the uſing of an unknown tongue.

It is the plain deſign and ſpirit of the text, together with the context, to aſſert and illuſtrate the preferableneſs, and ſo the importance of this Matter. The inſpired apoſtle was directed to write particularly to the Corinthian church upon this ſubject, and to reprove the public teachers therein for ſo groſs an error, as that of ſpeaking unintelligibly in the church, although they herein made uſe of a language miraculouſly given them of GOD, which might ſeem to furniſh them with ſome plauſible excuſe for the uſing of it in the church. And yet the practice was utterly to be condemned: the Apoſtle inſiſted upon plainneſs and intelligibleneſs of ſpeech; that they ſhould utter words eaſy to be underſtood; and not of a doubtful, ambiguous meaning, like the trumpet that gives an uncertain ſound. The expreſſion in the text to this purpoſe, is very forcible: as if the apoſtle had ſaid, You had almoſt as good be ſilent in the church, as to ſpeak in this unprofitable, trifling manner. The feweſt intelligible words, that can form a propoſition, upon any important ſubject of religion, are more advantageous, and convey more inſtruction to the church, than ten thouſand words of an unknown, or uncertain meaning. I will briefly obſerve,

1. The importance of it appears from hence, that the great end and deſign of all ſpeaking, is the communicating of our ideas, or the conveying of truth to others. When this end is not anſwered, or properly aimed at, ſpeaking is vain; and this noble gift of language, whereby GOD hath ſo much diſtinguiſhed, and raiſed the human race above the brutal creation, is ungratefully perverted and abuſed, and proſtituted to a very low and trifling purpoſe.

2. It is the only way, in which there can be any ſuch thing, as teaching or inſtruction in the chriſtian church.

The great deſign of the goſpel miniſtry, and of all ſpeaking in the church, is the edification of the body. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations. But what teaching or edification can there be, without the conveyance of knowledge or truth to the mind? Or how can theſe be conveyed by meer unmeaning, unintelligible, or uncertain ſounds? Some indeed may be ſo weak, as to feel very devoutly affected, and perhaps imagine themſelves extremely edified, only by the ſound of words, without any ideas or meaning to them; or only by a peculiarly modulated, ſanctimonious tone of the voice. And there is juſt reaſon to fear, that a great deal of thoſe high religious affections, viſible in ſome worſhiping aſſemblies, hath its riſe from no better cauſe, than meer ſound and noiſe, without the clear perception of any important, affecting truths preſented to the view of the mind. But all ſuch devotion, or ſuppoſed edification is juſt as worthleſs, and as far from any thing truly ſpiritual, as thoſe emotions of animal nature which are raiſed by the blaſt of a trumpet, the thunder of a drum, or the ſound of a violin. And the irrational practice of ſpeaking in the church, in an unknown tongue, or the dealing in ſounds, to the neglect of ſenſe, without any clear, determinate meaning, hath a powerful tendency to promote this kind of animal devotion, in which there is no religion at all. The apoſtle deſpiſes, and condemns all ſuch ſpeaking, as being deſtitute of any real inſtruction. He choſe on the contrary, to ſpeak with the underſtanding, for this important purpoſe, that by his voice he might teach others; not divert or amuſe them with empty noiſe. The ſincere milk of the word, i. e. pure goſpel truths, is the only food or nouriſhment, whereby Chriſtians can grow in grace, be truly edified, and make advances in a life of faith and holineſs. And if any perſons can be ſatisfied with meer uncertain ſounds, 'tis evident they feed upon the wind, almoſt in a literal ſenſe; and ſurely no ſolid growth can be expected from ſuch ſlender airy aliment.

3. The ſpeaking in an unknown tongue, or in ambiguous, doubtful terms, is a groſs affront to common ſenſe, and a manifeſt impoſition upon thoſe whom we pretend to teach.

It would certainly be taken ſo in the common, and civil affairs of life, to have an anſwer returned to a proper, pertinent queſtion, in an unknown language, or in words of ſuch uncertain ſignification, as leave juſt room to doubt the true meaning of him that anſwers. If a perſon, pretending to give a ſerious anſwer to a plain queſtion, does it in ſuch a manner, as doth not amount to a real anſwer, or a plain declaration of his meaning, we are obliged to look upon it as a meer evaſion, and impoſition: and if he refuſes to explain his meaning clearly, 'tis juſt the ſame as refuſing to give an anſwer. And if this would be juſtly reſented in the common affairs of life, it ſurely ought to be greatly diſliked, and avoided in the more weighty concerns of religion.

4. Speaking intelligibly in the church, is plainly required by that great principle of chriſtian morality, the doing to others, as we would have them do to us.

When we are ſpoken to, or addreſſed by others, eſpecially in matters of any conſiderable importance, we always chooſe to have it done in ſuch a manner, as that we may clearly underſtand what they intend. And if, while they make a ſhew of informing us by ſpeaking, they diſcover a deſign to conceal their true meaning from us, we directly judge, they really abuſe and mock us. And therefore, as we ſhould juſtly look upon this abuſive in others, we ought to avoid it in our dealings with them, and endeavour to let them know our meaning clearly and plainly, when we make a pretenſion to it. Hence,

5. This is abſolutely requiſite to the character of Integrity and Uprightneſs.

Without uprightneſs and godly ſincerity there can be no true religion. Without this moral honeſty, and integrity of heart, all pretenſions to it are vain. Lord, who ſhall abide in thy tabernacle, who ſhall abide in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteouſneſs, and ſpeaketh the truth in his heart. Pſal. xv. 1.2. Whenever therefore in preaching, or in any other method of ſpeaking in the church, we make a profeſſion of declaring the truth, or delivering our ſentiments upon the great ſubjects of religion, if we deſignedly endeavour to conceal our real ſentiments, or what we take to be the truth, by ſpeaking in an unknown tongue, or by uſing doubtful ambiguous expreſſions on deſign, we muſt be guilty of groſs diſhoneſty; we do not uprightly ſpeak the truth in our hearts, i. e. the true meaning and real ſentiments of our hearts. Such a conduct cannot be reconciled with moral honeſty; 'tis plain, wilful deception; and would be juſtly ſtigmatized with the name of knavery, in bargains, civil contracts, or commerce. And why it ſhould be any better in matters of religion, when we are profeſſedly declaring the truth, as witneſſes for GOD, is very hard to conceive.

6. Speaking in the church unintelligibly, or in an unknown tongue, is acting the part of a child, of a Barbarian, and even of a madman.

Children are very apt to uſe words without ideas, to be pleaſed with their own unintelligible prattle. And ſuch the Apoſtle plainly intimates this conduct of the Corinthian teachers to be, in the verſe following the text: Brethren, be not children in underſtanding; howbeit, in malice be ye children; but in underſtanding be men. And in ver. 11, the Apoſtle plainly declares it to be acting the part of a barbarian; Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice,—he that ſpeaketh ſhall be a barbarian unto me; i. e. it will be much the ſame, as if he ſhould talk Indian to an Engliſh auditory. There needs nothing ſaid to diſplay the ridiculous abſurdity of ſuch a piece of conduct. Nay the Apoſtle proceeds farther, and repreſents it as acting the madman, ver. 23. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all ſpeak with tongues, and there come in thoſe that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not ſay that ye are mad? that is, will they not have juſt reaſon to look upon you in that light, and to ſay you act like madmen?

7. Speaking intelligibly in the chriſtian church is of great importance, as it tends to promote brotherly Love and Union, and preſerve the Liberty of the churches of CHRIST.

The time will not allow me to dwell upon the great importance, and excellency of brotherly love, or diſplay, how good, and how pleaſant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in Unity: neither need I do it; they are by the conſent of all confeſſedly ſo excellent and deſirable, and the want of them ſo uncomfortable and deſtructive to religion and the wellfare of the church of CHRIST. Now the Practice of ſpeaking very intelligibly and unreſervedly upon religious ſubjects hath the greateſt tendency to promote this brotherly love among Chriſtians: Whereas ſuſpicions, jealouſies, and miſunderſtandings are frequently occaſioned, and abundantly ſtrengthened by ſhyeneſs, reſervedneſs, and apparent reluctance to unboſom ourſelves, and ſpeak our minds freely to one another upon all religious ſubjects. I am verily perſuaded, that many unhappy, miſunderſtandings, and wide diviſions, which have terribly rent the churches of CHRIST, might have been prevented, or ſpeedily healed by ſuch an open, honeſt, ingenuous proceedure. Such an upright, chriſtian-like conduct in perſons, who might not intirely agree in ſentiments with their brethren in all points, would be the likelieſt way to their receiving light, if they were in an error; or enable them to adminiſter conviction to their brethren, if the error ſhould be on their ſide. At the ſame time ſuch an open, honeſt behaviour would very powerfully invite to mutual condeſcention, even where they could not after all fully agree in leſſer, circumſtantial matters. Whereas a contrary conduct unavoidably gives juſt occaſion for diſtruſt and jealouſies. There is juſt reaſon to ſuſpect a perſon, who is not willing to uſe the greateſt freedom, openneſs, and plainneſs of ſpeech in declaring his religious ſentiments. In all ſuch caſes, common ſenſe will dictate, that there is juſt ground for ſuſpicion. Nor will it be at all ſtrange, if, under theſe circumſtances, perſons ſhould be ſuſpected of holding worſe, and more erroneous tenets, than they really do. And if this ſhould happen to be the caſe, they can juſtly blame no-body but themſelves, and ought in juſtice to impute it to their own culpable unwillingneſs to ſpeak plainly in a known tongue, without affecting the covert of ambiguity. And then farther, there is ſomething ſo inexpreſſibly charming, engaging & winning in right down openneſs, and honeſt, plain dealing in theſe matters, that it cannot fail to conciliate reſpect and eſteem, and mightily promote Love and Union among chriſtian brethren.

And then the important Liberty of the churches, wherewith CHRIST hath made them free, can't be too ſolicitouſly, and tenderly regarded by us, when rightly underſtood. Now this Liberty of the churches is eſſentially the ſame with the right of private Judgment in Individuals, and includes the ſame things; as for inſtance, the churches Right and Liberty to think and judge for themſelves; to worſhip GOD according to their own Conſciences, to chooſe their own miniſters, and to determine for themſelves, what form of church diſcipline they judge to be moſt agreeable to the word of GOD; and with what churches and miniſters they will chooſe to walk in ſtated Union and Communion, and with whom they will not, as judging it not conſiſtent with their purity and ſafety, or not conducive to their Edification, according to the word of God. It is here to be carefully obſerved, that the true liberty of particular churches conſiſts in their Right of chooſing their own Conſtitution, or Form of Church Government, which they ſhall judge to be pointed out by CHRIST in his Word; and in determining for themſelves, whether they will be Independent, or Conſociated with other neighbouring churches, and walk in ſtrict Union with them, in tranſacting the more weighty and important matters relative to the churches, (as the Ordination, Removal or Depoſition of Miniſters, or any difficult caſes of diſcipline) according to ſuch Rules and Orders, as they ſhall judge to be agreeable to the Word of GOD, moſt conducive to their peace and edification. Here they have full, intire Liberty. And when they have freely come into ſuch a voluntary Union with other churches, it is no Diminution of their Liberty, but rather the heighth and full Enjoyment of it, to be ſubject to the Rules and Conditions of this Union. And in perfect conſiſtency with Freedom, they are evidently obliged to a ſtrict obſervance of this Agreement, until they ſhall be convinced in their conſciences, that this Agreement or Union is unſcriptural and wrong. And if that ſhould be the caſe, 'twill then be their indiſpenſable duty, to ſignify to the other churches their change of Sentiments, either with reſpect to principles, or the Plan and Rules of their Union, freely propoſing to conſideration their difficulties, ſcruples and objections. And if they ſhall not get them removed, or convince their brethren, then they may peaceably diſſent, or withdraw from that ſpecial Union, without any juſt Offence. But the renouncing of an eccleſiaſtical conſtitution, or breaking over the rules of it, without taking theſe previous meaſures, is evidently a diſorderly and unchriſtian Separation, and ought to be treated as ſuch. And ſuch a conduct is yet more criminal in any church or miniſter, when they apprehend themſelves liable to be called to an Account, or cenſured, for diſorderly walking, by the body of churches with which they have been united. This muſt be deemed a meer ſham deſign, attended with all the aggravating circumſtances of a clandeſtine attempt to eſcape from juſtice, which can't be the leaſt reaſon why they ſhould not be proceeded againſt in a way of Cenſure.

Now I apprehend, that ſpeaking plainly, intelligibly, and unreſervedly in the church, and upon all ſubjects relative thereto, is very conducive, and highly neceſſary to the preſervation of this important liberty. Hereby ſuſpicions and jealouſies will likely be either prevented, or removed; profeſſing Chriſtians be able to ſee how far they are agreed in the great principles of religion, and ſo be enabled to comply with the apoſtle's direction, Phil. i. 27. Stand faſt in one Spirit, with one mind, ſtriving together for the faith of the goſpel. Chap. ii. 2. Fulfil ye my joy that ye be like-minded, having the ſame love, being of one accord, of one mind:—and iii. 16. Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the ſame rule, let us mind the ſame thing. By ſuch freedom and Openneſs, Chriſtians will readily ſee, whether they are ſo far agreed, in what they judge to be the great eſſential doctrines of the chriſtian religion, and the neceſſary rules of church-government, as that they can ſafely walk together in cloſe union and communion; or whether they differ ſo widely in matters of religion, as that 'tis neceſſary for them to be ſeperate, each one peaceably enjoying his own ſentiments, worſhip and diſcipline. And ſuch a knowledge of each others belief, and religious ſentiments, as can be obtained only by ſpeaking plainly, and intelligibly, is abſolutely neceſſary to their walking together conſiſtently in the Fellowſhip of the Goſpel. And this is what every one hath an undoubted right to know, and be ſatisfied about, with reſpect to all thoſe, who deſire to enjoy communion with him, or to be united with him in the ſame plan or form of eccleſiaſtical diſcipline. For it would be a moſt evident and groſs Inſringment upon chriſtian Liberty, for a perſon, or a church to be obliged to hold communion, and walk in ſtrict Union with thoſe, concerning whoſe qualifications for ſuch communion they can have no clear and rational ſatisfaction. But I am ſenſible, there is one grand objection may be raiſed againſt ſpeaking thus freely and intelligibly in a known tongue, to the following purpoſe. Suppoſe I am concerned with a church, or a number of churches and miniſters, of whom a great many, or even the greater part, labour under unhappy prejudices and miſtakes; perhaps they are narrow, contracted and bigotted in their ſentiments, and lay a mighty ſtreſs upon ſome meer circumſtantials, in which I cannot agree with them; and if I ſhould open my mind freely upon all religious ſubjects, they would reject me, and not hold communion with me; may I not in that caſe keep upon the reſerve, or deal a little in doubtful, ambiguous expreſſions, which I apprehend they will underſtand in a ſenſe different from what I really intend, in both which ſenſes the words will well bear to be underſtood? May I not prudently do this with an honeſt view and deſign to inſtruct them better, and gradually bring them off from their unreaſonable prejudices, as I ſhall find they will be able to bear it? And is there not a degree of chriſtian condeſcention and forbearance to be uſed in ſuch caſes?

To which I will anſwer freely, with great plainneſs of ſpeach, without a deſigned reference to any particular caſe, perſon, or perſons whatever, and with a diſpoſition to be thankful to the kind friend that will correct me wherein I may be wrong.

I doubt not, but that there have been, and ſtill may be caſes very ſimilar to this which is here ſuppoſed: I alſo readily allow, that in this dark, imperfect ſtate there ever will be great room, and abundant occaſion for much condeſcention and forbearance in reference to the miſtakes and prejudices of our fellow-chriſtians, and a diſpoſition to practiſe this, as far as may be ſafely done, conſiſtent with adhering to plain important truth and duty, is a very amiable and neceſſary part of the chriſtian temper. But then the neceſſity of practiſing this mutual condeſcention and forbearance is a very ſubſtantial reaſon, why we ſhould uſe the greateſt freedom and intelligibleneſs in ſpeaking in the church, ſo that when we have opened our minds, and ſentiments freely, then all concerned may be able to exerciſe their undoubted right of judging for themſelves, how far we are agreed, and whether there is any ſuch material difference in ſentiments between us, as may forbid our walking together in the ſtricteſt union and fellowſhip, in all the important concerns of religion and the church. But without this freedom and openneſs, what poſſible room can there be for condeſcention? What goſpel precept, or principle of reaſon can dictate ſuch a prepoſterous condeſcention, as to be ſatisfied with perſons talking in Arabic, or any other unknown tongue, upon the momentous ſubjects of religion; and to believe at the ſame time, that they mean very right, or, to beſure, nothing materially wrong? This would be a very odd ſort of chriſtian forbearance, to which the goſpel is an utter ſtranger!

But perhaps it will be urged, that after all this plainneſs of ſpeech, thoſe with whom I am concerned, and with whom I want to be connected, and have communion, are ſo wrong-headed, whimſical, and ſuch ſcrupulous bigots, that they not only embrace a great many errors in things circumſtantial, and leſs material; but alſo hold ſeveral of theſe wrong notions to be of great importance, or almoſt eſſential to religion; and if they knew I did not almoſt intirely agree with them herein, they would immediately reject me. I ſay then, that all attempts to croud myſelf upon them by concealing and diſguiſing my real ſentiments, would be a groſs tyrannical infringment upon their chriſtian Liberty. It is true, they may err, and hold thoſe things to be of great importance, or even eſſential, which I believe, or know to be otherwiſe; and for this they muſt anſwer to GOD another day: and I ſhall act a very chriſtian part, in labouring to convince them of their miſtakes, and inſpiring them with more juſt and generous ſentiments, if I can. But then after all, they have as good a right to judge for themſelves, as I have to judge for myſelf; and to determine for themſelves, what truths are of high importance, or eſſential in religion, as I have to determine for myſelf in theſe matters. And if herein they groſsly err, they are accountable to GOD for it; not to me. And if I preſume to make my judgment a rule for them, I encroach upon their Liberty, and deny them that right of judging for themſelves, which I claim to myſelf, which does not very much breathe the true ſpirit of Liberty and Freedom.

Let us ſuppoſe there to be a number of Roman-catholic churches in any particular place, who firmly believed the Infallibility of the Pope, the doctrines of Purgatory and Tranſubſtantiation to be ſo eſſential in religion, that they could not in conſcience receive any miniſter or member, who could not profeſs his belief of the ſame; I conceive they have a clear and indiſputable right, in the ſight of men, to believe and judge for themſelves concerning the truth and importance of theſe points; and no men upon earth have any right to hinder them from practiſing conformably to theſe erroneous ſentiments, provided they be otherwiſe peaceable, orderly members of Society. They may be juſtly blamed for holding ſuch abſurd tonets, contrary to the goſpel; but they cannot be juſtly accuſed of invading the rights, or of doing any thing againſt the liberty of other perſons or churches, while they readily allow to others the ſame right of judging and acting for themſelves. And if I, being a proteſtant, ſhould endeavour to get into the communion or miniſtry, in theſe churches, by concealing or diſguiſing my true principles upon theſe points, I ſhould be a criminal invader of their liberty: becauſe they have a clear right, in conſequence of their principles, to reject me from their communion, and I muſt worſhip by myſelf, which is the only liberty and privilege they claim to themſelves. And if I ſhould call their conduct in this matter, tyranny, or an arbitrary infringment upon my liberty, I ſhould be guilty of as groſs impropriety of ſpeech, as if I termed it murder, adultery, or high treaſon. I ought to pity them for their ignorance, ſuperſtition and errors; and may juſtly blame them for departing from the truths of divine revelation: but cannot, with any propriety, accuſe them of violating the principles of chriſtian liberty, and ſhall be guilty of the greateſt Impertinency in bringing ſuch a charge againſt them. 'Tis true, their miſtakes and errors will be attended with prejudicial effects and conſequences to me; juſt as any perſon's imprudent diſpoſal, or wrong application of his own private property will always be conſequentially detrimental to the welfare of the community.

On the other hand, ſhould I endeavour to get into the communion, or miniſtry in one of theſe churches, even with the moſt diſintereſted deſign to reclaim them from their errors, and ſhould ſucceed in my attempt, by concealing my real tho' true ſentiments from them, they would have very juſt reaſon to complain of me, as invading their liberty, and doing the ſame thing in effect, as if, having it in my power, I had forced a member, or miniſter upon them contrary to their mind, judgment and choice. They might juſtly complain of me, as injuriouſly diſturbing them in the enjoyment of their undoubted right, and liberties, and treat me as a falſe brother, crept in privily, unawares to them, to ſpy out their liberty, in order to deſtroy it, and bring them into bondage. And I may venture to affirm, that the deſtruction of liberty, both in church and ſtate, is much oftner effected by ſuch clandeſtine, deluſive meaſures, than by the open exertions of power. And therefore the true liberty of the churches is in the greateſt danger from this quarter. And ſpeaking in the moſt plain, open, intelligible manner upon all religious ſubjects, according to the belief, and real ſentiments of our Hearts, is evidently neceſſary to the preſervation of this deſirable and important Liberty; and is the moſt effectual guard againſt eccleſiaſtical Tyranny.

8. Speaking in an unknown tongue in the church is ſymbolizing with the Papiſts, in one inſtance of their conduct, juſtly condemned by all Proteſtants.

The Papiſts ſay their public prayers in the church, in a language unknown to the common people. A moſt abſurd ridiculous practice. For however well they may pray in the ſpirit, 'tis certain that thoſe who hear, cannot ſafely ſay, Amen, to their prayers, or join in the worſhip. But all deſignedly unintelligible ſpeaking in the church partakes of the very nature and effence of this abſurdity, and is ſo far a verging towards popery.

9. The infinite importance of religious ſubjects is a weighty reaſon, why we ſhould ſpeak upon them in the moſt plain, intelligible manner.

This conſideration gives force to all the preceeding reaſons. In matters of ſmall concernment there may be ſome allowance for trifling. But to trifle in the church of GOD, with religion, with the goſpel, is very horrible, and abſolutely intolerable. Here the Glory of GOD, the liberty and welfare of the church, which he hath purchaſed with his own blood; here the endleſs happineſs or miſery of immortal ſouls is very nearly concerned. Certainly where ſuch infinitely weighty conſequences are depending, the greateſt plainneſs of ſpeech is highly important. That which is of importance enough to be ſpoken in the church, ought to be clearly underſtood. And indeed the moſt of ſubjects, proper to be treated upon in the church, are ſo intereſting in their nature, and practical conſequences, that 'tis of high concernment they be clearly and rightly underſtood. Such as the doctrines concerning the Perſon, Natures, and Offices of CHRIST: the doctrines of faith, repentance, &c. How can the honeſt Arian, who believes our Saviour to be only a meer creature, perſiſt in applying the name and titles of GOD to him, without ever clearly informing his hearers, that he is only a God, in a lower ſenſe, as angels and civil rulers are ſtiled Gods in ſcripture?—how can he let them go on deceived, as they muſt be, in his opinion, in the very Object of their Worſhip, paying divine homage and honours to one, who is not by nature true eternal GOD, and be thereby aſſiſting to their idolatry? And I may ſay in general, that 'tis utterly inconſiſtent with integrity, and is a violation of one of the moſt ſacred truſts, ever committed to mortals, to neglect declaring in the moſt plain, intelligible language, what we take to be the truths of GOD revealed in his word. Since therefore the ſubjects treated on are ſo important; ſince GOD ſpeaks plainly in his word, and the Spirit ſpeaks plainly, and the grand deſign of all ſpeaking, is to be clearly underſtood, thoſe that ſpeak in the church ſhould uſe great plainneſs of ſpeech, that all who hear may rightly underſtand the things that belong to their everlaſting peace.