desultory efforts of the same description made by Protestant guides, and he will soon discover, that we need not dread the comparison. He will speedily be convinced, that the charge of designedly keeping the people in ignorance, is invented by malice, and propagated by credulity.

If the catechist should ask, why the Catholic church, in defiance of the clamours of her enemies, should still persist in having the service in an unknown tongue, we reply, that, as the sacrifice of the mass, the pure oblation pointed out by the Prophet Malachi, was to be offered in every place under the sun, and to connect all Christians in the profession of the same faith, it was thought highly advantageous, as a point of discipline, to extend the same unity and stability to the worship A sacrifice, common to the whole church of Christ, is best preserved and perpetuated by a general uniformity of rite; and where this cannot be effected to the utmost extent, all unnecessary deviations are to be avoided.

Neither can it be asserted, that it is in any manner necessary, that the sacrifice should be offered in a language understood by the people. It becomes only requisite, that they should completely apprehend the nature of the action performed, and unite their devotion with that of the priest. This they are enabled to do by the constant instructions given by their pastors; by the nature of the sacrifice so repeatedly ex

plained; by the translation of the liturgy in the hands of the people; and by prayers corresponding to every part of the great action. The prayers said by the priest at the altar belong professionally to his sacerdotal office; and it becomes in no manner necessary, or even proper, that the laity should recite the same, and consequently that they should understand the language in which they are conveyed.

Had the faithful Christian, who assists at the sacrifice of the mass, attended the crucifixion of his Redeemer, and witnessed his pure and disinterested love in shedding his blood for all mankind, it would have been wholly unnecessary to have understood his, language, or the language of his bloody and unrelenting foes. And if we have the same sacred tragedy acted repeatedly on millions of altars in an unb!oody manner, is it necessary to understand the language in which the offering is made? Are not our minds sufficiently enlightened on the subject? Are not our wills animated and inflamed with love, at the sight of that real and efficient token of divine benevolence? Do not our hearts glow with all the fire of devotion, when we behold the Lord lying a victim on the altar; the priest leaning over the sacrifice, the people around praying in silent supplication. Do we then think of the language, in which the offering is made? Do we not rather leave to the priest the care of reciting

his own prayers, and of performing all the rites connected with his office, while, with the most enraptured devotion, we endeavour to join in the sacred action? While we labour to unite our mean efforts in offering our best adorations to God; in making a just and natural return for all his favours; in averting his anger, and in obtaining his blessing? All this, it is perfectly clear, may be accomplished without understanding the language of the priest; especially when we consider the perpetual injunctions given to the pastors, to explain the nature of the sacrifice, and the sublime ends for which it is offered.

If the catechist wishes to hear more on the subject, let him reflect, that the language in which the divine service is performed, is a mere matter of discipline, not of faith; and that in regulating concerns of this nature, the church is guided by motives of prudence and expediency. Let him remember, that the Greek and Latin tongues, in which principally the public liturgies have been preserved, are now fixed, and not subject to the fluctuations experienced by living languages; and that the church is not willing to expose its service to the constant changes of arbitrary and fleeting sounds. This disposition is by no means novel in the history of mankind. During the whole period, which elapsed from the Babylonish captivity to the coming of our Redeemer, the public service

continued to be performed in the ancient Hebrew, not then understood by the common people; and our Lord and his devout friends, instead of blaming the practice, sanctioned it by their presence1. The Greek church retains its ancient language in its public liturgy, though that of the people is widely different. This is reluctantly acknowledged by Mosheim, who owns that the language of the divine service is absolutely unintelligible to the multitude. What will the catechist say, when the argument is brought home to himself, by the conduct pursued by the founders of the Anglican church? It is recorded by Dr. Heylin, that, when the new liturgy was sent over to Ireland, and afterwards to Wales, no precaution was taken to translate it into the language understood by the people; " and thus," adds this writer, “we have furnished the Papists with an excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in such a language as the people do not understand." Will the good and benignant catechist, in the plenitude of his condescension, favour the Catholic church with his leave to pursue that conduct, of which the pious founders of his immaculate

1 Walton Præf. Polyglott.

2 Mosheim: edit. Maclaine, Cent. 11. Part 2, c. iv. Vol. ii. p. 575.

3

Heylin Hist. ann. Reg. Eliz. ii. 1560, p. 128, edit. London, 1661.

establishment have left so distinguished an example? But let us impartially consider the specific reasons adduced by him on the subject.

I. The objections here made by the catechist from St. Paul, though often repeated very ostentatiously by his friends, merit the highest reprehension, for attempting to disfigure and obscure a plain passage of that apostle. Let the reader turn to the 14th chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and he will readily perceive, that the apostle is not speaking a single word of a public authorized liturgy, translated for the use of the people, and carefully expounded by the pastors; for such is the liturgy used in the Catholic church: the severe epithets here employed by St. Paul, regard only a private and ostentatious display of the gift of tongues, exhibited by individuals, who were rather pleased pompously to manifest a supernatural favour to excite admiration, than to expound the mysteries of faith for edification. The censure of St. Paul is, therefore, to be directed, not against the Catholic church, which enjoins her liturgy to be expounded to the people, but against the founders of what is called reform, who, without the same prudent precaution, ordered prayers to be read to the Irish and Welsh in an unknown tongue.

II. If the primitive Christians had the service in the vulgar tongue, the reason is obvious: the