"ciety at Rome, demonstrates her constancy, and inviolable "regard, to antiquity, and consequently ought to inspire us "with a greater confidence in the genuineness and identity of "her doctrine." But so far in fact is this from being an evidence of the constancy of that church, in point of doctrine, that it is no evidence of her constancy even in point of ceremonies. It is the dress, the language only, in which she has been constant, the ceremonies themselves have undergone great alterations, and received immense additions, (as those versed in church history well know) in order to accommodate them to the corruptions in doctrine, which, from time to time, have been adopted. Nor has it been the most inconsiderable motive for preserving the use of a dead language, that the whole service might be more completely in the power of the priesthood, who could thereby, with the greater facility, and without alarming the people, make such alterations in their liturgy, as should, in their ghostly wisdom, be judged proper.

It may at first appear a paradox, but on reflection is manifest, that this mark of their constancy, in what regards the dead letter of the sacred ceremonies, is the strongest evidence of their mutability, nay, actual change, in what concerns the vitals of religion. Consider the reason why Latin was first employed in the Italian churches. It was not the original language of any part of sacred writ. They had the New Testament in the original Greek. There were also forms of public prayer, or liturgies, in that language, before any appeared in Latin. What then could induce them to usher into their churches a fallible translation of the scriptures, in preference to the original, acknowledged to have been written by men divinely inspired, and consequently infallible? I ask this the rather, because the Romanist admits, that the original was written by inspiration. He agrees with us, also, in not affirming the same thing of any version whatever. For, though the council of Trent has pronounced the Latin vulgate to be authentic, it has not declared it perfect, or affirmed that the translator was inspired. By the authenticity, therefore, no more is meant, in the opinion of their most learned doctors, than that it is a good translation, and may be used, by those who understand Latin, safely and profitably. But that this is not considered by themselves as signify

ing that it is totally exempt from error, is manifest from this, that the critics of that communion use as much freedom in pointing out and correcting its errors, as the learned of this island do, in regard to the common English version. I return to my question, therefore, and ask the Italians, of the present age, Why did their forefathers, in the early ages, prefer a Latin version; a performance executed indeed by pious, but fallible, men, with the aid of human learning, to the Greek original, which they believed to contain the unerring dictates of the Holy Ghost? Why was not the latter read in their churches. in preference to the former? The answer which they would return, or which at least their progenitors would have returned, is plain and satisfactory. "We do not dispute that the Greek "was in itself preferable; but to our people it was useless, be66 cause not understood. Latin was their mother tongue. "Much, therefore, of the mind of the Spirit they might learn "from a good Latin version, notwithstanding its imperfections. "Nothing at all could they acquire from hearing the sounds of "a language with which they were unacquainted. And better, "as the apostle says, speak but five words with understanding, "that is, intelligibly, or so as to teach others, than ten thousand, "in an unknown tongue, by which nobody can be edified." Nothing can be more pertinent than this answer, with which Paul has furnished us; only make the application to the case in hand. Latin is not now your native tongue. It is not at present the language of any nation or city in the world. Your people understand it no more now than they do Greek. If the Romans, sixteen hundred years ago, thought it necessary to re`ject the public use of an infallible original, because unintelligible to the hearers, and to admit in its place a fallible version, because intelligible; and the Romans now refuse to reject one fallible version, that is become unintelligible, for another not more fallible, which may be understood by every body; can there be a stronger demonstration of the total difference of sentiments, in regard to religious worship in the present Romans, from the sentiments of their ancestors in those early ages? Can there, consequently, be a stronger demonstration of the truth of the paradox I mentioned, namely, that this mark of Roman constancy, in what regards the dead letter, is the strongest evi

dence of their mutability, nay, actual change, in what concerns the vitals of religion? Their ancestors considered religion as a rational service; the present Romans regard it merely as a mechanical operation. The former thought that the understanding had a principal concern in all religious offices: the latter seek only to attach the senses. With them, accordingly, the exercises of public worship are degenerated into a motley kind of pantomime, wherein much passes in dumb show, part is muttered so as not to be audible, part is spoken or chaunted in a strange tongue, so as not to be intelligible; and the whole is made strongly to resemble the performance of magical spells and incantations, to which idea, their doctrine of the opus operatum is wonderfully harmonized. But the smallest affinity to the devotions of a reasonable being to his all-wise and almighty Creator, it is impossible to discover in any part of it. Well may we address them, therefore, in the words of Paul to the Galatians, "Oh! infatuated people, who hath bewitched you; "having begun in the Spirit, are ye made perfect by the ❝ flesh ?"

If any thing could be more absurd than worship in an unknown tongue, it would be the insult offered to the people's understanding, in pretending to instruct them by reading the scriptures to them in such a tongue. The people are thus mocked with the name of instruction without the thing. They are tantalized by their pastors, who give and withhold at the same time. They appear to impart by pronouncing aloud what they effec tually conceal by the language. Like the ancient doctors of the Jewish law, they have taken away the key of knowledge: they entered not in themselves, and those that were entering they hindered. Ah blind guides! Unnatural fathers! for ye affect to be styled fathers, how do ye supply your children with the food of their souls? When they ask bread of you, ye give them a stone. They implore of you spiritual nourishment from the divine oracles, that they may advance in the knowledge of God, in faith and purity; and ye say, or sing to them, a jargon, (for the best things are jargon to him to whom they are unintelligible) which may make them stare, or nod, but must totally frustrate their expectation. They starve, as it were, in the midst of plenty; and are shown their food, but not permitted to taste

it. They seek to have their souls edified, and ye tickle their ears with a song.

66

If witnesses were necessary, to evince the contrariety of this their present practice to the intention of their forefathers, as well as the natural purpose of reading the scriptures in the congregation, I would ask no witness but themselves. They still retain a memorable testimony against themselves, in the form of ordaining readers enjoined in the pontifical, for with them this office is one of the minor orders. In the charge given to the readers by the bishop at their ordination, we have these words: "Studete igitur verba Dei, videlicet lectiones sacras distincte, et "aperte, ad intelligentiam et ædificationem, fidelium, absque ❝ omni mendacio falsitatis proferre; ne veritas divinarum lectionum, incuria vestra, ad instructionem audientium corrumpa"tur. Quod autem ore legitis, corde credatis, atque opere com"pleatis; quatenus auditores vestros, verbo pariter et exemplo "vestro, docere possitis. Ideoque, dum legitis, in alto loco ec"clesiæ stetis, ut ab omnibus audiamini et videamini." Instructions entirely apposite when they were first devised, for then Latin was their mother tongue; but which now can serve only as a standing reproach upon their practice, by setting its absurdity in the most glaring point of view. For what can it avail for the edification of the people, that the reader pronounces distinctly and openly, and stands in a conspicuous place, when he pronounces nothing but unmeaning words? Is this teaching them by word, verbo? Can this be called addressing the understandings of the faithful? Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee, thou pageant of a teacher.

What shall we say of the power of prepossessions, when an abuse, so palpable, is palliated by such a writer as father Simon? I can bear to hear the most absurd things advanced by weak and illiberal minds. I can make great allowance for the power of education over such, and am led more to pity than to condemn. But it must awake real indignation, to see parts and literature prostituted to the vile purpose of defending what the smallest portion of common sense shows at once to be indefensible, and giving a favourable gloss to the most flagrant abuses and corruptions. Simon acknowledges, (Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. chap. 1,) that when Christianity was first plant

ed, it was found necessary, for the instruction of the people, to translate the scriptures, especially the New Testament, into the language of each country that received this doctrine; and adds, that this remark must be understood as extending to the service performed in the churches, which, in those early days, was every where in the language of the people. The same thing, he affirms, cardinal Bona [a] had observed in his work upon liturgies. Now if the case was so, it will not be easy to account, without recurring to papal usurpations, for the uniformity in using Latin in all the public offices of religion, that had been introduced, and actually obtained, through all the occidental churches, for ages before the reformation. Will Simon say, that Latin was the language of Britain for example, when Christianity was first planted among the Britons; or, indeed, of any of the northern countries of Europe? So far from it, that, for the service of those countries, there were, by his own confession, translations made into Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Selavonic, &c. Yet these versions (whatever they were formerly) are no where used at present, nor have they been used for many centuries, though fragments of some of them are still to be found in the libraries of the curious.

"Nothing," says Mr. Simon, "is more extravagant, than "what Pierre du Moulin has written on this subject against car"dinal du Perron. The end, says this minister, which the pope "has proposed to himself, in establishing the Latin tongue in "the public service, has been, to plant amongst his conquered "nations the badges of his empire; as if," subjoins Simon,

[a] Bona, however, does not say so much as seems here to be attributed to him by Simon. All that his words necessarily denote is, that the apostles, and their successors, in converting the nations, taught the people, and officiated every where, in the idiom of the country. But this does not imply, that they used, for this purpose, either a written translation of the scriptures, or any written liturgy. What he says afterwards, that in all the western churches they had no liturgy but in Latin, evidently implies the contrary. He knew well, that Latin was never the language of the people, in most countries, of the western empire. Even in Africa, where, for manifest reasons, that tongue must have been much more generally spoken than in the northern parts of Europe, he acknowledges, on Augustine's authority, that it was not understood by the common people. "In Africa etiam Latinæ linguæ usus in sacris sem66 per viguit, licet eam populus non intelligeret, ut Augustinus testis est." L. 1. C. v. § 4.