whatever; and yet no one will pretend to show from Scripture, tradition, or reason, that these Princes had received any greater power from Christ, over the doctrine and discipline of his Church, than he conferred upon Tiberius, Pilate, or Herod, or than he has given, at the present day, to the great Turk or the Lama of Thibet, in their respective dominions. Before I close this letter, I think it right to state the sentiments of a few eminent Protestants, respecting the Pope's supremacy. I have already mentioned, that Luther acknowledged it, and submissively bowed to it, during the three first years of his dogmatizing about justification, and till his doctrine was condemned at Rome. In like manner our Henry VIII. asserted it, and wrote a book in defence of it; in reward of which the Pope conferred upon him and his successors the new title of Defender of the Faith. Such was his doctrine, till, becoming amorous of his Queen's maid of honour, Ann Boleyn, and finding the Pope conscientiously inflexible in refusing to grant him a divorce from the former, and to sanction an adulterous connexion with the latter, he set himself up as Supreme Head of the Church of England, and maintained his claim by the arguments of halters, knives, and axes. James I., in his first speech in Parliament, termed Rome the Mother Church,' and in his writings, allowed the Pope to be The Patriarch of "the West.' The late Archbishop Wake, after all his bitter writings against the Pope and the Catholic Church, coming to discuss the terms of a proposed union between this Church and that of England, expressed himself willing to allow a certain superiority to the Roman Pontiff. (1)— Bishop Bramhall had expressed the same sentiment, (2) convinced, as he was, that no peace or (1) Sno Gaudeat qualicnnque Primatu.' See Maclain's Third Ap pendix to Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. v. (2) Answer to Militiere. order could subsist in the Christian Church, any more than in a political state, without supreme authority in it. Of the truth of this maxim, two others of the greatest men whom Protestantism has to boast of, the Lutheran Melancthon, and the Calvinist Hugo Grotius, were deeply persuaded. The former had written to prove the Pope to be Antichrist; but, seeing the animosities, the divisions, the errors, and the impieties of the pretended Reformers, with whom he was connected, and the utter impossibility of putting a stop to these evils, without returning to the ancient system, he wrote thus to Francis I., King of France: We acknowledge, in the first place, that ecclesiastical government is a thing holy and salutary, namely, that there should be cer'tain Bishops to govern the Pastors of the seve 'ral Churches, and that THE ROMAN PONTIFF should be above all the Bishops. For 'the Church stands in need of governors, to ex'amine and ordain those who are called to the 'ministry, and to watch over their doctrine; so 'that, if there were no Bishops, they ought to be 'created.' (1) The latter great man, Grotius, who was learned, wise, and always consistent, wrote as follows to the Minister, Rivet: All who 6 are acquainted with Grotius, know how earnestly he has wished to see Christiaus united together in one body. This he once thought might have been accomplished by a union among Protestants; but afterwards he saw that 'this is impossible. Because, not to mention the 'aversion of Calvinists to every sort of union, 'Protestants are not bound by any ecclesiastical government, so that they can neither be united at present, nor prevented from splitting into 'fresh divisions. Therefore Grotius now is fully (1) D'Argentre, Collect. Jud. t. i. p. 2.-Bercastel and Feller relate, that Melancthon's mother, who was a Catholic, having consulted him about her religion, he persuaded her to continue in it. convinced, as many others are also, that Protestants never can be united among themselves, "unless they join those who adhere to the Roman See, without which there never can be any general Church-Government. Hence, he wishes that the révolt and the causes of it may be removed; among which causes the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was not one, as Melancthon confessed, who also thought that primacy necessary to restore union.' (1) I am, &c. J. M. LETTER XLVII. To JAMES BROWN, Jun. Esq. &c. ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE LITURGY, AND ON READ. ING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. DEAR SIR, I AGREE with your worthy Father, that the departure of the Rev. Mr. Clayton to a foreign country, is a loss to your Salopian Society in more respects than one; and as it is his wish that I should address the few remaining letters I have to write, in answer to Bishop Porteus's book, to you, Sir, who, it seems, agree with him in the main, but not altogether, on religious subjects, I shall do so, for your own satisfaction and that of your friends, who are still pleased to hear me upon them. Indeed the remaining controversies between that Prelate and myself are of light moment, compared with those I have been treating of; as they consist chiefly of disciplinary matters, subject to the control of the Church, or of particular facts, misrepresented by his Lordship. (1) Apol. ad Rivet. The first of these points of changeable discipline, which the Bishop mentions, or rather disclaims upon throughout a whole chapter, is the use of the Latin tongue in the public liturgy of the Latin Church. It is natural enough that the Church of England, which is of modern date, and confined to its own domain, should adopt its own language in its public worship; and, for a similar reason, it is proper that the Great Western or Latin Church, which was established by the Apostles, when the Latin tongue was the vulgar tongue of Europe, and which still is the common language of educated persons in every part of it, should retain this language in her public service. When the Bishop complains of our worship 'being performed in an unknown tongue,' (1) and of our wicked and cruel cunning in keeping people in darkness' (2) by this means, under pretext that they reverence what they do not under'stand,' (3) he must be conscious of the irreligious calumnies he utters, knowing, as he does, that Latin is, perhaps, still the most general language of the Christian world, (4) and that where it is not commonly understood, it is not the Church which has introduced a foreign language among the people, but it is the people who have forgotten their ancient language. So far removed is the Catholic Church from the wicked and cruel cunning of keeping people in ignorance,' by retaining her original Apostolic Languages, the Latin and the Greek, that she strictly commands her Pastors every where to inculcate the word of God, and the lessons of salvation, to the peo'ple in their vulgar tongue, every Sunday and 'festival throughout the year,' (5) and 'to explain (1) P. 76. (2) P. 63. (3) P. 65. (4) The Latin language is vernacular in Hungary and the neighbouring countries: it is taught in all the Catholic settlements of the universe, and it approaches so near to the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, as to be understood, in a general kind of way, by those who use these several languages. 15) Concil. Trid. Sess, xxiv. o. 7. to them the nature and meaning of her Divine 'Worship as frequently as possible.' (1) In like manner we are so far from imagining that the less our people understand of our liturgy, the more they reverence it, that we are quite sure of precisely the contrary, particularly with respect to our principal liturgy, the adorable Sacrifice of the Mass. True it is, that a part of this is performed by the priest in silence, because, being a sacred action as well as a form of words, some of the prayers which the priest says would not be proper or rational in the mouths of the people. Thus, the High Priest of old went alone into the tabernacle to make the atonement; (2) and thus Zachary offered incense in the temple by himself, while the multitude prayed without. (3) this is no detriment to the faithful, as they have translations of the Liturgy, and other books, in their hands, by means of which, or of their own devotion, they can join with the priest in every part of the solemn worship, as the Jewish people united with their priests in the sacrifices above mentioned.. But But we are referred by his Lordship to 1 Cor. xiv. in order to see what St. Paul would have judged of the Romanists' practice in retaining the Latin liturgy, which, after all, he himself and St. Peter established where it now prevails. I answer, that there is not a word in that chapter which mentions or alludes to the public liturgy which at Corinth was, as it is still, performed in the old Greek-the whole of it regarding an imprudent and ostentatious use of the gift of tongues, in speaking all kinds of languages; which gift many of the faithful possessed, at that time, in common with the Apostles. The very reason, alleged by St. Paul, for prohibiting extemporary prayers and exhortations, which no one un (1) Concil. Trid. Sess. xxii. c. 8. (2) Levit. xvi. 17. |