not to speak with tongues' (v. 39). What he blames is the disorderly and indiscreet exercise of their gift; and if we inquire what these disorders were, we shall find that they have no parallel in Catholic discipline.

1. First, then, he seems to complain that 'every one had his psalm, his doctrine, his revelation, his tongue, his interpretation❜ (v. 26); that every one wished to display his own gift, without considering how far it would edify the assembly; that thus, either there was a long succession of persons uttering rapturous prayers unintelligible to the rest, or that several spoke at once, so that ignorant or unbelieving persons coming in would think them an assembly of madmen (v. 23). Most certainly no parallel to this could be found in any Catholic assembly, though perhaps it would be easily found among some Protestant

sects.

2. The Apostle wishes that 'everything be done decently and according to order' (v. 40). He decides therefore, not indeed to prohibit the use of tongues, but that only two, or at most three, should speak, and that there should be an interpreter (v. 27). Now, in the Catholic Church there is no confusion; all is regulated, and the interpreter is there.

Let me explain. I have shown already that it was by considerations of general good, i.e. of decency and order, that the use of a dead tongue was retained in the Church.

It must be remembered that the prayers of the Church are not the extemporaneous effusion of an individual (as was the case in Corinth), requiring an interpreter to stand up immediately, in order to render them intelligible to the bystanders. Our prayers have been in use for many centuries throughout the world. They are uttered in a language which, though not the vulgar tongue of modern nations, is the best-known language of the world. It thus happens that the Liturgy is easily and widely interpreted. Use has made it, to a certain extent, familiar even to the unlearned. Manuals of translation are in the hands of those who can read. The priests are charged by the Council of Trent to explain the prayers and mysteries of the Mass to the people from time to time. Most assuredly this does not make everything familiar or intelligible to all.

But neither would the use of the vernacular make intelligible what is essentially difficult and mysterious. Such obscurities have a divine purpose.

3. The degree of 'understanding,' therefore, which men. attain in prayer (see v. 15) will, of course, vary with their capacities, gifts, opportunities, and diligence in the use of them. Certainly, the use of a dead language, as it obtains in the Catholic Church, does not prevent men from this more excellent kind of prayer. And again, nothing could be more admirably contrived than the whole system of Catholic worship, to enable him 'who holds the place of the unlearned to say, Amen' (v. 16). How he could do this to the long extemporaneous prayer of a Protestant minister, much of which he could not follow or understand, I will not decide. But he knows that every word that the Catholic priest utters is the composition of God Himself, or of saints and doctors, and has the approval of the holy Church. He can give therefore the most hearty assent to all her prayers, blessings, and thanksgiving.

4. I would observe, lastly, that St. Paul considers that these matters of public worship must be regulated by lawful authority, and will not allow men who think themselves to be spiritual to rebel against his decision (v. 37).

Catholics know with certainty that the judgment of their Church cannot contradict that of the Apostle. As I have now shown that Protestants have attempted in vain to set one against the other, I am entitled to ask them to consider seriously whether they run no risk in allowing their private and discordant judgments to condemn the unanimous voice of Christendom.

CHAPTER V.

EFFICIENT RITUAL NOT MAGICAL.

THE Catholic Church teaches, not merely that holy impressions may be conveyed to the soul through the senses, and that holy sentiments find by means of the senses convenient expression; but also that, by a positive institution of Jesus Christ, certain rites have been selected as instruments to convey to the soul graces with which they have no natural proportion. The former class of ceremonies the Church may institute at will, or the worshipper adopts them at his own choice; but it is evident that the latter cannot be of human institution.

Bossuet, in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, thus writes: The Sacraments of the new covenant are not merely sacred signs which represent grace, nor seals which confirm it, but instruments of the Holy Ghost serving to apply that grace to our souls, and conferring it upon us in virtue of the words that are pronounced, and of the action that is exteriorly performed, provided we ourselves, by our bad disposition, put no obstacle in the way.

'We acknowledge seven sacred ceremonies or signs, established by Jesus Christ, as the ordinary means of sanctifying and perfecting the new man. Their divine institution appears in the Holy Scripture, either by the express words of Jesus Christ who established them, or by the grace which, according to the same Scripture, is annexed to them, and which necessarily points out an ordinance of God.

'When God annexes such a grace to outward signs, which of their own nature bear no sort of proportion to so wonderful an effect, He clearly shows us, that besides all we can possibly do within ourselves, by our good disposition, towards our sancti

fication, there must still be a special operation of the Holy Ghost, and a particular application of the merits of our Saviour, which are exhibited to us by the Sacraments; so that this doctrine cannot be rejected, without doing an injury to the merits of Jesus Christ, and to the working of divine power in our regeneration.'

It is curious that the very consideration by which Bossuet thought to recommend the Sacraments to the Puritans of his day-that they bear no natural proportion to their effects-is the main ground of opposition urged by the Rationalistic Protestants of our own days.

One of the critics of the first edition of this Essay wrote as follows: We quite agree with the author that the New Testament does not discountenance symbolism and even splendour in worship; . . . but Ritualism, as the expression or illustration of the supernatural character and efficacy of certain rites which are believed to be of divine institution and essential to salvation, is quite a different thing. . . With Ritualism, regarded as mere symbolism, the æsthetics of worship, we can heartily agree. There is a marked reaction in our own churches against the tame, cold, uncongregational service in which our fathers delighted—if so warm a word can be applied to something so frigid as the old Dissenting worship-and we now give free expression to the natural love of the beautiful in the Church, as well as in the home. . . . But if Ritualism is regarded as the expression of sacramental doctrines, if it is connected with priestly pretensions, against which we rebel with all our mind, and soul, and strength-then we repudiate and abhor the whole system as an imposture and mere mechanical jugglery.'

If by 'priestly pretensions' this author means the Catholic belief that Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest, who by His death has reconciled us with God and God with us, and that He has conferred on certain men a share in His priesthood, and given to them powers in relation to sacrifice and sacraments, for the good of their fellow-men, which He has not given to all alike—then he 'rebels with all his strength' against a most certain and most merciful Providence of God.

I have already said in the Introduction that I do not intend

to dwell at any great length on this view of the subject, in spite of its importance, because the institution of the Sacraments has been treated frequently and exhaustively in books of easy access. I will, however, propose some few considerations, rather on the general principles involved in Sacraments than on the specific details of their nature and their number. For the same reason I shall omit the great subject of Christian Sacrifice.

1. The language of the New Testament seems studiously chosen to connect together exterior acts with interior and divine operations. I give a few specimens in the Protestant version: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' (John iii. 5); ‘Repent, and be baptised. . . for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost' (Acts iii. 38); 'Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord' (Acts xxii. 16); 'According to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost' (Pet. iii. 5); 'He breathed on them, and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost' (John xx. 22); 'Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them' (John xx. 23); 'They laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost' (Acts viii. 17); and the like.

Now it cannot seriously be doubted that by all these forms of speech the relation of cause and effect is apparently expressed; and that this would never have been called in question, were it not for the disproportion between such external acts as washing, breathing, anointing, imposing hands, and such interior results as the remission of sins, regeneration, and gift of the Holy Ghost. But this disproportion is removed, and therefore with it all cause for explaining away the natural force of words, when the external acts are regarded as of divine institution, and therefore as instruments employed by God. Strange indeed that any one should believe in the Incarnation, and therefore that the whole life of the Son of God on earth was one great Sacrament, so to say, and should still find difficulty in allowing the sacramental principle a place in the Christian religion !