Chapter VIII. Of the Saying Mass in Latin

Q. Is it not a great prejudice to the faithful that the Mass is said in Latin, which is a language that the generality of them do not understand?

A, It is no prejudice to them at all, provided they be well instructed in the nature of this sacrifice, and taught (as we have explained above) how to accompany the priest with prayers and devotions adapted to every part of the Mass; such as they commonly have in their manuals or other prayer-books. Hence it is visible to any unprejudiced eye, that there is far more devotion amongst Catholics at Mass, than there is at Protestants' common-prayer.

Q. But is not the Mass also a common-prayer, that ought to be said alike by the faithful?

A. It is a common sacrifice that is offered for all, and in some manner by all; but as for the particular form of prayers used by the priest in the Mass, there is no obligation for the faithful to recite the same; all that God or his church expects from them is to assist at that sacrifice with attention and devotion; and this they fully comply with, when they endeavour to follow the directions given above, and use such prayers as are adapted to each part of the Mass; though they be not the self-same as the priest uses.

. Q. Can you explain to me, by some example, how a person may devoutly and profitably assist at this sacrifice, though he be ignorant of the prayers which the priest is saying?

A. Yes: What do you think if you or any good christian had been present upon Mount Calvary, when Christ was offering himself upon the cross a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world; would not the very sight of what was doing (provided that you had the same faith in Christ as you have) have sufficed to excite in your soul most lively acts of love of God, thanksgiving for so great a mercy, detestation of your sins, &c. though you could neither hear any word from the mouth of Christ your high-priest, nor know in particular what passed in his soul? Just so in the Mass, which is the same sacrifice as that which Christ ofibred upon the cross, because both the priest and the victim are the same; it is abundantly sufficient for the people's devotion, to be well instructed in what is then doing, and to excite in their souls suitable acts of adoration, thanksgiving, repentance, &;c. though they understand not the particular prayers used by the priest at that time.

I must add, that for the devoutly and profitably concurring in sacrifice offered to God, it is not even necessary that the people should hear or recite the same prayers with the priest, but that the very seeing of him is more than God was pleased to require in his law. Hence we find, St. Luke i. 10. that the whole multitude of the people were praying without, when Zacharias went into the temple to burn incense. And Levit. xvi. 17. it was expressly ordered, that there should be no man in the tabernacle or temple, when the high-priest went with the blood of the victims into the sanctuary to make atonement.

Q. But does not St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. condemn the use of the unknown tongues in the liturgy of the church?

A, He has not one word in that whole chapter of the liturgy of the church; but only reprehends the abuse of the gifts of tongues, which some amongst the Corinthians were guilty of, who out of ostentation affected to make exhortations or extemporary prayers in their assemblies, in languages utterly unknown, which for want of a» interpreter could be of no edification to the rest of the faithful. But this is far from being the practice of the catholic church, where all the exhorta tions, sermons and such like instructions are made in the vulgar language; where no new unknown extemporary prayers are recited, but the ancient public liturgy and office of the church, which, by long use are well known, at least as to the substance, by all the faithful; where, in fine, there is no want of interpreters, since the people have the church offices interpreted into their ordinary prayer-books; and the pastors are commanded to explain to them the mysteries contained in the Mass. Council of Trent, Sess. 22. chap. 8.

Q. But why does the church celebrate the Mass in Latin, rather than in vulgar language?

A. First, because it is her ancient language, used in all her sacred offices even from the Apostles' days throughout all the western parts of the world: and therefore the church which hates no | velty, desires to celebrate her liturgy in the same language, as the saints have done for so many ages. Secondly, for a greater uniformity in the public worship; that so a christian, in whatsoever country he chances to be, may still find the liturgy performed in the same manner, and in the same language to which he is accustomed at home: and the Latin is certainly of all languages, the most proper for this, as being the most universally studied and known. Thirdly, to avoid the changes, to which all vulgar languages, as we find by experience, are daily exposed. For the church is unwilling to be chopping and changing her liturgy at every turn of language.

Q. Have any other christians besides Roman-catholics ever celebrated their liturgy in a language which the greater part of the people did not understand?

A, Yes: it is the practice of the Greeks, as we learn from Alex. Ross, in his View of the Religions of Europe p. 481; and Mr. Breerwood in his Enquiries, chap. 2. p. 12. It is the practice of all other sects of christians in the east and south, viz. of the Armenians, of the Syrians, of the Nestorians, of the Cophts or Egyptians, of the Abyssinians or Ethiopians, who all use in their liturgies their ancient languages, which have long since ceased to be understood by the people: as we learn from Monsieur Renaudot in his Dissertation upon the Oriental Liturgies; chap. 6. And as for Protestants, we learn from Dr. Heylins' History of the Reformation, p. 128, &;c. that in queen Elizabeth's time, " The Irish parliament passed an act for the uniformity of common-prayer; with permission of saying the same in Latin, where the minister had not the knowledge of the English tongue. But for transtating it into Irish there was no care taken. The people are required by that statute, under several penalties to frequent their churches, and to be present at the reading the English liturgy, which they understood no more than they do the Mass. By which means, we have furnished the Papists with an excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in such a language as the peo pie do not understand." Thus Dr. Heylin.