in the language of the several people, whom they converted, seems to be a point generally admitted. The languages, at that time, most dominant, were the Greek, Latin, and Syriac, in which, consequently, the Liturgies, or the forms of public prayer, would be principally compiled ; while the Armenians, Copts or Egyptians, Ethiopians, and other less distinguished people, enjoyed also their particular Liturgies. But when, in process of time, from various causes, changes took place, and new tongues were spoken, the old still retained the place of honour; and the Church, ever tenacious of antiquity, judged it proper not to depart from the forms which she had received. The Deposite of her Faith was intimately interwoven with the primitive expressions of her Liturgies. Thus, when Greek ceased to be spoken in the many nations that formerly constituted what was called, the Greek Church, and even, as now, was not understood, the language of the Liturgy remained; as was, and is, the case, among the Syrians, Copts, Armenians, and Ethiopians. The Service is everywhere celebrated in a tongue, no longer intelligible to the people. On what grounds then is it required, that the Western Church, of which we are a part, should have followed another rule; particularly as, in this Church, in all the countries within its pale, the Latin language, in the early ages, was everywhere sufficiently understood, if not spoken? And when the northern nations were reclaimed to the Christian Faith, the established rule was not altered for this additional reason, that the use of the same tongue in the service might help to unite them more closely to the old Church, and tend, in some degree, by this approximation, to soften and civilise their manners.
The general accord among all nations, professing the Catholic Faith, not to admit any change in the language of their Liturgies,—though, in many other respects, they were much divided—is a curious and important fact. And it must have rested on some general motives equally obvious
