But is the adoption of the Latin tongue, peculiar only to some of the Protestant Clergymen, of the present day? I answer no; for in the Act of Uniformity, the Protestant minister in Ireland, if he could not read the _English_, was permitted to read a _Latin_ translation, which was, no doubt, equally _unintelligible_ to the most of his parishioners. (See Dr. Heylin's Hist., as above.) In the same year, the Universities of Oxford, and Cambridge, and the Colleges of Eton, and Winchester, obtained permission from the head of their Church, to perform the divine service in the language of Rome. (Wilk. Conc. Tom. iv., p. 217.) Thus you see, that the muttering of the Liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it was written, is not (if I understand rightly Lord John's meaning,) is not peculiar only to some of you Protestant ministers of the present day; for it was claimed and exercised by some of your Protestant ancestors. But then, we all know, Lord John is a consistent and straight-forward man, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you, to adopt in your Liturgy, a _modern_ language, significant of the _modern_ origin of your Church, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you to show, by the language of your Liturgy, that your Church, is _so many_ hundred years _too late, to be the Church of Christ_. But if the muttering of the Liturgy, &c., by the Clergy, be a great crime, is it not a far greater crime, for the Protestant Bishops, and clergymen, so to mutter the tenets of their creed, as to disguise the language, and the meaning of them, by their perpetual disunions, and contradictions? Is it not a _notorious_ fact, that in _one_ Protestant Church, you are taught to believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, in _another_, in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; in _one_ Protestant parish, you have a sacrificial, mediatorial priest, in _another_, one of an opposite, and contrary opinion; in _one_ Protestant Church, you have an altar, in _another_, you have a communion table; in _one_ Bishop's See, the Protestant prelate _rigorously_ insists, on the _necessity_ of spiritual regeneration by baptism, in _another_ Bishop's See, it is acknowledged to be an _unnecessary_ act of religion; in Pimlico Protestant Church, you have auricular confession _insisted on_, in a Liverpool Protestant Church, you have the _punishment of death_, recommended as a _penalty_ for such a practice; in short, is it not _notorious_ (as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and Clergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, about _their articles of faith_, _matters of discipline_ and _ceremonies_? Really, what are the people to do, amidst all this disunion, and dissension about their religion, so as to disguise, and confound the sense, and meaning of its tenets? Had not Lord John Russell, better have called his bishops, and Clergy to an account, on _this_ Babel muttering of religion, before he chastised them, for the muttering of _the Liturgy_? The building of