version of unbelievers. But that it has never been withdrawn from the one Catholic Church is a matter of fact attested by a cloud of witnesses, whose judgment and veracity cannot be questioned nor denied by the most decided enemy. "We have been not only taught the truth of God (says Luther, de Indeis, p. 210), but have seen it confirmed by manifest signs and miracles for these last fifteen hundred years." The Centuriators of Magdeburg give us some useful information concerning one of our saints. St. Patrick (say they) was a man excelling in doctrine and miracles, who by his prayers shortly converted all Ireland, founded churches without number, ordaining preachers, delivering the possessed, raising the dead, to the number of sixty, and baptizing twelve thousand souls. But he had the marks of Antichrist, for he built many churches for the increase of popery. Witaker, as bitter an enemy as the Church ever had, cries out, "Let not Bellarmine think that I despise altogether the miracles of Xavier, for it may happen that such have been and may still be wrought in the Popish Church." Let us hear a little more of this holy Xavier, and from a Protestant minister, Mr. Hackluyt, who thus

writes, in a work entitled, "Principal Navigations:" "That godly professor and laborious doctor of the Indian nation in matters concerning religion, Francis Xavier, after great labors, injuries, and calamities, suffered with much patience, departed indeed with all spiritual blessings out of this life, in the year of the Lord 1552, after many thousands were by him brought to the knowledge of Christ. Of this holy man, his particular virtues and wonderful works, all the latter histories of the Indian regions are full." Babdeus, another Protestant, in his Indian history says: "If the religion of Xavier agreed with ours, we ought to reverence him as another St. Paul; yet, notwithstanding the difference in religion, his zeal, his vigilance, and the sanctity of his manners ought to stir up all good men not to do the work of God negligently. For the gifts which Xavier had received, to execute the office of a minister and ambassador of Jesus Christ, were so eminent that my soul is unable to express them. I am forced to exclaim, Who is capable like him of these wonderful things?" He ends by an apostrophe to the saint, "Would to God, being what you have been, you had been or would have been one of ours."

If one were to inquire why these attempts at improvements in language have been made, we should probably be told that a subject so important to a people as the means by which they are to convey ideas for present instruction or future use naturally suggests efforts to illustrate and improve those means. Another reason may be offered for

this new presentation of the subject of English grammar, from the A B C of the child's book to the most laborious rules of syntax, viz., that people who must write for the periodical publications have written themselves pretty nearly out as it regards the facts, the logic, and the policy of events in the great body of national literature; and as they cannot give up their pen without jeoparding their bread, they are not disposed to examine minutely into the nerves, ligaments, and joints of the language.

We are not prepared to say that either of the above assigned reasons is correct. It may be that gentlemen in the course of their scholastic studies, and, indeed, in their literary pursuits, have found the existence of certain contradictions, or the appearance of contradictions, in the elements of our language, and in trying to understand their origin have been led to believe that benefits would result from a closer investigation and fuller development of the elements of the language, with a view to fix certain points and limit changes, when changes may be allowed. Now we must confess that these efforts to erect some standard for the English language are not at all premature. The danger is that so much of error has crept, or been forced, into our every day uses, that the eradication will be too great a work, and people who know nothing of language but what they hear or see in the newspapers, will, with some others who know a little more, declare that the English language is that which is spoken and written to-day, and to-morrow it will be that which may be spoken and written that day, and this decision will be made without any reference to those who may speak and write.

The language changes slowly, and people do not, in general, notice the introduction of new words, or the omission of those that have

been current. The rules of grammar that seemed to have no excep tion are violated by hasty writers, and the present use, though it startle the ear at first, soon becomes familiar, and the binding force of the old rule is forgotten.

The ex-preceptor, who in the day when his precepts were occasionally enforced with a ratan, would have punished his pupil for putting into his exercises the phrase, "She wished to speedily return," impressing upon the lad's memory and elsewhere the rule without exception, "No word must come between the verb in the infinitive mood and its sign, to," will now try "to steadily avoid the error." Our language is deteriorating. It is losing in force and precision, in the latter especially; and this is greatly due to the public press. The editorials of the daily and weekly papers are generally well written. The style is good, and the rules of grammar are usually observed. But a portion of what appears in "reports" is often offensive to taste, and in violation of the most common rules of syntax and composition. And these contributions are those most generally read, and therefore their errors are more extensively injurious.

We sometimes see in "reports" a word either wholly new or of which the immediate use is new and wrong. Yet in a short time it is repeated, and very soon is admitted into full family privileges, at least in the reporters' lexicon. One of the abominations that disfigures the newspaper reports, and has paved its way into colloquial distinction, is the word resurrect, at first directly applied to the stealing of dead bodies from graves, &c., and this use is now so well established, that it is employed to denote the revival of theories, rumors, &c. We are told that men were detected in resurrecting a dead body, and we see also in papers, that not content

with reports of present or recent misdeeds, these people have resurrected an old calumny, &c. We find no good use of "resurrect." But we have no security against its being thrust into the next dictionary.

Another word has great authority, but is not legitimate-enact, to act, to perform a part. Shakspeare put such a word into the mouth of old Polonius, and it is used in a sense somewhat like that in one of the historical plays. Spenser also uses it. But readers will notice that for a long time the word has not been in good use. A dramatic critic sometimes strengthens a sentence by the use of enact, but it has the appearance of small pedantry, and scarcely any reader sees the word in such use without thinking of Polonius.

There has only recently crept into our language the use of the verb assist, to signify being present at, to assist, that is, to be at the opening, &c. Assist comes to us, of course, from the Latin, through the Italian and the French, with the signification in those languages which we are condemning when used in the English. The word is found in almost every notice of church service, a social meeting, a ball, or an excursion, which is reported in a French paper. The bishop, the king, the mayor, the ladies, and witnesses are all said to assist in these several meetings, though perhaps no one had a part therein except as a spectator. But the English, and still more the Americans, getting hold of this French use, try to force it into English use, and the carelessness of general readers as well as the vanity of others, help, aid, and assist in foisting it upon us. Italian and French books, now lying before us, contain some excellent advice as to the mode of hearing Mass, and in both languages it is recommended that "worshippers

should entertain, in that solemn service, the same feeling which they would have experienced had they been assisting at the awful sacrifice on Calvary."

That did very well in Italian and French, but when it is found in English, and the word assist is retained, it certainly does not convey the same idea that is presented in the French and Italian.

The feelings of the devout worshipper at certain parts of the Mass are not and ought not to be like those which animated the persons that helped, aided, and assisted in the awful sacrifice of Calvary.

Demand is another word which has recently been used in our language in the French and Italian sense, so that we see in the papers, and hear in good company (that is, good with the exception of its language), that certain persons have demanded contribution and alms.

In Congress we hear a member demand the previous question, when "to call" for it is all that he has a right to do. When difficulties arose between the government of the United States and that of France relative to some money settlement, and information was then "long a coming," General Jackson asked of a Senator what was the nature of the dispatch from France? "Why," said the Senator, "France demands an early settlement of the account." "Demands," said the old hero of New Orleans, "France demands a settlement, does she? nal, she shall have her demand answered at the mouth of the cannon.” When the dispatch was translated, and it was found that the request of France was quite in the way of business, there was peace at the White House, and peace between France and the United States.

By the eter

The French and the Italians say I demand of God, when their petition should be translated into English "I humbly ask of God."

The Gentleman's Magazine of a

hundred and twenty or thirty years back gives the text of a tripartite treaty into which England, France, and Holland had entered, and among other provisions set forth was one that Holland should menage the navy of Great Britain.

The document was translated from the French into English, with the exception of the few words which were considered wholly diplomatic. Of that kind was the word menage; and in the midst of the jubilation of London at the settlement of a vexed question, which had disturbed commerce and threatened greater evils, the word menage was discovered. Forthwith John Bull roared lustily and shouted, "Never, never, would the British people consent that Holland should manage the British navy. Perish the treaty, let it be burned by the common hangman, and let the same executive gentleman do his amiable office upon the ministry that would give up the management of the wooden walls of England to the Dutch or the French.'

After some time the tempest was staid, and the multitude appeased by the solemn statement that the word 66 menage" " did not mean to direct or manage, but the provision of the treaty was that the Dutch would "respect" the English navy. The pronoun "you," in our old grammars, never was regarded as of the singular number; and hence we have thou lovest, you love." But long colloquial use commended the employment of you in the singular number to bookmakers, so that now many of the grammars conjugate the verb so as to make it agree with you, in the second person singular. And one or two of them appear to regard the use of "thou," and its agreeing verb, "lovest," useless, and art as obsolete; and indeed, with a few exceptions, they are so. But we still retain thou in the solemn style. No translation of the Holy Scriptures, so far as

we know, has adopted the familiar style of "you" for its second person singular; nor in addresses to the Deity do we hear you used.

But in the Italian prayer-book you is used instead of "thou," and God and the Saints are approached with that pronoun which, in our language, is considered quite too familiar for such purposes. The French have long been following the example of the Italians, and we, especially the Catholics, suffer from this abuse of words, because those who have undertaken to translate into English the beautiful prayers which enrich the devotional books of France and Italy, do not translate the pronoun and verb into solemn English.

When, for example, in Italian the words "Oh Deo di bontà voi venite

are rendered by translation "Oh God of goodness you come." the translation is verbally correct; but the ear of a pious English-reading person must be pained by the use of you for God. Yet such errors mar a large portion of the devotional works translated into our language. We have no objection to the use of you in the singular number for any person or being, were he even an emperor, but let it not be applied to objects of worship. "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

A few lines above we spoke of translating the pronoun and verb into solemn English. It will be noticed that if thou is given instead of "you," in the present tense of the indicative mode, the verb has an equal change. "You believe" is the familiar style; thou believest is the solemn style; and when the solemn style is adopted for the second person singular, it must be used in the third person singular also. Thus, familiar style, he believes; solemn style, he believeth; and it must be borne in mind that this use of eth (believeth, loveth) is peculiar to the

singular number; it can never extend to the plural number. One may not say "James and John believeth," though a few instances of that kind of error are found even in the James's translation of the Bible. Scott and most of the popular writers not only use "you for thou, and "s" for th, but they contrive in a single paragraph to confound the solemn and the familiar without change of circumstance or speaker.

Directly is a a word which, in its primary sense, would intimate straight movement, not in a winding course. But it has also a sig. nification of time; "he will return directly," that is, " very soon."

In its character as an adverb of time, it was, twenty years ago, employed falsely; but its novelty tickled the eye or ear of some American writers, and forthwith the periodicals adopted the error, following, it is thought, Bulwer, who says, in more than one place, "directly he was seated," instead of "as soon as he was seated."

Immediately sometimes is misapplied in the same manner. Warren, in his "Ten Thousand a Year," supplies an abundance of evidence that he does not understand the English, especially in his frequent use of "directly" for "as soon as." There are certain words in our language that have been undergoing a change of signification for many years. In this class are "prevent," "sincere," "persecution."

Prevent now is used almost invariably for "to hinder," "to stop;" and in theological works it often retains its original signification "to go before," "to meet," &c. So that while in one class of works-prayer-books-the word "prevent" really intimates guidance, assistance, in other and general, it denotes entire stoppage.

Sincere, which started with an entire physical signification, has come to denote a moral quality.

Sincere, sine cere, without wax, was the name given to honey from which the honeycomb, the wax, and other coarse particles had been strained.

"New-born babes desire the sincere milk of the word," says the Scriptures in the earliest translation.

As late as the time of Queen Anne of England, an act of Parliament was passed to secure “sincere tar" for her majesty's navy. At present, "sincere" denotes moral quality alone.

Persecute, "persecution," &c. This word, "persecute," has of late settled down into a simple idea, that of wrongfully inflicting fines, penalties, severe dealing, &c. Thus, Nero persecuted Christians by inflicting imprisonment and death. But the meaning was originally and for a long time far more extensive.

Some years since, when persons were stirring up the public mind against the Catholic Church, a writer seems to have tried his hand or his invention on what he called. "the bishops' oath." This oath, it was said, was taken by all bishops who received investiture, and it included in translation the promise, "I will persecute all heretics." So, according to the writer, each bishop was bound to inflict pains and penalties which he knew to be unjust, if "persecute" had the same signification then as it has now. We do not often hear of an official solemnly pledging himself to do any act which he recognizes as unjust. Now, if any such oaths were taken by the bishops, it was when they were necessary to civil or political power as governors of a city. But, whatever may have been required of them, it is scarcely supposable that they would pledge themselves to injustice. Yet it is said, and perhaps with truth, that they pledged themselves by oath to persecute a certain class