taking off his cross-embroidered vestment, followed his example. Brother Ignatius then said, that in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' he desired to say a few words to the congregation, whom he addressed as men and women, sons and daughters of our fallen race.' He accordingly ascended a kind of pulpit, and in a tone of impassioned entreaty, besought all present to show their love for Jesus by coming to adore His holy cross. They kissed, he said, the pictures of relatives and distant friends, why not kiss the emblem of their faith, the cross of their Lord? He then prescribed that, during the creeping,' a hymn should be sung, that the faithful, in drawing near the altar, should make three prostrations, and finally, that they should kiss the hands and feet of the figure on the crucifix."

Now, taking the Romish view of the Sacrifice of the Mass, all this is in full keeping. If we were to really believe, as Romanists do believe, that the Priest re-enacts, actually and truly, the stupendous tragedy of Calvary, that he perpetuates or repeats what Christ "finished," no possible degree of awe, or method of its manifestation, would seem out of place. Not only the "creeping" of these Benedictines, but the quaking earth, the rending rocks, the opened graves, the darkened heavens, might well give forth their language of horror. But, most assuredly, this would not be that most comfortable Sacrament to which the Holy Scripture, the Primitive Church, and our own, invite us, and which we are bid approach and receive, with deepest penitence and humility, yet with the voice of praise and thanksgiving. The Christian Remembrancer, for Jan., 1865, has the following :

"It is far from our wish to counsel any timid repudiation of Ritualism. It is because we believe that Ritualism is the natural law of the English Church's worship, and because we believe that English-. men are coming round to that conviction far more extensively and far more completely than we could have thought possible some years since, that we regret the blindness of those who would drive back this happy tendency, by over-laying the legitimate Ritual of our Church. with a mass of startling observances, which, to the common mind, speak of nothing but Rome."

Archdeacon Denison, speaking of these extreme Ritualists, said :

"He had the utmost regard and respect for many of those who differed from him on the subject, because he knew that among them

there were many of the most pains-taking and hard-working of God's Ministers, and therefore he desired to deal with the subject tenderly. At the same time, he could not doubt that they were committing a great mistake. It was not by pomp and ceremonial that our Lord and the Apostles induced the people to bow down and confess the truth, but by the use of the simplest forms."

Neither so far as mere scenic effect is concerned,—and this seems to be the great argument at the present day,—is anything gained in the end, by such awful pageantry. Even the scenes of the Cross, as a mere pompous display to charm the senses, wear out at last, and lose their power. In Italy, even High Mass has become an old story. A writer in the (London) Guardian, (Oct. 18, 1865,) says :—

"At the Cathedral of Florence, High Mass now often goes on at the grand altar in presence only of a few curious strangers or lookerson. The officiating priests themselves seem to be quite conscious that they have lost their audience on such occasions, and to feel as though they were going through a form that had become well-nigh obsolete. Nothing can exceed the rapidity with which the Office is conducted. The vast band of performers wheel about with the celerity of a corps de ballet; and the business is got through and the long procession files off into the sacristy and disappears, in a way not at all usual with Roman Catholic ceremonies which are in vogue. The impression conveyed is, that this most solemn celebration of divine worship and chief observance of the Sunday, is fallen in popular estimation, and that the officiators are aware of it, and get through the prescribed ritual, as far as possible, as through a worn-out piece. Meanwhile, however, at precisely the same hour and on the same day, the chapel of the Virgin, which stands immediately behind the neglected chief altar, is blazing with lights and thronged with devotees of all classes and sexes, though chiefly females; and if you take your stand for a time by the marble screen which encircles the high altar, you will see that the entire tide of congregation, ladies of the highest fashion as well as the humblest contadina, including such men as enter the Church—all, almost without exception, pass by the principal service, even as it is going on, and join the more popular assemblage on the other side."

Before leaving this whole subject, there is another aspect of it, on which a few considerations may be offered, as a fitting conclusion. The conception of Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice, does not comprise all the functions of the Christian Ministry. The Christian Dispensation, as such, differs from the Jewish Dispensation, which it followed and supplemented. How it differs, what the distinguishing features of these two great Sys

Thus we have, in the two Counties where they were found, in their beginning, five Romish Priests, two lay brothers, and eight Churches and Chapels, and none in any other County, except a Chapel in Talbot.

In four Counties, the Quakers had eight meeting-houses, and three meetings in private houses, and none in the other Counties. Only two preachers are returned by the Sheriffs.

In one County, the Presbyterians had three houses of worship, and we may add, from other documents, two Ministers. Two others, one in Talbot and one in Ann Arundel, were there in 1694, but, as it appears, they were now gone.

Thus we have, in all, Roman Catholic, Quakers, and Presbyterians, according to the returns made, nine religious teachers and ministers, and twenty places of worship, not of the Church of England; while that Church had eighteen Ministers, and twenty-five places of worship,-thus outnumbering all the other denominations.

And now we will quote from a document which carries us back to the beginning again. In July, 1700, a Committee of his majesty's Council to the Governor, was appointed to address the Privy Council in England, vindicating the Governor and Council from some aspersions cast upon the Government of Maryland, by some persons calling themselves ancient planters, in connection with the Act establishing the Church. And they say:

"We humbly assure your Lordships, that whatever titles persons may give themselves, of dissenting Protestants, there has no sect of Religion here, opposed the law, but the Papists and Quakers, and, as for their [the Papists] being ancient settlers, we acknowledge that some, though but few Papists, were at the first seating. But, so far were the Quakers from being the most ancient seaters, that when they first came in, [in 1659,] they were ordered to be whipped out, for disturbing the government, and they are now, so far from being any considerable part, that we are confident they will not make the twentieth part of the province."

It is but fair, however, to state, that it is said the Quakers disowned these disturbers of the Government.

This is signed by John Addison, Thomas Brooke, Thomas Tasker, and John Hammond,-names well known in their

descendants, and who came into the province before thirty years after the first landing at St. Mary's. They knew whereof they affirmed.

Of the same date, 1700, we have a statement from the Rev. Dr. Bray, touching the then present state of things. He was the Bishop of London's Commissary in Maryland, and a man of high character. In a Memorial addressed to the House of Bishops in England, this year, after having been in Maryland, he writes thus :-"The Papists in this province appear to me to be not above a twelfth part of the inhabitants, but their Priests are very numerous, whereof more have been sent in this last year, than was ever known. And though the Quakers brag so much of their numbers and riches, yet they are not above a tenth part [of the population] in number." This was not indeed guess work; it was shown by the return of the County Sheriffs.

These testimonies, we doubt not, will be sufficient to show who, in respect to their Religion, were the early settlers in Maryland. They would be held so in any Court of Law, and more especially so, where, as in this case, there is no counter testimony.

But it may not be without interest to give some later testimony, to show how this matter continued, subsequent to 1700.

In 1715, The Lords Baltimore, having become Protestant, the Government of Maryland was restored to them by King George I., and continued to be Protestant, just as it had been since 1688. Henceforward, the Governors of the Province were appointed by them, just as they had been by the King, for the last twenty-five years.

During the administration of one of the Governors, that of Gov. Sharpe, there was quite a panic in the Province, in which the Roman Catholics were implicated. It was spread abroad that a general massacre of the Protestants had been plotted. To counteract this, the Governor ordered the County Sheriffs, in 1758, to make returns to him of all the Roman Catholics in their respective Counties, and these returns are on record still, in the archives at Annapolis. And we have the summing up of them, in a letter from Gov. Sharpe to Lord

Baltimore, of Dec. 19, 1758, in these words :-"The people of that Religion, [the Roman Catholic,] do not, at present, make a thirteenth part of the inhabitants, [the population now was upwards of 200,000,] as I find by the returns of the Sheriffs and Constables, who have, in obedience to my order, made the most strict inquiry in their respective districts. And the rolls returned by the collectors of the land tax, show that they are not possessed of a twelfth part of the land, which is held under your Lordship, as proprietor of Maryland." We are shown, thus, that during the one hundred and twenty-four years of the existence of the Province, there had been no increase of the proportion of Roman Catholics to the Protestants in Maryland. It was still Protestant, not Roman Catholic Maryland.

We have yet another series of papers in the Maryland archives, of no little interest, not as showing so much the comparative numbers of the Established Church with the other Denominations, which it nevertheless does to some extent show, but its comparative ability and liberality. Since 1695, three new Counties had been added to the eleven then mentioned; namely, Frederick, on the Western, and Queen Anne and Worcester Counties, on the Eastern shore.

In 1760, there was a great fire in Boston, Mass., which destroyed one hundred and seventy-four dwelling houses, and as many warehouses and shops and other buildings, which, with the furniture and goods burnt, made the estimated loss to be £100,000 sterling; $433,000. The Governor of Massachusetts applied to the Governor of Maryland for aid, and Governor Sharpe issued his brief, now before us, to every worshipping congregation in the Province, with directions, that collections be taken up, and the amounts severally remitted to him. This was done, and the returns made give us the following facts:

St. Mary's County, from its 4 parishes, with 4 Clergy- £ S. d. (sterling,) 146 13 0

66

men, sent

4 Romanist Clergymen, sent Charles County, from its 4 parishes, having 4 Clergy

31 13 0

men, sent,

128 05 11