in the change of direction in singing the Gloria. The Prayer Book prescribes nothing upon the subject; and, custom aside, each way is as lawful as the other. It may be said, that no change should be made from established method, unless it be to return to a former usage which is more correct: but this leaves the door open to boundless innovations, depending only upon the private judgment of the innovator. The truth is, that we need, for our Clergy, a full Directorium, established by authority of General Convention: and, until we have it, unauthorized changes and additions are likely to go on, and increase among us. If a congregation sustains its Minister in making them, what is to hinder him? And yet, in this way, great evils may be introduced, practices inconsistent with the spirit of our Reformed Church. Surplices for Choristers have become respectable; and they have, in their favor, an argument from the English use. But we lately heard of an instance in which one of our congregations sent to a Roman Catholic Church, to get the pattern of the vestments of its altar-boys, by which to cut the new garments of its own juvenile Choristers.*

The matter cannot be left to the discretion of Bishops,—each settling the details of liturgical usages in his own Diocese, after the primitive method,-without introducing discordant uses in the various Dioceses. We know of a Bishop who has recommended the universal use of the Surplice, in preaching, in his Diocese. We know of other Bishops who prefer the gown. One Bishop has advised the saying of a Collect and the Lord's Prayer, in the Pulpit, before Sermon, as is common in England. Not a Clergyman in his Diocese followed the advice; and, probably, there is not another Bishop who would give the same advice. One has recommended bowing in the Creed. No Church in his Diocese changed its practice for his recommendation; and other Bishops, who do not themselves bow in the Creed, would not recommend the act. If Bishops are to have the final control in the matter, each in his own

A few congregations, perhaps only two or three, bow at the words, was made man," in the Creed. We may be mistaken, but we can remember no other authority for this than the Roman practice.

Diocese, the authority must be given to them by Canon. Their present right to dictate is not acknowledged, or submitted to. If authority is given by Canon, we must expect conflicting issues. One Bishop will have the Altar against the Chancel wall; another will have it in the middle of the Sacrarium. One will insist on its being a table on legs; another will prefer the Altar shape. Practical directions will be guided by Episcopal views of Theology; and a Clergyman will require a special apprenticeship in each Diocese, before he is competent to officiate according to its "use." use." This would occasion little inconvenience, if our Dioceses were no more closely associated than those of the Primitive Church. But, under our confederate Constitution, the clashings of different customs would breed the most disreputable family quarrels. If our present system of association is to remain, nothing will serve but a Directorium, established by General Convention, or, more properly, by the House of Bishops, at the request of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.

What, then, is to be done? Have we no law to restrict innovation? A congregation formed of homogeneous elements, and having a Rector of like mind with itself, introduces, let us say, vestments for its Choristers, like those of the Roman Acolytes; adds to the Surplice of its Clergy, the Chasuble, and perhaps the Cope; replaces the black with colored Stoles; puts its Deacon's Scarf on one shoulder; and, in its worship, places upon its Altar lighted candles, during the celebration of the Eucharist; has the sign of the Cross made in the Invocation, and in blessing the people; sings an Introit, perhaps in Latin, while Choristers and Clergy enter the Chancel, and does other such like things, sufficient to make its Worship quite unlike what is commonly seen in our Churches, while it strictly observes every Rubric in the Prayer Book ;-is there any existing law which can hinder, or arrest, the change? We know of none. There is the common judgment of Church people. But, the congregation is independent. Its own members like the new use. The Bishop may condemn it. But he has no authority to abolish it. There is no legal power to prevent it as we now stand. It is easy to see the difference, and the line

of distinction between such a Worship and the sedate, reverent and orderly celebration of the Church's Services, according to the model presented in the Prayer Book, where nothing is added to the written use, unless it may be in some act of Service for the performance of which, as to its method, no rule is given; and then the method adopted is consonant with the general spirit of our Rubrics, or is determined by the best usage known in our own Communion.

To prevent this overstretch of Ritualism, the Church's law, as held and observed among us, provides no resource. Such a congregation may be ostracised. Other Church people may refuse to attend its Worship. Other Clergy may withhold countenance and aid from its Rector. We know not but that the Convention of the Diocese might exclude it from representation. But that would not banish it from the Communion of the Church; and, the Bishop could not, legally, withdraw his pastoral supervision, or refuse his official functions. We see not how its Rector could be impeached, as he will have violated no law. He does, we have supposed, all that the Church prescribes. He has exceeded common usage; but, the exact limit beyond which legalized use passes into transgression, has not been fixed. There are great varieties of practice in the Worship of different congregations, all allowed; and, there is no legal definition of the bounds of such allowance; and no man can be condemned without law. The arbitrary opinion of a Court would carry with it no lawful authority. The case is beyond judicature, in the present state of the Church's legislation. One may say, the Bishop's "Godly admonition" ought to avail. But the consequences of his position no one will accept. If it should avail here, it should avail in all matters of Rites and Ceremonies, the mode of conducting Services, arranging Chancels, &c. But who will acknowledge such arbitrary rule, under which may be exercised the tyranny of a partizan and the bitter prejudices of an extremist. The great body of Church people would deny the right of such unlimited dictation. It cannot be enforced, as no law sustains it.

There is no question, that greater attention is now given to the aesthetics of Religion, than has ever before appeared since

the Reformation. It runs parallel with the spirit of the times. Love of show, delight in the beautiful, fondness for whatever gratifies the senses, have grown among us as a people, until some of their manifestations have become both vicious in taste and extravagant in degree. It is the natural outgrowth of our advance as a nation, in wealth, and luxury, and effeminate living. In Religion, it is not confined to any party in the Church, nor to any denomination of Christians. It is seen in increasing taste for higher styles of Music, in more elaborate decorations of the Sanctuary, and in greater fondness for artistic effects, even in Worship. Take the use of flowers. Ten years ago, a Bishop refused to visit a Church for Confirmation, unless the Rector would promise not to use them for decoration, on occasion of Festivals. Now, their use for such purposes is well-nigh universal; and no one thinks of objecting to it. There may not be much of Religious feeling, or much sense of symbolism, in most persons, when they see them, even at Easter; but, they are a pretty thing, and the people like it. Their use is unauthorized by any rule; but, so are the evergreens at Christmas. Once established in custom, they have the same authority with the verdant dress of the Nativity; and they are more significant emblems of the Resurrection, than spruce and pine, laurel and holly, of the Birth. Their gradual introduction is an instance in point to show how easily, at this day, we advance in æsthetical developments. Even the Sects have caught the spirit of the thing; and, naturally; for, it grows out of the general taste of the people. Witness the gorgeous use of flowers, by all classes, at Burials. We know of a Presbyterian Society that spent $500 for its floral decorations, last Easter; and, a Congregational Society, which had, at that time, a large and costly Cross, of the rarest flowers, standing upon its Communion Table. And, as for Music, our Te Deum, our Gloria Patri, our Gloria in Excelsis, and some of our Canticles, may be heard, rendered in the highest style of art, in many a meeting-house of the Denominations.

It is worth while to note these changes; for they portend and shadow forth the future. Much of the actual and prom

ised developments of Ritualism have this intent; no more. They have no theological significancy. They spring from the growing passion for the beautiful. If Roman Catholics had never placed lights on the Altar, our own Rectors might, probably, put them there with as little offense as flowers. And so of new forms and ceremonies: whatever heightens effect is likely to meet with favor; the more so, if it have in it no repulsive sentiment, or use of a hostile Religion. And, we must expect to see such developments increase. They follow the spirit of the times. They spring from the prevailing taste of the people. It will be easier to regulate than to prevent them and Religion ought not to exhibit herself as destitute of sympathy with the innocent tendencies of the age. If she does, she will lose her place of dominion. But, this does not imply the ministering to a false pride or vanity, or the modern love of self-indulgence. Much less should it be made the channel for introducing usages which are but the servile imitations of a corrupt Religion. Nor is it necessary. There is, indeed, no excuse for it. The region of Symbolism is so vast, -vast as the domain of Nature,-that we can find all pure and innocent forms of significance, without intruding into a territory where those forms have been marred by corrupt additions of doctrine and usage. Let us confine ourselves to the sober simplicity of our own Anglican Communion; and, in our æsthetical progress, seek to chasten popular taste by those things in which Religion ministers to it; while, on the other hand, we preserve her from the taint of a corrupt model of Ritualism. All that Rome has which is Catholic, is ours; but, the purest and richest age of Symbolism was before Papacy rose.

There is, sometimes, a wonderful difference in the Worship of the Church, where there is no marked difference in form. Manners make the man; and, we may almost say, Manners make the Service. At least, this is true:-the Worship of the Church is one thing, or a wholly different thing, in character and effect, according to the manner in which it is conducted. "Shall we," says South, "in our applications to the great God, take that to be Religion, which the common reason of mankind will not allow to be manners ?" There can be no