doubt, that many of our Clergy, and Laity too, in their fear of being superstitious, or of seeming so, are hardly decent in their demeanor in the House of GOD. Anything is good enough for Religion, provided there be the right spiritual affection. We know a Clergyman who has such a horror of reverence for the Altar and its Sacrament, that, in the act of Consecration, he faces half-way round to the people; and, at the laying on of the hand, gives a flippant touch to the Paten and the Cup; and there are lesser degrees of irreverence and slovenliness which, if not so shocking, are very exceptionable, as they are very common. The putting on of his Surplice, and, not unfrequently, the condition of the Surplice which he puts on, may show the animus of the Clergyman. If we had a Clerical Directorium, as we ought to have, this very act of arraying one's self in sacred vestments, for the solemn duties of the Sanctuary, were worthy to be accompanied by a silent Prayer, prescribed therefor.

And, in the Church,-why, we can almost wish well to the most extravagant Ritualists, when we see how the Service is often treated. First, bad reading, which would disgrace a schoolboy. Strange, that our Theological Seminaries take no more note of this than they do! Second, careless and irreverent reading, where the Clergyman seems to have no appreciation of the sacredness of the employment in which he is engaged, Third, monotonous reading, when Confession, Supplication and Thanksgiving, are all said in the same unvaried tone. Fourth, preaching-reading, where the Service sounds like a Methodist prayer-meeting. Fifth, affected reading; which reminds us of the comment of a Boston Paper, on the effusion of a certain Divine, on a special occasion :-" one of the most eloquent prayers ever addressed to a Boston congregation." And then, the postures and movements, and the whole air and demeanor of the Minister,-nothing reverent about them,-no sense of the proprieties of the place,-sometimes a scrupulous avoiding of reverence, lest it be misinterpreted,-no appearance of solemn awe,-gazing at the congregation,-putting one's elbows on the Altar, God's Table, in a manner for which he would chide his son, if he were to do the same thing on his

own table at home; and, a thousand other indescribable slovenlinesses and breaches of propriety, which show that the man thinks anything is good enongh for Religion, if one is only spiritually-minded.

least, in his favor: his

He realizes that it is a

The extreme Ritualist has this, at manners become the House of God. sacred place. He preserves the form of reverence, which is so essential to having the spirit of reverence. He believes, that too much attention cannot be given to one's conduct and demeanor in the Sanctuary. And, he makes his people reverential in their demeanor. We never see the power and greatness of little things more strongly illustrated, than in the difference of effect which manners in the Church create. It is too little thought of among us and one reason is, that our people are so suspicious of signs of reverence. It is carrying them straight to Popery. They will see it in lowly kneeling ; in a marked bowing in the Creed, anything which goes beyond the "fashionable nod;" in a reverent laying of the Alms, and of the Bread and Wine, upon the Holy Table; in the careful handling of the sacred vessels; in a sedate and devout manner; in a slow and quiet movement, as if one felt that he was on holy ground; in the hushed and awed administration of the consecrated elements; in the "reverent eating and drinking of the same," after the Blessing; and in everything else which shows, that the Minister has a deep sense of where he is, and what he is doing. We must be careful of these things; for, extremes beget extremes and if there are those among us who are inclined to run into unsanctioned forms and practices, it is, in great part, caused by a reasonable discontent with the prevailing habits of more of our congregations. We know this to be the fact; for, we have talked with many of these Brethren, and we have seen their whole hearts in the matter. They do not believe, and no more do we, that the common habits of our Worship, in Clergy and Laity, are those which become a holy Place, or holy acts; and, they will not admit, that they fairly represent the spirit or intention of the Church: nor do they. Hence, a seeking for better things. Hence, a desire to gather congregations in which better things may be

had. And hence, (as is natural in all reactions,) is a tendency in some to go beyond the modest middle way, which is the true position of our Church. And, we must add, they are as near right as are those of their Brethren from whom they most differ; and, they are entitled to the same degree of toleration; and, they will have it; for no law, no authority, no equity, can prevent it.

And here we find, as we have already intimated, a true and just consolation, when we reflect upon the issues of these things, of this growing attention to Ritualism. The Tracts for the Times, in their day, were not without great evils. In some minds, their teaching budded into false doctrine. But, who can now deny, that the Religious movement which produced them, has wrought marvellous and most beneficent changes in the Church of England? So here; this new development in the aesthetics of Religion, which began across the water, and is now appearing here, may work, though it be attended with some excesses, as great and needed a reformation. Our Worship, (and, in that, we include all appointed Orders and Offices of the Church,) is not what it should be in practice; and, as we have shown, our provision for the conduct of it is meager and unsatisfactory. We cannot go on always without a fuller Directorium. The new Ritualism will show the necessity for it. Its very existence proves that necessity. While, on the other hand, the efforts of zealous men to inaugurate a new style of associated devotion, will end, we hope and believe, in bringing us all, Clergy and Laity, up to the realization of the Worship of GOD, in the Beauty of Holiness.

ART. V.-THE CHURCH: PURITANISM: THE FREEDMEN.

(1.) Reports, Sermons, Lectures, Addresses, &c., &c.

(2.) Protestant Episcopal Freedmen's Commission Occasional Paper. Jan. 1866. 8vo., pp. 28.

WE have before us, sent to us, for the use of, and some of them for publication in the Review, a mass of documents, printed and in manuscript, Sermons, Lectures, full and accurate stenographic Reports of Addresses never published, &c.,. &c., all of which go to prove a deliberate systematic determination and attempt to extend Puritanism into the South, and throughout the land, in connection with, and by means of, the present unsettled abnormal condition of the country. These documents we do not, for several reasons, deem it advisable to print, now. Their publication at the present time would only inflame the public mind, without perhaps subserving any really valuable end.

The main facts, however, which they disclose, belong to history, and should be preserved in connection with the stirring times through which we are passing. These documents show, that leading Puritans have attempted, and are now attempting, to impose Puritanism upon the South, and upon the country, a sort of Puritan Theocracy; an Institution as like as can be, in everything else but well-developed outward form-and hardly lacking that—to the System which Oliver Cromwell represented in England two centuries ago; and which the English nation, after a trial of twenty years, were but too glad to throw off, as an abominable tyranny, a thousand times worse than the Kingcraft from which they were promised deliverance. They have never cared to repeat the experiment. It is the proof of an attempt to extend Puritanism into the South, and to fasten it there, as an Institution, as a Religion, as a habit of thinking, as a philosophy, as a power, that we have before us.

Nor is the matter essentially changed by the fact that there is, in this country, no formal connection between Church and State. A late writer thus lays down the principle :

"In every country, the policy of the Civil Government will be more or less directly pervaded by the prevalent Religious principle of the people. However loudly the formal union of Church and State may be denounced, there is, in fact, no form of Government in which the two are more closely allied than in a Democracy. The Religious sense of the nation enters into all its legislation, and unconsciously moulds it after its own model. Men may legislate wisely, and insert provisions in the grand constitutional charter, absolutely forbidding the State to manifest any sectarian preference in the public recognition of one Religious Society over another; but, paradoxical as it may seem, the actual oneness of governmental policy with the prevailing tone of the popular Religion, is inevitable, especially in such a country

as ours."

There are several questions connected with the late War, and with the present disturbed condition of affairs, which cannot yet be fully and fairly discussed. The time for calm discussion will come by and by. But they cannot and should not be altogether ignored, even now, for many reasons. In what respects was that War a Religious War? To what extent do questions of a Religious and Denominational character hinder the return of National Peace, confidence, and prosperity ? Puritanism and Unitarianism, which are only different shoots on the same vine, and are one in their principles of Reform, and methods of working, are both trying to make capital out of the War. They have virtually avowed this design, and publicly, too, in their Conventions. They have identified themselves with the War, at every stage of its progress, and are straining every nerve now to shape and mould the form of its termination. In the Capitol, on political platforms, and in newspapers, they have put themselves forward on every possible occasion, and have sought to engage the public eye, as "the live men" of the age, and as "up to the times." "See," say they, "Our Christianity is no fossilized remains of musty Creeds and dead Orthodoxy. We have the genuine article for this nineteenth century." These modern empiricists are already much better understood than they suppose.

Now it is an unquestionable fact, that Puritanism at the North and a half-dozen leading Secessionists at the South, did, at the outset, play into each other's hands, in inflaming public feeling, and in inciting Civil War. So far as Slavery was in