at the small results which follow his efforts, and pities the heathenish darkness of the people. He is not entirely wrong in estimating his success, for he cannot always see much fruit of his labors; although from being over-sanguine he becomes frequently over-desponding. He is often entirely wrong about his people; for they are the same race who dwell in the old States, and are not unmindful of the requirements of religion. Why does he meet with such disappointments? Partly from not knowing, and partly from regarding as worldly matters unbecoming a minister, many things which are necessary to the well being of the community. He visits the farmer, and cannot converse with him on any of his familiar topics, or relish conversation on them. Of the current political news of the day he is often studiously ignorant, because politics are notoriously an unclean pursuit. He visits a household where some member of the family, old or young, has met with an accident, or been taken suddenly ill, and, if appealed to for advice or assistance, is unable to give either. He visits the povertystricken with alms and sympathy; but cannot bestow such counsel as will aid them in making the most of their little means. He is asked advice concerning the disposition of property, perhaps on a death-bed, and can say nothing. In short, while by his sacred Office he is expected to be the general guide, counselor and friend, he is deficient in the essential qualifications.

The Jesuits do not neglect teaching the useful Arts. An acquaintance not superficial, but complete as far as it goes, with Medicine, Science, Languages, Agriculture and Mechanics, and the general principles of Law most likely to be of service, as well as the forms and rules of business, will be found very commonly among those missionary priests who are entrusted with cures of any importance. It is by such accomplishments that they obtain respect and influence among men, far more than by their dialectics. In the latter, wherein they follow the logic of the cloister, they are always sure to betray the disagreeable peculiarities of their system by the habitual use of puerile sophisms, effectual only with the ignorant and credulous. We have ourselves seen the readiness of these men to act in cases of emergency, where the nature of the accident was such as to baffle even a skillful physician; and the wisdom and common sense of the French priests who formerly had pastoral supervision of the Northwest, have always been known and appreciated. Their successors are not so accomplished; but they have a different work to do, and a different people to deal with than the simple and genial Frenchman.

We cannot but regard it as a great defect in our system that

more of this practical training is not found among our Clergy. It would not only add to their worldly wisdom, but would enable them to benefit their neighbors and parishioners. And(which some, however, may not approve)-it would aid them in providing for themselves and their families more comforts, and render them more independent of "starvation-point" salaries half paid. It does not follow, of necessity, because a man learns to use the saw and plane, that he should take up the trade of a carpenter; nor because he has some knowledge of any other art, that he should devote himself to it. No knowledge comes amiss to a man of sense; and the disparagement which befalls a jack of all trades is undeserved, unless he is a master of none, and therefore has spent time on one which was needed for another. How far it is practicable, or convenient, for a parish Clergyman or Missionary to enter upon any secular trade or occupation, is a question deserving more time and space than a page in a desultory paper; but, having the example of St. Paul, who wrought diligently night and day to earn his own living, that he might not be chargeable to his flock, we believe there is a false etiquette on this subject which keeps many Clergymen miserably poor, and keeps many Churches destitute entirely of clerical supervision. We respectfully commend the consideration of this topic to those who are discussing the subject of "Free Churches."

Squeamishness is a vice very prevalent in this country, and there seems to be a great uneasiness about compromising the conventional dignity of station. Strange as it may appear, there is far more of this among ourselves than exists among the best society in England. Far be it from any one to undervalue a demeanor and course of life which not only receive, but extort from all, profound respect. But to encourage shallowpated pretension to lay down iron rules for the conduct of the Ministry, and to starve it into genteel povertys for no better recompense than a bland condescending approbation of the rigid propriety with which this etiquette is obeyed, is carrying obedience to worldly maxims entirely too far. It would astonish a dignitary of the Church of England, to be rebuked for farming or improving lands, or for owning a share in some flourishing factory. And it would seem equally strange to him to be told that, while his money was invested there, he should not keep an eye to its management. The English Clergy have in many noble instances been renowned for discoveries in science, and for well-directed labors in advancing the material interests of the community. It will not be found that these men, any more than the few of our own Clergy who have done

the same thing, have been for that reason remiss in their religious duties. But here, while we find fault with the ignorance of many of our Clergy on business matters, we at the same time find fault if they attend to business. We smile at their simplicity, and yet are shocked to see them civil to their neighbors, who have not the Shibboleth. And our tender care of them extends to their minds as well as their manners. Some of us are more horrified by the blooming out of a parson's imagination in sweet verse, or sparkling prose, which is not plainly didactic, than we should be to see him walking abroad with the small-pox. The Rector of Eversley, (who has in such vigorous English endeavored to point out that true religion should make men perform better everything they are called upon to do, and is purer and more sincere from union with active duties,) is looked at askance as a dangerous man, because he dramatizes his sermons, and thus is enabled to preach to larger congregations. And wo to the American divine whose pen drops honey, for he is sure to draw the wasps.

We have wandered over our ground without much regard to strict method. And, in what we have said, we design no ungracious reflections on any of the Clergy. They are eminently devoted and self-denying; and they desire to promote the honor of God and the good of men. But we believe they are too often called upon to labor a lifetime, to retrieve the disadvantages of imperfect-because partial-training, and to give up many opportunities for doing good, from mistaken notions in themselves and their people of what is becoming to the ministerial Office. And we have evidence enough, in those who have won the respect of men of all classes, by the union of Christian graces with useful knowledge, that the character of a pastor is never the worse for any part of manliness.

ART. VI.-FREE SEATS?-OR PEWS!

FREE Seats and Pews have long been struggling together in the Church; and to many, the contest, even in argument, seems yet to be doubtful.

There has been, on the one side, perhaps an overstraining of particular principles; or too much of mere reliance on the private interpretation of some text of Scripture; or a somewhat curt dogmatism in assuming, as indisputable, the very point to be proved. On the other, there has been so great a quantity of dust thrown into the air, that it is difficult, at first, to distinguish between a Church and an auction-room; between an offering and a purchase; between giving an alms and paying rent. Yet when the matter is carefully reduced down to that which is of the essence of the difference, it will be found so plain, that the only wonder is, how Christian men, and sensible inen, could ever raise any contest about it.

The first thing needful is, to disentangle the question from side issues, and considerations which may, indeed, (and most happily do,) modify the pew system as commonly carried out among us; but which have nothing to do with the comparative merits of the two systems, because they belong equally to both. Thus it will not do for the advocate of Pews to urge, that frequently it is not all the pews that are rented; or, that a certain portion has been reserved by the Vestry as Free Seats. This will not do, we say; for the principle of renting covers the whole. The character of the Church as a "pewed Church" still remains. Probably the only reason a part is free, is because renters enough for all have not yet been found. And at any rate, the permanence of the arrangement is utterly unreliable. The ves try may at any time, by a majority vote, sell or rent the whole. Besides-it is no argument for Pewed Churches, as against Free Churches, to say that, in the former, "part of the seats are free." Instead of an argument for Pewed Churches, this is really a fatal concession to their opponents; for if it be so good a thing to have a part of the seats free, how much better to have the whole? And again. If any particular proportion of seats in a Pewed Church are free-say one third-it is no argument against a Free Church: for in a Free Church, one-third of the seats are free also. Where there is no difference, there is no

thing gained on either side, and nothing is to be argued either way. The real difference is to be found in the remaining twothirds, all of which are free on the one side, and every one of which is sold or rented on the other. This plea in abatement, so loudly urged by the advocates of Pews, must therefore be at once ruled out of Court. It is rather too much to expect that the Free Church system will consent to be struck down by its own thunder,-and stolen at that.

The modified practice dilutes the evils of the pew system, we grant, and thus renders its ordinary form as existing among us, somewhat less injurious. But the general admission of any such dilution is itself a general confession, on the part of these very Pewed Churches, that the evils of their own system were intolerable without it. And their borrowing the remedy from the Free Church plan, is a confession that they know very well where to look for the best cure. In arguing, therefore, the comparative merits of the two principles of action, we must go upon the undeniable ground that all the seats in Pewed Churches are, or may be, rented or sold, just as in Free Churches, they are all free.

Again: There is no distinction worthy of the name of prin ciple, to be taken between seats sold and seats rented. The former is practically much the worse of the two. But they are identical in essence. They differ only as the small pox and the varioloid differ. The latter is merely the milder and more manageable form of the disease.

Again: When we come to the question of the Offertory, and the duty of giving, as therein enjoined, it will not do to point to the large "plate collections" made in Pewed Churches on communion occasions, and for various Church or benevolent objects: for these things are likewise done in precisely the same manner in Free Churches. Their being done to some extent in Pewed Churches, is therefore no argument against the Free. It is only as before, an unwitting concession. For if it be good to raise a part of Church funds on these high and Scriptural grounds, how much better to raise the whole in that manner? And Free Churches thus raise the whole. This is only another specimen of the old trick:-taking an admirable, practical feature from those whom they are opposing, and then immediately turning round and using it as a weapon against the very system from which it was "borrowed."

Again: It is urged that "courtesy is always sure to give a seat to those who have no pews. Is "courtesy" confined to Pewed Churches? Is there no courtesy in Free Churches? Besides: That courtesy, as we all know from experience, cannot