These latter are not as

ists on the other side of the Atlantic. numerous in this country as the Protestants; and they either cling tenaciously to their mother Church, or become Atheists of the worst kind. Some few, indeed, may be found who do not reject every thing Christian-but even these would abhor the word catholic, and prefer, in every particular, the Protestant forms.

Another question has been touched above in regard to Vater unser, or Unser Vater. It has been remarked already that it is the first of these forms which found its way into the American translation. But then it is the usual Romish form, although received even by Luther, (namely, in his Catechism, not in his Bible translation,) and still used in some places of Germany-a form forgotten in other regions, and regarded as a mark of Romanism. It is the decided opinion of the writer of this article that the words Vater unser should be replaced by Unser Vater, as giving offense to nobody, or that every congregation should be allowed to use either of these forms. There are also large parts of Germany where the mass of the people never heard of a Litany to be used among Protestants -and who by the word Litany understand what they have heard to be said in Romish Churches. Would it not be better to strike out the word Litany from the German Prayer-Book, and leave only the words General Supplication to be used on such and such occasions?

But we shall not insist on these minor matters. What we intended to show, is, that our German Prayer-Book needs revision, and this we have shown sufficiently: at least this is our own view of the thing, and may be that of many of our readers.

The missionary work among our German population is a work beset with numberless and great difficulties. Why should we not smooth the path of those who are destined to labor in this field? Is it not enough that they have to overcome such a degree of indifference, or rather aversion, to the Christian religion as is never met with among other races?

Let us conclude this article with a few facts:

1. The Germans openly pride themselves of their being five

Or SIX MILLIONS in this country; and in order to secure their national continuance,

2. They have upwards of two hundred Journals and Newspapers.

3. They maintain many private and parochial schools.

4. They have formed public and secret societies for fostering their nationality, and to hinder their being Americanized, etc. What the churchman can not but regret is, that infidelity and gross sensuality are reckoned among their national peculiarities; that the great mass of their Journals and Newspapers are conducted by Jews or Infidels, and that these Journals and Newspapers, and some of their secret societies, purposely undermine Christianity; that most of their private schools exclude religious teaching; that by the agency of several religious papers and tracts, the few believing among them are continually exhorted to cling to their native semi-rationalism, and warned against the American Sects, etc.

The Church has missions among the Africans and Chinese. Can she overlook such a multitude of heathen at her own doors?

ART. V.-CONTEMPORANEOUS LITERATURE.

HISTORY.*

THIS is an original work, and worthy of the reputation of its distinguished author, a gentleman eminent for ability and scholarship. The early career of Mr. Palfrey, both clerical and political, was the best general preparation for the successful performance of the difficult task he has undertaken. His familiarity with Puritan theology and provincial as well as state politics, his knowledge of New-England life and society, all these are important elements in the character of one who would write well and truly the history of New-England,

* HISTORY OF NEW-ENGLAND. Vol. I. By JOHN GORHAM PALFREY. Boston: Little Brown & Co. 1858.

VOL. VI.-27

Besides these general qualifications, which so admirably fit Mr. Palfrey to become the historian of New-England for this generation, his particular studies for the faithful execution of his work are no less obvious. This first installment is replete with evidence of diligent and extensive research.

But we count Mr. Palfrey's conscious sympathy with the moral earnestness and elevation of the Puritan character the first of his qualifications.

This is the only style of man that can rise to the moral heights of the great argument involved in the rise and growth of the Puritan Commonwealth. It is easy to fasten upon the foibles of our fathers, and by false constructions render them as ridiculous as we make ourselves, by such exhibitions of an irreverent and unfilial temper. The true method is to trace the progress of the Puritans from their own standpoint, and this is precisely the principle on which Mr. Palfrey proposes to write his History, and in strict accordance with which he has made so excellent a beginning. May it have a successful issue! It would infallibly, if the breadth of his understanding equalled its integrity. Had Mr. Palfrey's sympathies been as wide as they are earnest, he would not have failed to render equal and exact justice to the opponents of the Puritan party, both in the English Church and State.

We feel sure that he is not deficient in honesty of purpose, nor has he a "plentiful lack" of courage. It is, we apprehend, a want of that comprehensiveness of view and catholicity of temper which are the cardinal virtues of a really great historian, one whose work "the world will not willingly let die."

Such a history of the Congregational schism would probably be too much to expect from a descendant of the Puritans, while he continues to regard Puritan principles as the purest possible in Church and State.

This, however, is not Mr. Palfrey's point of view. He reveres the virtues of the Puritans, indeed, and so do we. But theologically, he is farther removed from them than we are.

We can not but think, therefore, that he is swayed by prejudice, when he revives in so grave a work the unreasonable charges of the Puritans against the Church, without so much

as hinting the noble defense her children have made of her principles, polity, and worship.

In a word, the Puritan side of the controversy is given, but not the Church side; the attack, but not the defense. This, certainly, savors more of the bar than of the bench, and the historian is one who is bound by the self-imposed obligations of his office to hear both sides; then, having carefully collated and compared the evidence offered by each, to state the results without the fear or favor of either before his eyes. Mr. Palfrey has failed to do this. His bias is patent to every reader at all instructed in respect to the merits of the great controversy.

It is consoling to know that the subject will not rest here. It can not. Mr. Palfrey has not spoken the last word. This part of the history of New-England, which in a manner is a history of the Puritans, remains to be written, and will so remain, till the errors of each party are fairly stated, and their excellencies celebrated with equal candor. Any thing short of this must pass as merely party spirit, fit only to perpetuate party prejudices and sectarian strife.

Excelling in so many particulars, would that the accomplished author of this volume had abounded in this grace also; the grace which we are assured, on the highest authority, is superior to all others, in the absence of which our best endeavors are of little worth.

In saying this, we are not unmindful of the proverb touching those who live in glass houses. We confess ourselves far from blameless. As long as a class of Churchmen will persist in adoring the memories of the first Charles and of Laud, as blessed martyrs for Christ and His Church, so long may the descendants of the Puritans be pardoned for praising their godly ancestors as the embodiment of all that was praiseworthy in their generation.

What we say is, that the historic muse will refuse to recognize either as entitled to be crowned in consideration of services rendered in her high office, which ever was and is, when we have deeds to relate, whether lucky or unlucky, to speak of them as they were, to extenuate nothing nor set down aught in malice, prejudice, or vincible ignorance.

When this is done here, we shall have a history of the Puritan party as instructive and admonitory to Churchmen as to Calvinists.

As this brief notice of Mr. Palfrey's work is not intended for a formal review of it, we can here only refer our readers to the third, fourth, seventh, and eighth chapters, for evidence of the fairness of these comments. A thorough sifting of said chapters would fill pages.

Of the many points we should make in a professed review, we will now note but two.

Aware that the address of the Massachusetts Company to their dear brethren of the Church of England, (issued on leaving for America,) is obviously inconsistent, to say the least, with their subsequent conduct, Mr. Palfrey endeavors to reconcile the discrepancy by arguing that the attachment they professed for the Church could not refer to its government or worship, since these, being in themselves changeable, are not of the Church's essence. To which we reply, that if this were all we knew of Mr. Palfrey, we should conclude he received his education among the Jesuits.

Of his defense of the persecutions set on foot by the Puritans in Massachusetts, we will add merely this, that if conclusive, it furnishes (mutatis mutandis) a complete justification of those who persecuted the Puritans at home. That is to say, if it was right in the Puritans to persecute in order to preserve their polity, then it was equally so for Laud as the primate of all England. If persecution was merely expedient in the colonies, it may have been no less so at home. If, however, the conduct of the Puritans was neither right nor expedient, but only excusable, and that because they were fallible men who shared in the spirit of their age, we enter the same plea for the pedantic James, the tyrannic Charles, and the bigoted Laud. Albeit we like these even less than those. We regard all arbitrary prelates as the most dangerous enemies of the Church.

Inimical as are their proceedings to all non-conformists, they are still more so to the true interests of religion. We, there fore, will laud neither them nor their acts.