All who watch religious movements must be impressed with the evidences of unrest almost everywhere abounding. In Roman Catholic countries, this has been apparent ever since the dogma of papal infallibility was promulgated—not only nor mainly in the Old Catholic movement, which of itself has had but little weight and secured but a feeble following, but in the bold stand taken against papal assumptions by civil governments. These oppositions are not on the part of despotic governments representing but one will, but from governments in which legislative action, reflecting largely the will of the people, has force. There can be no doubt that as the people grow in intelligence they are losing their reverence for ecclesiastical authority. If in this country and England a counter current seems to have set in toward that church, it is mainly with a class not in sympathy with the spirit of the age. Among Protestants, the tokens of dissatisfaction and revolution are seen on every hand. In Germany, Rationalism is completely unsettling the orthodox faith and supplanting it. In England, the established church is distracted with ritualistic and broad church tendencies. In this country, the Episcopal Church is seriously agitated, and unless compromise measures are adopted to conciliate the Low Church wing, there will probably be a considerable defection in favor of the Reformed Episcopal Church. The recent Church Congress, held in the city of New York has initiated a movement designed to disseminate more liberal principles and unite the various elements of opposition to Ritualism. The Presbyterians are ill at ease. They have largely outgrown some of the doctrines of the Westminster Confession, and can only avoid rupture by winking at flagrant departures from the letter and spirit of a creed which they fear to revise, yet cannot enforce. The Baptists are agitated with the question of open communion—a question that involves much more than appears on the surface. The opposition to their prevalent teaching and practice on that question is growing more decided and evidently finds large sympathy in some quarters. Among the Congregationalists, if there are no marked tokens of discontent, it is because there is no attempt to press severe theological tests. Were such an attempt made, it would develop wide-spread opposition, especially in the West. Their ministry has, in the last few years, gone rapidly away from the old Calvinistic teaching. The Friends are so rapidly changing that in a few years it will be impossible to identify them with the old-time Quakers. Regular preaching—a paid ministry—organs in Sunday-school—an abandonment of their rules respecting marriage and dress—protracted meetings, with the popular revival appliances: the growth of all these proves that they are drifting rapidly away from the old landmarks. Universalists are seriously discussing a new departure, in which future punishment shall be emphasized, and the whole style of preaching be made more evangelical. Adventists are full of debate and flourishing more in the direction of schism than in any other. It is clearly evident that we are to witness new and radical changes. Many sects must change their ground, or suffer heavy loss and witness the upspringing of rival sects. Creed authority is rapidly waning. Ecclesiastical bonds are losing their sacredness. Speculative doctrines and ecclesiastical rites are coming to be rated at their true value. But to what is all this tendency? Is it opening the way for the restoration of original Christianity—a return to the simple, spiritual religion of the New Testament—the pure faith in Jesus, unity of spirit, the catholic fellowship, the brotherly love, the deep humility, the holy living, the genuine humanity and broad philanthropy of the original church of God? We wish we could speak more hopefully at this point. It would be the greatest joy of our heart to be able to say that we can see in all this breaking up of established faiths and practices—this threatened deluge of doubt and rebellion—a bright promise of return to the faith and practice of the apostolic church. But we cannot say it. Doubtless there are many individual minds and hearts that will be won to this simple faith and practice. But the general drift does not look to us to be in this direction. It is the assertion of individualism against ecclesiasticism—the protest of bound souls against the tyranny of ecclesiastical and theological systems—the advancement of the claims of practical religion against those of doctrinal theology, of humanity against creed orthodoxy, and of liberalism against sectarian narrowness and bigotry. But while, negatively, it has much force in its denials and objections, positively, in its aims and teachings, it gives little promise of good. It threatens to sweep away divine as well as human authority, positive Christian faith along with human dogmas, divine ordinances as well as human rites; and to establish a kind of sentimental Catholicism that shall embrace all of generous heart and upright life, with but feeble and scarcely more than formal emphasis on the faith and obedience to which the word of God calls us. The letter of the New Testament is to be held in little esteem. A huge license of interpretation is to be granted, so that it may be allegorized, or spiritualized, or rationalized, until the offense of the cross shall cease, and the rebellion of human reason and human pride against the plain utterances of the word of God shall be sufficiently propitiated to allow men of no faith and of any faith to unite in some sort of human and social compact, sustained by a style of worship and of preaching marked chiefly by such aesthetical, philosophical, and classical attractions as will make the church a desirable place of entertainment. The stone of stumbling and rock of offense is to be chiselled and polished and wrought into a statue of classic beauty and elegance.—Cincinnati “Christian Standard” of Oct. 17.