t_　round　a　substance；　bad。　　I　invite　you　to　reflect　on　this。　It　distinguishes　true　from　false　in　Ceremonial　Form；　earnest　solemnity　from　empty　pageant；　in　all　human　things。
  There　must　be　a　veracity；　a　natural　spontaneity　in　forms。　　In　the　commonest　meeting　of　men；　a　person　making；　what　we　call；　〃set　speeches；〃　is　not　he　an　offence？　　In　the　mere　drawing…room；　whatsoever　courtesies　you　see　to　be　grimaces；　prompted　by　no　spontaneous　reality　within；　are　a　thing　you　wish　to　get　away　from。　　But　suppose　now　it　were　some　matter　of　vital　concernment；　some　transcendent　matter　（as　Divine　Worship　is）；　about　which　your　whole　soul；　struck　dumb　with　its　excess　of　feeling；　knew　not　how　to　_form_　itself　into　utterance　at　all；　and　preferred　formless　silence　to　any　utterance　there　possible；what　should　we　say　of　a　man　coming　forward　to　represent　or　utter　it　for　you　in　the　way　of　upholsterer…mummery？　　Such　a　man；let　him　depart　swiftly；　if　he　love　himself！　　You　have　lost　your　only　son；　are　mute；　struck　down；　without　even　tears：　　an　importunate　man　importunately　offers　to　celebrate　Funeral　Games　for　him　in　the　manner　of　the　Greeks！　　Such　mummery　is　not　only　not　to　be　accepted；it　is　hateful；　unendurable。　　It　is　what　the　old　Prophets　called　〃Idolatry；〃　worshipping　of　hollow　_shows_；　what　all　earnest　men　do　and　will　reject。　　We　can　partly　understand　what　those　poor　Puritans　meant。　　Laud　dedicating　that　St。　Catherine　Creed's　Church；　in　the　manner　we　have　it　described；　with　his　multiplied　ceremonial　bowings；　gesticulations；　exclamations：　　surely　it　is　rather　the　rigorous　formal　Pedant；　intent　on　his　〃College…rules；〃　than　the　earnest　Prophet　intent　on　the　essence　of　the　matter！
  Puritanism　found　_such_　forms　insupportable；　trampled　on　such　forms；we　have　to　excuse　it　for　saying；　No　form　at　all　rather　than　such！　　It　stood　preaching　in　its　bare　pulpit；　with　nothing　but　the　Bible　in　its　hand。　　Nay；　a　man　preaching　from　his　earnest　_soul_　into　the　earnest　_souls_　of　men：　is　not　this　virtually　the　essence　of　all　Churches　whatsoever？　　The　nakedest；　savagest　reality；　I　say；　is　preferable　to　any　semblance；　however　dignified。　　Besides；　it　will　clothe　itself　with　_due_　semblance　by　and　by；　if　it　be　real。　　No　fear　of　that；　actually　no　fear　at　all。　　Given　the　living　_man_；　there　will　be　found　_clothes_　for　him；　he　will　find　himself　clothes。　But　the　suit…of…clothes　pretending　that　_it_　is　both　clothes　and　man！　　We　cannot　〃fight　the　French〃　by　three　hundred　thousand　red　uniforms；　there　must　be　_men_　in　the　inside　of　them！　　Semblance；　I　assert；　must　actually　_not_　divorce　itself　from　Reality。　　If　Semblance　do；why　then　there　must　be　men　found　to　rebel　against　Semblance；　for　it　has　become　a　lie！　　These　two　Antagonisms　at　war　here；　in　the　case　of　Laud　and　the　Puritans；　are　as　old　nearly　as　the　world。　　They　went　to　fierce　battle　over　England　in　that　age；　and　fought　out　their　confused　controversy　to　a　certain　length；　with　many　results　for　all　of　us。
  In　the　age　which　directly　followed　that　of　the　Puritans；　their　cause　or　themselves　were　little　likely　to　have　justice　done　them。　　Charles　Second　and　his　Rochesters　were　not　the　kind　of　men　you　would　set　to　judge　what　the　worth　or　meaning　of　such　men　might　have　been。　　That　there　could　be　any　faith　or　truth　in　the　life　of　a　man；　was　what　these　poor　Rochesters；　and　the　age　they　ushered　in；　had　forgotten。　　Puritanism　was　hung　on　gibbets；like　the　bones　of　the　leading　Puritans。　　Its　work　nevertheless　went　on　accomplishing　itself。　　All　true　work　of　a　man；　hang　the　author　of　it　on　what　gibbet　you　like；　must　and　will　accomplish　itself。　　We　have　our　_Habeas…Corpus_；　our　free　Representation　of　the　People；　acknowledgment；　wide　as　the　world；　that　all　men　are；　or　else　must；　shall；　and　will　become；　what　we　call　_free_　men；men　with　their　life　grounded　on　reality　and　justice；　not　on　tradition；　which　has　become　unjust　and　a　chimera！　　This　in　part；　and　much　besides　this；　was　the　work　of　the　Puritans。
  And　indeed；　as　these　things　became　gradually　manifest；　the　character　of　the　Puritans　began　to　clear　itself。　　Their　memories　were；　one　after　another；　taken　_down_　from　the　gibbet；　nay　a　certain　portion　of　them　are　now；　in　these　days；　as　good　as　canonized。　　Eliot；　Hampden；　Pym；　nay　Ludlow；　Hutchinson；　Vane　himself；　are　admitted　to　be　a　kind　of　Heroes；　political　Conscript　Fathers；　to　whom　in　no　small　degree　we　owe　what　makes　us　a　free　England：　　it　would　not　be　safe　for　anybody　to　designate　these　men　as　wicked　now。　　Few　Puritans　of　note　but　find　their　apologists　somewhere；　and　have　a　certain　reverence　paid　them　by　earnest　men。　　One　Puritan；　I　think；　and　almost　he　alone；　our　poor　Cromwell；　seems　to　hang　yet　on　the　gibbet；　and　find　no　hearty　apologist　anywhere。　　Him　neither　saint　nor　sinner　will　acquit　of　great　wickedness。　　A　man　of　ability；　infinite　talent；　courage；　and　so　forth：　　but　he　betrayed　the　Cause。　　Selfish　ambition；　dishonesty；　duplicity；　a　fierce；　coarse；　hypocritical　_Tartuffe_；　turning　all　that　noble　Struggle　for　constitutional　Liberty　into　a　sorry　farce　played　for　his　own　benefit：　　this　and　worse　is　the　character　they　give　of　Cromwell。　　And　then　there　come　contrasts　with　Washington　and　others；　above　all；　with　these　noble　Pyms　and　Hampdens；　whose　noble　work　he　stole　for　himself；　and　ruined　into　a　futility　and　deformity。
  This　view　of　Cromwell　seems　to　me　the　not　unnatural　product　of　a　century　like　the　Eighteenth。　　As　we　said　of　the　Valet；　so　of　the　Sceptic：　　He　does　not　know　a　Hero　when　he　sees　him！　　The　Valet　expected　purple　mantles；　gilt　sceptres；　bodyguards　and　flourishes　of　trumpets：　　the　Sceptic　of　the　Eighteenth　century　looks　for　regulated　respectable　Formulas；　〃Principles；〃　or　what　else　he　may　call　them；　a　style　of　speech　and　conduct　which　has　got　to　seem　〃respectable；〃　which　can　plead　for　itself　in　a　handsome　articulate　manner；　and　gain　the　suffrages　of　an　enlightened　sceptical　Eighteenth　century！　　It　is；　at　bottom；　the　same　thing　that　both　the　Valet　and　he　expect：　　the　garnitures　of　some　_acknowledged_　royalty；　which　_then_　they　will　acknowledge！　　The　King　coming　to　them　in　the　rugged　_un_formulistic　state　shall　be　no　King。
  For　my　own　share；　far　be　it　from　me　to　say　or　insinuate　a　word　of　disparagement　against　such　characters　as　Hampden；　Elliot；　Pym；　whom　I　believe　to　have　been　right　worthy　and　useful　men。　　I　have　read　diligently　what　books　and　documents　about　them　I　could　come　at；with　the　honestest　wish　to　admire；　to　love　and　worship　them　like　Heroes；　but　I　am　sorry　to　say；　if　the　real　truth　must　be　told；　with　very　indifferent　success！　　At　bottom；　I　found　that　it　would　not　do。　　They　are　very　noble　men；　these；　step　along　in　their　stately　way；　with　their　measured　euphemisms；　philosophies；　parliamentary　eloquences；　Ship…moneys；　_Monarchies　of　Man_；　a　most　constitutional；　unblamable；　dignified　set　of　men。　　But　the　heart　remains　cold　before　them；　the　fancy　alone　endeavors　to　get　up　some　worship　of　them。　What　man's　heart　does；　in　reality；　break　forth　into　any　fire　of　brotherly　love　for　these　men？　　They　are　become　dreadfully　dull　men！　　One　breaks　down　often　enough　in　the　constitutional　eloquence　of　the　admirable　Pym；　with　his　〃seventhly　and　lastly。〃　　You　find　that　it　may　be　the　admirablest　thing　in　the　world；　but　that　it　is　heavy；heavy　as　lead；　barren　as　brick…clay；　that；　in　a　word；　for　you　there　is　little　or　nothing　now　surviving　there！　One　leaves　all　these　Nobilities　standing　in　their　niches　of　honor：　　the　rugged　outcast　Cromwell；　he　is　the　man　of　them　all　in　whom　one　still　finds　human　stuff。　　The　great　savage　_Baresark_：　　he　could　write　no　euphemistic　_Monarchy　of　Man_；　did　not　speak；　did　not　work　with　glib　regularity；　had　no　straight　story　to　tell　for　himself　anywhere。　　But　he　stood　bare；　not　cased　in　euphemistic　coat…of…mail；　he　grappled　like　a　giant；　face　to　face；　heart　to　heart；　with　the　naked　truth　of　things！　　That；　after　all；　is　the　sort　of　man　for　one。　　I　plead　guilty　to　valuing　such　a　man　beyond　all　other　sorts　of　men。　　Smooth…shaven　Respectabilities　not　a　few　one　finds；　that　are　not　good　for　much。　　Small　thanks　to　a　man　for　keeping　his　hands　clean；　who　would　not　touch　the　work　but　with　gloves　on！
  Neither；　on　the　whole；　does　this　constitutional　tolerance　of　the　Eighteenth　century　for　the　other　happier　Puritans　seem　to　be　a　very　great　matter。　　One　might　say；　it　is　but　a　piece　of　Formulism　and　Scepticism；　like　the　rest。　They　tell　us；　It　was　a　sorrowful　thing　to　consider　that　the　foundation　of　our　English　Liberties　should　have　been　laid　by　〃Superstition。〃　　These　Puritans　came　forward　with　Calvinistic　incredible　Creeds；　Anti…Laudisms；　Westminster　Confessions；　demanding；　chiefly　of　all；　that　they　should　have　liberty　to　_worship_　in　their　own　way。　　Liberty　to　_tax_　themselves：　　that　was　the　thing　they　should　have　demanded！　　It　was　Superstition；　Fanaticism；　disgraceful　ignorance　of　Constitutional　Philosophy　to　insist　on　the　other　thing！Liberty　to　_tax_　oneself？　　Not　to　pay　out　money　from　your　pocket　except　on　reason　shown？　　No　century；　I　think；　but　a　rather　barren　one　would　have　fixed　on　that　as　the　first　right　of　man！　　I　should　say；　on　the　contrary；　A　just　man　will　generally　have　better　cause　than　_money_　in　what　shape　soever；　before　deciding　to　revolt　against　his　Government。　　Ours　is　a　most　confused　world；　in　which　a　good　man　w