ishop of Canterbury, Tillotson, stood alone in
wishing the church were well rid of it. In fact, it has happened to the
present writer to hear the Thirty-nine Articles summarily disposed of by
one of the most zealous members of the American branch of that communion,
in a verb of one syllable, more familiar to the ears of the forecastle
than to those of the vestry.

But on the other hand, it is far from uncommon to meet with persons among
the so-called "liberal" denominations who are uneasy for want of a more
definite ritual and a more formal organization than they find in their
own body. Now, the rector or the minister must be well aware that there
are such cases, and each of them must be aware that there are individuals
under his guidance whom he cannot satisfy by argument, and who really
belong by all their instincts to another communion. It seems as if a
thoroughly honest, straight-collared clergyman would say frankly to his
restless parishioner: "You do not believe the central doctrines of the
church which you are in the habit of attending. You belong properly to
Brother A.'s or Brother B.'s fold, and it will be more manly and probably
more profitable for you to go there than to stay with us." And, again,
the rolling-collared clergyman might be expected to say to this or that
uneasy listener: "You are longing for a church which will settle your
beliefs for you, and relieve you to a great extent from the task, to
which you seem to be unequal, of working out your own salvation with fear
and trembling. Go over the way to Brother C.'s or Brother D.'s; your
spine is weak, and they will furnish you a back-board which will keep you
straight and make you comfortable." Patients are not the property of
their physicians, nor parishioners of their ministers.

As for the children of clergymen, the presumption is that they will
adhere to the general belief professed by their fathers. But they do not
lose their birthright or their individuality, and have the world all
before them to choose their creed from, like other persons. They are
sometimes called to account for attacking the dogmas they are supposed to
have heard preached from their childhood. They cannot defend themselves,
for various good reasons. If they did, one would have to say he got more
preaching than was good for him, and came at last to feel about sermons
and their doctrines as confectioners' children do about candy. Another
would have to own that he go