to give up our own opinion to theirs, unless they have convinced our reason that their opinions are better founded than our own.

"That the right of private judgment in interpreting Scripture must promote peace and Christian charity we cannot doubt. For one who has diligently examined the whole scope of what is taught there, and has found the difficulty of coming to determined conclusions on many points, will be more ready to make allowances for the opinions of those who dissent from him; and being convinced that it is the intention and sincerity with which we read and examine, and not our skill in doing so, that will be most acceptable to our Great Master, he will be relieved from the depressing idea, that right belief in particular doctrines is necessary to salvation; an idea which has, perhaps, occasioned more persecution in the Christian Church, than either pride, covetousness, or the love of domination. For who will scruple to do that, which he supposes will exterminate errors of faith that must necessarily lead to the eternal destruction of human souls? It will naturally tend to quell the pernicious activity of intemperate zeal,-' the wrath of man, which worketh not the righteousness of God.'"-Pp. 140–143.

It is now our duty to cite one passage for animadversion; the only passage which we can cite for that purpose, but it is one which must not pass unnoticed. Great was our regret to find Joanna Baillie coupling her frank confession of the Unitarian faith with a plea for the continued attendance of those who may think with her on Trinitarian worship. We know that to the excuses she has advanced there might have been added the authority of many great and good men, whose sincerity, holiness, and piety, were unquestionable; we feel the power of her own amiable spirit in this very apology; but still we regard their conduct as an instance of the frailty of humanity in the best of men, not as an illustration of their excellence; and though we love the spirit which seems to have prompted her pleadings, we yet think that it misled her; "the light that led astray was light from heaven," but it "led astray" nevertheless.

"I hope it is not presumptuous to suppose that these extracts may be of use to such Christians, [and there are, probably, many,] who, with the best dispositions and a humble diffidence of their own judgment, still find it impossible to believe sincerely in the doctrine of the Established Church on the points in question, and suffer from it great unhappiness in their own minds. Seeing the whole which the New Testament declares concerning the dignity and nature of our blessed Saviour set before them at once, freed from the disjointing division of verses, they will perceive on what authority the doctrine really rests; and if they cannot satisfy their minds by any decided belief, will at least feel less uneasiness in being led by the dictates of their own reason to dissent from it. It may also prevent them from thinking it is necessary, in all points of faith, to agree with those whom we join in public worship, since all Protestant doctrines rest professedly on Scripture alone, and the right of private judgment in the understanding of that Scripture. The Church of England herself, as becomes a Protestant Church,

acknowledges this in the sixth of her Thirty-nine Articles, however dictatorial the terms in which they are generally couched: Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' And no person, I should think, who abstains from repeating those parts of her liturgy which are contrary to what appears to him to be the meaning of Scripture, need at any time scruple to join in the public worship which she hath appointed. Do not Christians assemble in the house of God to adore his goodness, and to offer up their tribute of thanksgiving and praise with that increased emotion which arises from social communion, far more than to make declaration of dogmas? Are not all assembled there as the dependent creatures of one beneficent and almighty Parent, and as sinners for whose sake a generous Saviour was willing to live and to die? And what form of words should be allowed to disturb such natural and holy feelings? He who will not join a religious assembly, where any part of the service does not agree with his belief, will find himself often debarred from social worship; and surely while he joins in the general devotions of those who in particular tenets differ from himself, he may even, while those parts of the service are repeated which he most objects to, though silent, exercise that inward sentiment of brotherly good will and consideration for others, which so well become the followers of Jesus Christ, and receive benefit to his soul. In doing so, while he manfully and bonestly avows what his real opinions are, he can never be justly accused of hypocritical conformity. Indeed, by remaining on these terms with the established institution*—an institution containing within itself full power to alter or modify its articles and liturgy, he would more probably contribute hereafter to the freeing a greater number of Christians from professions of belief, appearing to them unwarranted by Scripture, than by separating from it. So at least it appears to me, though, at the same time, I honour from my heart all those who, contrary to every kind of worldly interest, have separated from it for conscience's sake."-Pp. 133-136.

It is certainly not "necessary in all points of faith to agree with those whom we join in public worship." If it were, the assembling of a congregation would be a matter of some difficulty. Of those who have thought for themselves, and thought freely, we should scarcely find even "two or three gathered together." Considerable diversity of opinion in those who habitually assemble together for divine worship is what, so far from deprecating, we think on many accounts very desirable. It represses dogmatism. It keeps alive the sense of the individual right of judgment, and the exercise of mutual forbearance and charity. It tends to make the devotions, where the congregation has any authority over the manner in which they are con

* "I mention institution in the singular, as the Kirk of Scotland, equally established by law, mixes no professions of belief with her public worship."

ducted, more purely Christian, and obstructs their becoming exclusive and sectarian. It is a barrier against that narrowness of feeling and thought at which a knot of people holding the same notions, even on minute and unimportant topics, are so apt to arrive. But there is a wide difference between agreement not being necessary in all points of faith, and not being necessary in any. Some coincidence of faith is essential to the harmony and unity of worship. Some belief is implied in the very act of assembling for worship. "He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." And if there be any point in which agreement is necessary, surely it must be necessary as to the Object of that worship which we assemble to offer. However harmoniously the hearts and voices may unite of those who differ very widely in very many doctrines, they cannot raise the psalm of thanksgiving, or respond to the accents of supplication, without a previous understanding as to who it is whose bounties they celebrate, and whose mercies they implore. They ought surely to have determined whether they were about to worship one person, or three, an incorporeal being, or an incarnate one. Whether our author would join in, or object to, a modified and subordinate worship of Christ does not appear; nor does it matter to the argument. Those who hold her particular opinion on the nature of Christ are divided, though very unequally, on that point. Either way, the ascription to him of supreme, divine honours, is quite out of the question. Either way, it is impossible for her or them to join in the worship of three divine persons, and in that of the Son as co-equal with the Father. Either way, the liturgy of the Established Church is a form of worship which contemplates generally a different object, and very frequently makes that difference apparent and offensively prominent.

If this difference render it not a duty to raise a separate altar, it is difficult to say what should. Would the writer unite in public worship where the Virgin Mary was adored as equal with the Deity? Would it be sufficient to reconcile her to identifying herself with a church that adored the Virgin Mary, that it allowed the right of private judgment, and had a liturgy, of which some portions were addressed to God the Father? And if not, why not? The argument goes this length or it fails. It is true that "all Protestant doctrines rest professedly on Scripture alone, and the right of private judgment in the understanding of that Scripture ;" and that "the Church of England herself acknowledges this:" but then the Church of England has precluded the exercise of this right, and forbidden that appeal in the present case, by the incorporation of the doctrine of the Trinity in her liturgy, by making the Trinity the object of her worship. She has even incorporated with her devotions, to be repeated at set and solemn times, the formal declaration of the eternal destruction of those who shall not hold "whole and undefiled," not merely the tenet itself,

but one particular exposition of that most mysterious doctrine. Her general and verbal admission of the right of private judgment is, for our author's purpose, completely nullified by the denial of it, by the fulmination of her heaviest anathemas upon it, so far as the object of worship is concerned. Is it worthy of a dissentient conscience, does it comport with the simplicity and frankness of a disciple of Christ, to steal an unmeant toleration by "abstaining from repeating those parts of her liturgy which are contrary to what appears to him to be the meaning of Scripture"? It is taking what she never meant to give; what would not be taken could she prevent it; and what she accompanies with her malediction. The feelings which should be excited by social worship would not be promoted if any considerable portion of a congregation were to close their books and hold their tongues, as often as Trinitarian doxologies or invocations of Christ came round in the service. The act, which should be a delightful union of hearts, would then become an occasion for expressing the disunion of opinions. If the dissent were obvious to others, their feelings would be disturbed; and if it were not, the "conformity" would be "hypocritical." How can the purposes of public worship, so beautifully though briefly described by our author, be realized under such circumstances? Any "form of words" must "disturb such natural and holy feelings," which would open for those feelings a channel in which the individual thinks they ought not to flow, and direct them towards (according to his conviction) an improper object. He may, in his silence, exercise an "inward sentiment of brotherly good-will and consideration for others," but he runs the risk of exciting them to an unbrotherly horror at his heresies. We take all the argument against joining in worship where any part of the service does not accord with the opinion of the individual, to be beside the mark. Whom do you worship? That is the very first question which we imagine a man to put to the worshipers at the gate of whose church he presents himself, deliberating whether he should enter or not. So long as he has a choice he should require agreement so far. When there is no choice, it may become him to consider whether he will best discharge his duty to his God, his fellow-creatures, and his own soul, by attending where persons are worshiped, in whose deity he does not believe, or by seeking the apostolic benediction on "the church that is in his house."

Remaining in the church, in order to promote the reform of the church, is a perilous expedient. Many good men did so in the last century; and where are the fruits of their conformity ? The fate of the celebrated "Feathers' petition" extinguished the last hope of the church being liberalized from within. The power is not "within itself to alter or modify its articles and liturgy." That power is in the Legislature. The nation supports the church, and the church is at the nation's mercy for the retention or change of its faith and forms.

The Dissenter relinquishes no portion of his power over the church so long as the church remains the creature of the state, and its Prayer-book is only a long Act of Parliament. The condition may be a degrading one; but it is the church's choice. American Episcopacy may reform itself, and has reformed itself. That is a free church. The example of a manly Nonconformity is the most likely way to lead others to the enjoyment of spiritual liberty. Let all those in the church who demur to the doctrine of the Trinity, dissent from the church, and the articles and liturgy would not long remain as they are. It is only because practical conformity mitigates the evils and varnishes the character of an exclusive creed, that the age of liberality, simplicity, and comprehension is postponed.

It is evidently from no want of conscientiousness or firmness that Joanna Baillie puts forth this apology. We regret, but are not surprised, at the view she takes of this subject. We trust that it will yet undergo reconsideration in her enlightened and pious mind. Meanwhile we rejoice in the fresh illustration she has afforded of the affinity between the pure gospel of Christ, and the workings of an intellectual and poetical nature. We bid her welcome to the family which had Milton among its sons, and Barbauld among its daughters. To our ears their voices seem to invite her out of that ecclesiastical pale within which they could not exist :

"Hark! they whisper; angels say,

Sister spirit, come away!"

But she must interpret for herself. And whatever diversity may continue to exist between our own views and hers, we would apply to it those just and beautiful remarks of her own, in which we most unreservedly and heartily coincide.

"Above all, I hope that a serious perusal of the preceding extracts will incline the reader, what conclusion soever he may draw from them, to feel charitably towards all who differ from him in opinion; knowing that piety to Almighty God, and gratitude to his Messiah, with the generous impulses and virtuous actions naturally flowing from such sentiments, belong exclusively to no sect. Had unity of faith been necessary, we must suppose that God, by the operation of his holy spirit, would have bestowed such unity on sincere Christians. It will be the good intention and sincerity with which we examine Scripture, not the result of that examination, for which we shall be called to account."