and able men. To these he joined himself gladly, and was well known among the leading churchmen both in Parliament and elsewhere.

During Herbert's visit he took his friend with him to several dinner parties, where they were liable to meet with persons of all opinions.

One day, Herbert found himself seated opposite a person, who evidently thought himself of some importance. He was a young man of rank, who had gained some celebrity by a popular novel, and, on the strength of his reputation, was in a fair way of spoiling an otherwise amiable and candid disposition, by lapsing into the mawkish sentimentality and pedantic dogmatism of the liberal school. The conversation turned after dinner, on some recent measure of Government, and it was asserted that Dissenters could not now complain that they had not perfect toleration.

"Oh, I hate the very name of toleration (said Lord Waverley). Toleration implies a condescension on the part of the tolerators, and is a perfect insult to those whom they profess to tolerate. A man has as much right to his own religious belief, as to the common light of heaven.”

Herbert had listened to a good deal of such declamation with great patience, but he was too

good a Christian to suffer any person to remain in so deplorable an error as seemed to be implied in the latter sentence.

"Your Lordship means of course, (said he in mild though serious tone) that in a political sense every one has a right to his own religious belief."

Lord Waverley looked inquiringly, as if not exactly understanding the drift of the observation.

"We should make a distinction (continued Mr. Herbert) between the political and religious right. It is very true that, so far as as the state is concerned, a man may believe or disbelieve just what he chooses. But, religiously speaking, a man has no such right; because God has given us a revelation, and expressly said that he that believeth not must perish in his sins '."

Lord Waverley was somewhat startled at the abruptness, but, at the same time, mild seriousness of the rebuke. It was expressed, however, in so perfectly gentlemanlike and unpresuming a tone, and the matter of it was so grave and important, that it was impossible for him to be offended, or to treat it with contempt, even if he had wished to do so.

1 See John iii. 18; Mark xvi. 16; 1 John v. 10.

"The words which you have quoted, (said he in reply,) relate evidently to a general acceptance of Christianity; and there I am disposed to agree with you. The infidel rejects revealed truth at his peril. But surely it is quite unimportant what form of Christianity a man embraces, provided he be conscientious. You will, I am sure, agree with the poet;

'For empty forms 1 let graceless zealots fight,

He can't be wrong whose heart is in the right.'"

HERBERT.

If we agree with the poet, we must, I am afraid, disagree with the Apostle. St. Paul laid great stress on the forms of religion. He exhorts his young friend St. Timothy to "hold fast the form of sound words';" and thanks God for the Roman converts, because they had believed that form of doctrine which was delivered to them "." And St. Jude exhorts all Christians to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once [for all] delivered to the Saints." So we have to choose between mo

"Modes of faith" rightly quoted.

Tim. i. 13.

3 Rom. vi. 17.

4 Jude 3.

dern liberalism, or the "graceless zeal" of an Apostle.

Lord Waverley was not very learned in the Scriptures, but he thought he could master his reverend antagonist with his own weapons. "It is the doctrine," he said, "the form of doctrine of which the Apostle is speaking. What I alluded to were the external forms, which seem to me perfectly unimportant. What can it signify whether a clergyman wears a surplice or not, provided his dress is decent; or whether the Church be governed by Bishops, or in any other way, provided it is well governed."

HERBERT.

The passages which I quoted apply certainly, as you have said, to the form of doctrine, and I am glad that so far we agree, that is, in the necessity of maintaining the form of sound doctrine. With regard to the mere external forms, as you call them, I think, if it would not be tiring you, that I could point out distinctions which are important.

Lord Waverley signified his wish to hear further, and the rest of the company were evidently interested in the discussion.

HERBERT.

You say that forms are unimportant, and that Christians ought not to dispute about them. The position which I would maintain, is, that some forms are very important, and that, with regard to those which are not so, the sin of separation from the Church on account of them is great in proportion to their unimportance.

Take the forms which you have mentioned Episcopacy and the use of the surplice. It is at once evident, that one is a grave and serious question, and the other, in itself, of little moment. But it is clearly illogical to class them both together as forms, and to argue or infer that because Christians have too pertinaciously disputed about the use of the surplice, therefore they ought to be indifferent about Episcopacy.

By way of illustration, let us suppose the case of an army. It will be evident that some forms are essential to its very constitution, and others are non-essential. It is, I presume, essential that every division of an army should be under one commander, and that a good understanding and mutual correspondence should be kept up between the different divisions, and that there