should be a regular gradation of officers, who shall not be liable to be cashiered by those whom they command. Without these, an army could not be efficient. So neither could the Church, unless each Diocese has its regular head, and due gradation of subordinate ministers; and à proper connection be maintained throughout the whole body.

But again, it is evident, that in the army it is of little moment, what is the colour or particular cut of the uniform. Nay, the uniform may vary according to the fashion of the day. The powdered and pigtailed grenadiers under General Wolfe maintained the honour of England, as well as the mustachio'd dragoons of Waterloo. So, as you say, it is very unimportant whether a clergyman wear a black gown or a white one. He may preach and pray equally well in one as in the other.

Yet these details, though unimportant in themselves, become important when they have been established by competent authority. If, for instance, some of the soldiers in a regiment took it into their heads to appear on parade in blue uniform when all the rest wore red, they would justly subject themselves to punishment, not because their uniform was worse than that

of the rest, but for disobeying orders. So, if the Church of any nation orders that the service should be performed in a surplice, it would be highly blameable in any individual minister to object to such an arrangement,—not because a white gown is better than a black one, but because it would be a needless deviation from uniformity.

And, in proportion to the triviality of the matter, just so would be the perverseness of him who separated from the Church on account of it. Dissenters, you will say, differ from the Church on some trifling forms;-why then do they separate themselves from us? If the forms are trifling, why do they not yield them for the sake of unity; or, at least, remain in our communion? It is not so much for the difference of form that we blame them, as for their separation from the Church, which ought to be one and undivided.

However, we have seen that Episcopacy is not a mere question of forms. Episcopacy, and a due gradation of the ministry, are of as vital importance to the well-being of the Church, as a good staff to the efficiency of the army. And this is putting the question on the very lowest ground; because, looking at Scripture and at

Church history, we can prove, that the Episcopal form was that in which the Church was founded by the Apostles, and in which it continued for fifteen hundred years. The Bishops are the only order of the ministry who have received divine authority to ordain, and therefore without their ordination no minister can prove his right to preach the Gospel, or to administer the sacraments. Therefore we are bound to maintain the Episcopal form of government, not merely from motives of expediency, but from deference to the universal concurrence of the Church, founded on inspired authority. Even if the form of Episcopacy were indifferent, it would be highly presumptuous and disrespectful to separate from the Church on account of it: but if Episcopacy was, as we believe, of apostolic institution, and essential to the constitution of the Church, what before was a matter of insubordination, is now a clear case of desertion or mutiny.

Herbert apologized for having made so long an harangue, but was assured that no apology was needed.

Lord Waverley had tact enough to perceive that his reverend opponent knew a great deal more about the matter than himself, and he had candour enough to acknowledge it.

"You are a most zealous champion of Episcopacy, and I confess I do not feel myself competent to discuss the question with you. In fact, to say the truth, I have never thought much about the matter in a theological point of view; but considered Episcopacy merely as one of the forms of Church government which might be adopted or rejected at pleasure. But, after what you have said, I must so far do justice to your arguments, as to acknowledge, that the question seems to be of more importance than I judged it."

This was as large a measure of concession as could be expected from an opponent in mixed company. Herbert expressed his satisfaction that what he had brought forward had convinced his Lordship of the importance of the question, and was certain the argument would bear a thorough sifting; and so the discussion dropped.

When they returned home, Ridley reverted to their conversation. "I did not expect (said he) that we should have met so liberal a party, or I am not sure whether I should have taken you there. However, I rejoice that I did so, because you have given me a lesson of temperate and Christian argument, which I hope I shall profit by. And I must say that Lord Waverley behaved admirably. You have quite won his

friendship. He expressed his intention of calling on you, and hopes to continue your acquaintance, that he may gain, as he says, a little more sound doctrine in so agreeable a way. I told him that I was sorry to say, you were soon about to leave town, but, if he would make one of a small party at my house to-morrow, I had no doubt that you would be happy to talk over Church matters with him.

HERBERT.

I do not like arguments on religion, or indeed on any subject, in mixed company. But I hold it to be the duty of Christians to bear testimony to the truth, even at the risk of giving offence. Offence, however, is much more frequently given by the manner in which the truth is stated, than by the truth itself.

RIDLEY.

Pray tell me your secret for upholding the truth without offence; for I confess I do not always find it very practicable.

HERBERT.

There are one or two plain rules which generally keep me out of difficulty. In the first place, I always make a rule to appeal to Scripture, when