be discernible by none out the keenest eyes—so little can there be found in matters ritual to fight about. Even in the Denison case the points of difference are almost as infinitesimal. It is true that under the revived act of Elizabeth—compared with which the laws of Draco seem a mild and considerate code—the Archdeacon has been sentenced to lose his preferments; but his doctrine on the Real Presence has, in sober fact, never been so much as challenged. His opponents, passing over all that was material in his propositions, have only attacked a _quasi_ corollary which he has added to his main position, but which is, in reality, a complete _non-sequitur_. Whether Dr. Lushington is right or wrong, it is clear that a person holding the dogma of transubstantiation itself might, with perfect logical consistency, accept the ruling of the Court. The differences between the highest and the lowest schools being so impalpable, it would seem absurd to suppose that the present controversies can have a much longer continuance. But whether that be so or not, there is a very important distinction (and one that is well worth the notice of statesmen) between the extension of the Church and the spread of Dissent. Church extension, as far as it goes, tends to compose differences. The consecration of a new church is almost invariably regarded as an occasion when party differences should be laid aside—the opening of a new meeting-house is too commonly the crowning act of an irreparable schism.