of the public reader; the uneasy feeling being this, that errors in regard of Holy Scripture ought not to remain uncorrected nor obscurities left to cloud the meaning of God's Word when there is a current Version from which errors are removed, and in which obscurities are dissipated. Why should not such a Version be read in the ears of our people? This is the question which I am confident many a one of you, my dear friends, when you have been reading in your church--say the Epistles--have often felt very distinctly come home to you. Why should such a Version not be read in the ears of our people? Has it been forbidden? No, thank God; full liberty, on the contrary, has been left to us by the living voice of the synod of this Province that it may be read, subject to one reasonable limitation. Was it not the unanimous judgement of the Upper House of the Convocation of our Province, confirmed by the voice of the Lower House {122}--"That the use of the Revised Version of the Bible at the lectern in the public services of the Church, where this is desired by clergy and people, is not open to any well-founded objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligent knowledge of Holy Scripture"? And further, was not this adopted by the Lay House of our Province, even when a few doubting voices were heard {123}, and an interpretation given to the word "use," in the form of a rider, which, I can confidently say, never entered into the minds or thoughts of the members of the Upper House? Indeed, though I do not wish to criticise the decision of the House of Laymen, their appended words of interpretation fall to the ground. If "use" is to mean "occasional employment of Lessons from the Revised Version, where, in the interest of more accurate translation, it is desirable," can any Lessons be found where the interest of more accurate translation is not patently concerned? If this be so, what meaning can we assign to "occasional employment"?