instance, and the specific emendations of the late Professor Scholefield, would become alike the property of the esoterics and the exoterics: they would be treasured up and embalmed in our own Bibles. In a word, we should succeed to a large inheritance of the labours of others. There would be still much left, of course, to reward industry and sagacity, and succeeding times might fairly expect to have the benefit of all future discoveries in this important field. The immediate benefit would be to relieve the unlettered from dependence on the Commentary to the extent they now are. They who run might read. {31} We may further be entitled to expect some abatement of our present unchristian differences, which are fostered to some extent, as we think, by the difficulties inherent in the Book rather as a _translation_ than as an _original_. To some extent it gives a less certain sound, as it is obliged to avail itself of human organs. By repairing the instrument, we may find a great impediment to our common understanding and accord removed, while the union thus formed will be all the more valuable as it will be real, not simulated—uniform, not patched up for the occasion to defeat a common enemy. It will grow out of the only bond of union—sympathy, namely, of belief—that promises to be permanent and available in the hour of trial. Divers forms of worship, and many varying shades of opinion, may co-exist with this unity. Charity thinketh no evil, is not easily provoked. If this happy purpose could be secured by imparting a clearer light to the firmament of Christian truth, as the result of the measure we advocate, it would not be easy to overrate the boon in the removal of the scandal that belongs to the present divided state of Christendom, and in the service it would render to the church in carrying out her many offices of healing and comfort to the world.