tone, and their feeling seemed to be tinged with a half-concealed and almost contemptuous pity. How much beneficial action might be taken by religious bodies acting in co-operation! There is a deep truth in a remark once made by the late Bishop of Manchester, Dr. Moorhouse, when speaking of possible co-operation on a certain matter between people belonging to different religious communities: "It would be so easy did we only recognise how large is the area covered by things on which we agree, how important they are, compared with those on which we differ." Some have felt so keenly the injury done by religious differences that schemes have been put forward for corporate union of a number of different Churches. Such union may or may not be possible, but, even if it is, is it best to bring about such a union by any compromise under which one side gives up part of what it regards as useful and important in exchange for a similar concession on the other? May not a kind of confederation between different bodies for certain purposes, each maintaining its separate existence, be better than formal incorporation? May there not be a unity of spirit and bond of peace between those whose views differ, without either party giving up the iota to which he may attach importance? Forms devoutly prized and helpful to one man may be repellent and a hindrance to others. There is much to be learnt from a saying quoted by Sir Edwin Pears in writing of certain Mahommedan sects: "The paths leading to God are as numerous as the breaths of His creatures; hence they consider religious toleration as a duty." Toleration does not mean simply abstinence from the thumbscrew and the rack or even the repeal of the Conventicle or the Five Mile Act, but appreciation of the religious opinions and practices of others, and due respect for them. Without formal union there may not only be peace and goodwill between bodies which keep up their separate organisations, they might also act together heartily and effectively both in philanthropic work and in combating certain evils for which the influence of religion is the most effective cure. It is a good sign of the times that a joint volume has already been published on Religion and Reconstruction, containing essays by a number of those whose views no doubt differ widely, but who find no difficulty in uniting in a common undertaking. The book contains essays by Bishop Welldon, Dr. Orchard, Monsignor Poock, and others representing different communions, and they appear to have had no difficulty at all in a joint enterprise of this kind.