an authorised version has been admitted by all.  Thus we have Nonconformists and English and Scottish Episcopalians united in adjusting the terms of the sacred text;—­the text from which all preaching in the English tongue shall in future derive its authority, and by which all its teaching shall in future be guided and directed.  There is already, however, a closer and a more practical blending of minds on great religious questions much differing from each other on lesser points.  In the field of religious and devotional literature, many of our church differences are lost sight of.  Episcopalian congregations are constantly in the habit of joining with much cordiality and earnestness in singing hymns composed by authors nonconformists with our Church—­in fact, of adopting them into their church service.  These compositions form a portion of their worship, and are employed to illustrate and enforce their own most earnest doctrinal views and opinions themselves.  How entirely are such compositions as the sacramental hymn, “My God, and is thy table spread,” by Doddridge; the hymn, “When I behold the wondrous cross,” by Isaac Watts, associated with our Church services!  Nor are such feelings of adoption confined to poetical compositions.  How many prose productions by non-Episcopalian authors might be introduced for the delight and benefit of Christian congregations!  How eagerly many such compositions are read by members of our Church!  With what delight would many discourses of this class have been listened to had they been delivered to Episcopalian congregations!  Where such hymns and such discourses are admissible, the authors of them might take a part in conducting psalmody and in occupying the pulpit for preaching to a congregation.  If the spirits of such writers as Doddridge, Watts, and Hall, have been felt to permeate and to influence the hearts of others who have heard or read their words of holiness and peace, we may well suppose that God would sanction their making like impressions, in his own house, upon the hearts of those whom they meet there face to face.  Might they not communicate personally what they communicate through the press?  For example, why should not Robert Hall have preached his sermons on Infidelity and on the Death of the Princess of Wales, perhaps the two most magnificent discourses in the language, in an English Cathedral?  Why should not the beautiful astronomical discourses of Thomas Chalmers have been delivered in St. Paul’s or in St. John’s, Edinburgh?  For many years, in want of better materials, the sermons of Dr. Blair were more used in the Church of England, and more read in private, than any similar compositions.  It has been for years a growing persuasion in my own mind that principles of Christian love and mutual harmony are too often sacrificed to the desire of preserving the exact and formal marks of church order, as the Bishop of St. Andrews so happily expressed it to preserve etiquette.