The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is called for, and we must go to that.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. There are three minutes left.

The PRESIDENT. It will take a great deal more than three minutes. We have to take the vote by Dioceses and orders.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Not unless it is called for.

The PRESIDENT. To change the Prayer-Book? Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. This does not change the Prayer-Book. It only proposes to change it.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. There are some members who wish to express their views on this question a little more fully. There will be further debate on it if we insist on taking the question now. ["Order of the Day."]

MISSIONARY BISHOPS.

The SECRETARY. The order of the day is a message from the House of Bishops nominating a Missionary Bishop to Shanghai, China, together with the nominations sent down from the House of Bishops this morning.

All persons having retired from the Chapel except the Deputies and the Secretary and his Assistants, the House proceeded with closed doors to consider the nominations for Missionary Bishops, sent down from the House of Bishops.

The House remained in secret session till the usual hour of adjournment, when it adjourned till to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.

Convention, and as the whole Church is represented in both of those bodies, it does not seem necessary to present to this latter any extended notice of the proceedings of the former. It is one of the auspicious signs of life and light in the Church that the participation of her members in her missionary council is becoming so general and hearty. It is to be hoped that the time is not far off when legislation itself will pause for a day or more, and suspend its deliberations or enactments in favor of a higher contemplation of the needs of the Church in that which most intimately concerns both its vitality and its growth. It would be well to refresh one's faith when the disturbances, the jars, the causes of disquiet, the hindrances and clogs of the hour call for interference by law, by looking away to the magnificent promise and opportunity of good presented to our view in the providence of God, as well as to the attempt of the Church to respond to the

summons.

"The spread and increase of the kingdom of Christ are apparent on every side. From the mission that penetrates into lanes and alleys to that which overtakes the pioneer on the outskirts, or carries its blessings into heathen wilds-all is cheeringsave the lack of means. Both the laborer and his hire are wanting. The harvestman to go wherever his Lord shall bid him to gather in the sheaves, and the 'sending' of that harvestman fully furnished and abetted on the part of the Church, there the great needs are inadequately supplied. The slow increase of the ministry is alarming, but still more disquieting is the inability of Committees to meet their obligations through a failure of gifts and of the chief pastors of the fold to fill vacancies in their missionary appointments.

"Your Committee entrusted to subcommittees of their body to report, and reports them back as their own, and I now present to this House: 1st. The report which relates to domestic missions. 2d. The Indian Commission. 3d. Home missions to colored people. 4th. Foreign missions. 5th. The women's auxiliary to the Board."

The Committee report the following resolutions : "Whereas, The Board of Missions is seriously considering a proposal to embrace the several departments of Mission work in one large committee, to discuss all important subjects with the view of promoting harmonious action, and then commit the several departments to subcommittees; and whereas, a resolution has been adopted by the Board of Missions referring this important subject to a large committee for consideration and report;

"Therefore, resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that in the event of the approval by the Board of Missions, when the General Convention is not in session, of the plan referred to in the foregoing preamble, said Board is hereby authorized to appoint eight additional members to their Standing Committees, making twenty-four in all to carry out such plan as may be adopted by the Board of Missions, and to report to the General Convention at its next session such amendments of the Constitution as may be necessary to give the plan stability and authority.

"2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Constitution of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America be amended by changing, in the first line of Article XII., the word clergyman' to 'person'; by inserting, in the second line of the same Article, before the words 'until after,' the following words: 'except with the express consent of the Board of Missions'; in line 7 by striking out 'person' and inserting Clerical Missionary and striking out the words a missionary'; and by adding, at the close of the whole Article, the following words: "Or of a Church in full com

munion with this Church and connected therewith by recognized official relations.'

Article XII. will then read thus:

"ARTICLE XII.

No person shall be appointed a missionary by the Board, or by either of the Committees, except with the express consent of the Board of Missions, until after conference with the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese or Missionary District to which he belongs, nor shall any missionary be sent to officiate in any Diocese or Missionary District without the consent of the ecclesiastical authority of the same, except when regularly called by an organized parish, in accordance with the Canons, both Diocesan and general, and no clerical missionary shall be appointed who is not at the time a minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church, of regular standing, or of a Church in full communion with this Church and connected therewith by recognized official relations.

"Whereas, The Board of Missions is acting under the authority of the General Convention, and should in all important measures be controlled by its fundamental principles; therefore,

Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Article 7 of the Constitution of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society be amended by inserting the following words at the end of the first line of the second paragraph, after the word 'quorum,': 'and in all questions, when required by three members, the clerical and lay members of the Board of Missions shall vote separately, and their concurrence shall be necessary to constitute a vote.'

"Whereas, The proposed increase in the Episcopate for Domestic and Foreign Missions, and the call for greater efficiency in missions to the Indian and the colored races,, evinces a large development of missionary zeal and faith, and will require a liberal supply of men and money; therefore, "Resolved, That each parish minister be requested to disseminate information likely to develop an intelligent zeal for missions, and also to form organizations that each parish may become a missionary training-school, and that contributions for missions may be systematically collected."

Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island. Let the resolutions go on the Calendar.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. These are very important matters that require the action of the House of Bishops. They require concurrence. Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island. There is a very important resolution there that requires consideration.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If the Secretary will read the resolution separately, any one can lay over that is objected to. The House of Bishops must act on them, or they will not become the law.

The Secretary read the first resolution.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. This is merely giving the Board of Missions, at its next meeting, authority to work out a plan by which it is thought the Missions of this Church will be brought into harmony. There is no objection to it, I think. Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. There is no amendment to the Constitution proposed here? Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. No, sir. The first resolution was agreed to.

The Secretary read the next resolution, proposing a change in Article 12 of the Constitution of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylania. Those who neglected their duty last night and did not go to the Board of Missions, will perhaps be ignorant as to this. The whole macter was fully discussed there. We learned that instead of appointing a Bishop for Hayti, they asked the Church in Hayti to elect

their own Bishop, for they desire to have that in perfect accord with the Church in this country. Under the Constitution as it stands, they cannot do it. It is believed also that there is a great amount of right spirit in Mexico that under the present constitution our Missionary Board is restricted from helping in the best way. There is no restriction in the Church Missionary Society at all. They can help it, but our Society is restricted.

Again it has been usual to send out others than clergymen. The Foreign Committee have taken the responsibility of doing it. There is no authority in the Constitution for it. It was thought that so large a body as the Board of Missions, especially as you put the restriction on them, that they can call for a vote by orders at any time, should have specifically the authority to do what they have been actually doing for years. They have sent women out, noble women. Those who were in Grace Church the other day understood that when they were asked in the House of Bishops whether there was not some suitable person in China who could be elected to the Episcopate, it was said, "Yes, there is; but she is a woman, and not a man, and therefore we cannot elect her.” What they want is simply authority to work.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move the passage of the resolution.

Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island. I wish to ask a question whether this does not give permis sion to the Board to employ a person who is not a minister of this Church; that is to say, a minister of some of the denominations around us, if they wish to do so? That is one point that I want brought out here this morning. I understood the Bishop of Niobrara last night to state that it did.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I think the question put by the gentleman is a very important one. I attended the Missionary meeting last night, and that question was put by the Bishop of Niobrara, and I understood him to admit that it would authorize the employment of dissenting Ministers from their own churches in any portion of the world where we choose to establish missions; that it could be done in Hayti; that it could be done in Mexico, to the extent that disaffected Presbyters of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico-those were not his words, but that was the necessary inference-could be taken under the pay and into the service of the Board of Missions of this Protestant Episcopal Church. Now, I say that is a very rad:cal innovation upon the policy of this Church. I do not think we ought to subsidize disaffected Roman Catholic ministers, or pension them, or take them under our control or pay. If they are fit for ordination, or rather reception without ordination, all right. I do not think, though, that the General Convention of this Church ought to undertake to have an imperium in imperio in another man's Diocese, or inside of the Church of somebody else. It struck me so last night, though I did not participate in the debate. I thought it a very important enquiry how far this Church is to become the proselyter and the innovator into other domains.

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. It will be seen by this Article that while it would be possible to say that a person might be appointed a missionary by the Board who was a Presbyterian clergyman, yet he cannot be appointed until after conference with the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese or Missionary District to which he belongs. When we come to the point of the Clerical Missionary, who is to act as such abroad, the whole matter is guarded carefully. He must be a minister of this Church, in regular standing, or else of a Church in full communion with our Church.

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. Must not this go on the Calendar if it excites discussion ?

Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island. I say that when a committee present a report or resolution to this body or to the Board of Missions, or to any other body by which they are appointed, it is supposed that they understand its meaning. Last evening the Bishop of Niobrara, who presented these resolutions, was asked the question, and he answered it distinctly, "Will not this change in the Constitution make it possible for the Board to appoint a missionary not of this Church, if this amendment to the Constitution takes place?" and his reply was, "It will."

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. As a member of the Board of Missions, I ask for only a moment in which to remove the apprehension of the eminent Deputy from Tennessee that the proposed employment of auxiliaries in foreign countries will work a "radical revolution" in our missionary work. It will not and cannot be "radical," because it cannot reach the great "root" of the Protestant Episcopal Church, so deeply planted in our broad continent, and so well able to sustain any growth or expansion of the majestic branches reaching out to overshadow "all lands." I believe that any well-disposed persons of any sect or tongue in foreign lands, that should be selected after careful examination by our Board of Missions, may be employed with peculiar advantage to extend in their own language the world-encircling missionary work of the Church.

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. It is my impression that no action can be matured and perfected until another General Convention, and in the mean time this proposition will be opened to the whole Church. If it is discussed now, I fear it will occupy too much time; but I think there are ways of meeting some of the objections which have been put to this House, that might satisfy most minds. However, as these are not my resolutions, nor had I anything to do in the furthering of them, I am perfectly willing, and I hope the House will be perfectly willing, to let them go on the Journal for action at another General Convention.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. These resolutions come to us from the Board of Missions certified by their Secretary as their request to us. If the House of Bishops concur, they become a law immediately. If the House of Bishops do not concur, of course they will be null.

The Constitution of the Board of Missions is very different from ours. It is a simple thing; and this Board of Missions is composed of the working body of our Church. I think they are entitled to about as much confidence as the General Convention. They are the most active and earnest men of our Church. All they ask is now, as God's spirit has filled them, a little liberty to do that which we all desire to do, extend Christ's kingdom. They want the field open to send missionaries, teachers, physicians, and holy women.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I believe that I have as much anxiety in regard to the progress of missions as any man on this floor. I have also had as much anxiety in regard to Mexico as any man on this floor can have. But I see behind this-and I had no voice in the Board of Missions because I was not there--I see behind this a matter that I believe is a great error and a great wrong. To-day we are asked to put some missionaries in Mexico. I hope it will be done. But we have already there a gentleman of our Church who has begun work in Mexico. I have in my possession a letter from a wellknown gentleman of my own Diocese, now in the city of Mexico, a candidate for orders, saying to me that the work of the Episcopal Church in the city of Mexico, and in Mexico generally, is going on partly under the Prayer-Book of the Episcopal Church, partly under prayers made by each person in his own parish or Church, partly carried on by the minis

ters of the Church in the United States, and partly by Presbyterians, and partly by Methodists.

Now I believe that what is under this matter-I can see no other reason for this change-is that the intended Episcopate for Mexico shall be an Episcopate that will be ready to recognize workers from Methodists and from Presbyterians. I am glad to have them work there, but I am not willing that they should work in the harness of the Episcopal Church until they come into it properly; and, therefore, I object.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I wish to enter my protest, most earnestly, against what I conceive to be the dangerous principle put forth by the Reverend Deputy from Maryland.

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I beg pardon. I thought it was an amendment to the Constitution. I find I was mistaken, and I withdraw my suggestion.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Even although his argument is withdrawn, I must press the points.

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. I rise to a question of order. It is manifest that this debate is entirely out of order, unless the rules are suspended, and as it is evidently to take up a large share of the time, I move that this resolution go on the Calendar.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Has not that point been decided in a former discussion in this House, that when a matter has been brought fairly before the House, the question has been stated and the debate commenced, it is then too late to raise such a point of order? I think it has been more than once so decided in the course of the session of this Convention.

The PRESIDENT. I do not recollect about that. Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Presuming that I am right, for the general sense of the House seems to sustain me, the principle against which I wish to protest is this, that this House should ever on any matter of importance-and this question is certainly one, and the question that is to come before us soon with regard to the alteration of the Rubrics in the Prayer-Book is another-yield to the plea of letting a thing pass, that the next Convention may have it before it without our hindrance.

There are questions of alteration of the Constitution, questions of alteration of the Prayer-Book, which we are sent here to watch, and until they receive our definite approval in this Convention, and are formally proposed (which presumes the approval of this Convention) to the next, they cannot be adopted.

Now, the plausible plea is urged in this and in another case, that we shall step aside from our duty; that we shall prove false to our position as guardians and watchmen of the Church in this respect, and let the thing go by default; that when a proposition to change the Prayer-Book or the Constitution of the Church is brought before us, we should say, "There are three years to discuss it; the Church can consider it in that time, and that will leave the way open." Sir, we are not here to leave the way open. We are put here, if we see reason, to stop it, to put a bar in the way. I hope no action will be taken either in regard to points affecting the Constitution or points affecting the PrayerBook, without the full and careful consideration of this Convention, that we shall not throw the matter over to the next Convention without our full approval.

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Had not the Reverend Deputy from Rhode Island brought this subject before the House, I was prepared to do so. I was at the Board of Missions last night, and I voted against this resolution there; and it was car

ried by a majority of only two or three, I believe. At that time, the same question which has been brought up here was, indeed, asked and answered; and whilst the answer was somewhat indefinite, it nevertheless, in my judgment, covered such a case as has been represented to us by the Reverend Deputy from Texas; and in view of this, I believe it is a subject which should be very carefully thought upon, and we should vote against this amendment at once, in order that there may come up again before us at the proper time such action as may be wished for by the Board of Missions in the proper way. The argument that fell from the Reverend Deputy from Central Pennsylvania is, I think, most timely at this time.

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I wish to say one word in regard to Mexico. The great leader in that reform movement is a friend of mine, and I can entirely disabuse the minds of brethren here, both clerical and lay, of any idea of bringing up on the same platform Methodists and Presbyterians; but, at the same time, it must be recollected that the Mexicans are principally Roman Catholics; and if former Catholic priests could be all under the control of our own Church, it would be desirable. I am somewhat acquainted with the work there. I am somewhat acquainted with the work that has been begun and somewhat carried on by our beloved brother in Mexico, who is in charge there, and I know that he loves the Church and has no desire to bring outsiders up to the same platform, though he would be very willing to have them as assistants, just as take we in our missionary organization the services of women and laymen. If we could, in some way or other, extend the Episcopate there, I am sure he would be the last to throw any objection in the way. I think so from a conversation I have had with him on this subject. I believe this is a great and glorious work, that it is paralleled only by the old Reformation on the other side of the Atlantic ; and I think this subject, although it has been presented to our attention at the last moment, is one which should command our attention. I hope the Convention will not tie its hands, but will consider this matter, and allow the members of this Convention and the church generally in the interim to think on it. No harm can be done by adopting this resolution, and I do hope that all action will not be stifled.

lay

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. Mr. President, I understand that the office of the first change is to qualify the Committee to send ladies and physicians who are now sent without any express authority of the Board, and the object of the second change is to qualify any clerical missionary to act in our foreign or other missionary jurisdictions, who shall be in the first place one of our own clergy, or next a clergyman of a Church in full communion with this Church, and in recognized official relations with it. It seems to me this is guard enough; but as that does not seem to be clear to many in the House, I move respectfully that this article be referred back to the Board of Missions for further conference tonight, and it may be presented on the morrow in another form to this House, and that the discussion on the remaining resolutions be taken up at that time.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I second the motion.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Would it not be better to refer the resolutions back to the Committee of our House, and let them present it?

Rev. Mr. LEEDS. I accept the amendment for recommittment to the Committee.

The PRESIDENT. The motion is to recommit the resolutions to the Committee on the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society.

The motion was agreed to.

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, submitted the following report:

"The Joint Committee of Conference, appointed to consider the disagreement between the two Houses in regard to an amendment to Section 1, of Canon 1, Title III., proposed by the House of Deputies, respectfully report that they recommend the adop tion of the proposed amendment, with the alteration of the words, 'each House of the General Convention,' to 'the House of Deputies,' as expressed in the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the following clause be added to Section 1, of Canon 1, of Title III., of the Digest:

"[4.] The Rules and Orders of the House of Deputies shall be in force in the ensuing General Convention until the organization thereof, and until they be amended or repealed by the said House. "By order of the Committee on the part of the House of Bishops,

"J. WILLIAMS. "By order of the Committee on the part of the House of Deputies, "WM. COOPER MEAD." The report was placed on the Calendar.

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION.

Rev. Mr. JOHNSON, of Connecticut, from the Committee on Christian Education, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Christian Education respectfully In their efforts to make submit their report. their deliberations of some practical value to the Church, your Committee have met with several difficulties:

1. Most of us are placed for the first time on this Committee, which of all others requires continuance of service, if matured thought and counsel are to be secured.

2. The lamented death of the Rev. Dr. Jackson, the late Chairman of this Committee, has deprived us of the material which he was collecting for a full report on the present state of Church education, and your Committee deeply feel the loss of his large experience and ripened judgment. Such new statistics as have been hastily brought together are insufficient to enable us to perform the promise contained in the report of 1871, viz., to "prepare a report based on a wide induction of facts which may prove of service in future consideration of the question."

3. Such suggestions as we would now make have been largely anticipated in the able reports which have preceded this, especially those presented to the General Conventions of 1865 and 1868.

4. Besides, the subject, as at present entrusted to us, without any precise limits, is comprehensive in the extreme, and reaches in its various divisions to all departments of the Church's work. We have thought it best, therefore, to confine ourselves to two or three points, which have to do with the present needs of the Church and the present duty of Church

men.

I. OUR EXISTING INSTITUTIONS,

There are numerous Church schools for boys and girls started, chiefly by private enterprise, or the energy of some Bishop, assisted by the munificence of one or more of the laity. Most of them are without endowment, and are dependent upon the charac ter and exertions of those who have them in charge. They live by the day, on what is received for board and tuition, and have no reserve funds for building purposes, repairs, increase of libraries, and other educational equipments. The income of their teachers is proportioned to the amount of patronage received. The number of free scholars is measured by the ability rather than by the will or the wishes

of those who manage their affairs. There are no endowed scholarships provided for the sons and daughters of the clergy, and other deserving youth, or, at least, so few as to do little towards meeting the demand. Nearly all these schools-even the most prosperous-are hindered in their work by this dependent condition. They are compelled, in the majority of instances, to practise the costly economy of poverty. If those who are doing the work have any true ideal of what Christian culture is, and what kind of education in the Church our times require, they must be painfully conscious how inadequate are the means at their disposal, to attain the desired results. It is plain that we cannot have forty or fifty Etons or Rugbys. Great endowments, a full supply of distinguished and experienced masters, suitable buildings and appliances, the traditions of permanence, are not the growth of a day. We do not need, at present, to multiply, to any great extent, our schools of the highest grade. They are numerically almost sufficient, and no mistake can be greater than to divide and scatter our force. One thoroughly good school will accomplish far more for Christian education than a dozen inferior ones. Your Committee believe that the true policy of the Church is to concentrate our energy, ability, and endowments upon the institutions which we have, and which already have secured a measure of success, to increase their resources, add scholarships, provide them with all needful appliances, and thus make them, so far as we can do it, strong and permanent. If the Church provides the best schools for training the young, though they be comparatively few, they will always be full to overflowing, and the Church will be the gainer thereby.

There is need, however, especially in Dioceses where the Church is feeble, of a much larger provision for Christian Education which shall be within the reach of the great body of the people. The various religious denominations, the Roman Catholic in particular, have established cheap boarding schools in large numbers, which draw in the sons and daughters of the less wealthy classes-that is, the large majority of the people, the classes which, in this land, supply our leading men in Church and State. For such schools we must depend principally upon endowments and scholarships at least in the beginning, and they must be administered by persons who have devoted their lives to the work not for gain, but simply and solely to advance the interests of the Kingdom of Christ in this world.

II. SUPPLY OF TEACHERS.

One great difficulty in the way of providing schools which can do the Church's work at a moderate cost, arises from the very inadequate supply of competent teachers, male and female, who make teaching their calling with the true motive. Many can be found who will undertake to impart instruction for a high salary. Many young men fresh from college, without experience, are willing to teach a year or two in order that they may obtain means of support while studying for a profession. But there are very few who consecrate their best years and their highest powers and their undivided energy to this service, meaning to teach earthly things in such a spirit that those entrusted to their care may be led toward heavenly things; who in this work expect a bare support, looking for other recompense than the world can give. And yet these are the teachers the Church needs, men and women of superior ability and culture who have learned in their daily toil to keep steadily in view the eternal results. How shall this want be supplied? There are one or two suggestions which your Committee would make in answer to this question.

Many men and women are employed at present in

schools, academies, and colleges which have no connection with the Church. Their experience and scholarship, if called to the same work under the higher auspices, would be of great value. There might be also a far greater use of woman's help in this field of labor. Many a cultivated woman would give her time and talents to teaching if the way were opened to her, and she were called by the proper authorities to the work. The heads of schools and colleges should be urged to keep this deficiency in mind, and to direct their efforts toward providing well-trained men and women who will enter upon teaching with enthusiasm as their mission for life.

But the great want will not be met until some method of organization be adopted, such as brotherhoods or sisterhoods, whose members make teaching their special work, and who therefore cultivate the teaching faculty and acquire all the branches of useful learning in order to do Christ's work for the young, under the direction and at the call of their Bishops and Pastors. And while an organized work seems to be the only one likely to meet our necessities, and while the religious motive is the only one powerful enough to draw men and women to such work for the best years of their lives, it should be borne in mind that the truths of the Gospel, and the Catholic faith, as this Church hath received the same, have strength and vitality sufficient to furnish motive and method to such associations without exaggerations or additions in doctrine or practice and without borrowing distinctive dress, nomenclature, or usages, from the Church of Rome. In some of the schools or colleges at present belonging to us, such associations might be developed-teaching orders-Brothers of the Christian Doctrine-Sisters of the Holy Childhood-composed of men and women of sound judgment, moral force, thorough education, patient and winning ways, who would ask for no higher work than to train the minds and mould the characters of the young in accordance with the gracious teachings of the Church, and with the sanction of, and in loyal submission to, the authority of those who are rulers in the

same.

COLLEGIATE EDUCATION.

In regard to collegiate education, we ask, Ought the Church to provide this, or are our youth to pursue their higher studies, liberal and scientific, in institutions which are under no religious influence, or such as is adverse to Church principles? If it is worth while to have our own colleges at all-if we hold that religion is the foundation of all knowledge then it is clear that there is a great failure of duty among Churchmen. Noble work has been done and is now going forward in the few colleges which we can call our own; but the popular current sets the other way, and there is a lack among ourselves of cordial support of these institutions. This is proved by the small number of undergraduates which they contain, and the disproportion between the endowments and other resources of our colleges and the great work which they have in hand. It is not possible for a few earnest and able men to perform this work alone. They need the hearty and consistent support of all intelligent Churchmen. In nine Colleges belonging to or under the influence of the Church, the whole number of undergraduates is only 543. In the same number of Colleges other than Church Colleges, there are 418 Churchmen. In one New England College, under Congregational influence, there are 65 Churchmen; and in a single University in the State of New York, which disclaims any theological bias, there are 90. These facts are significant. If education without the Gospel is unblest, and if the Church is the true educator, the witness and keeper of all