truth, secular as well as religious, then a grievous wrong is committed by Churchmen when they divert the patronage and gifts which ought to go to our own colleges to those institutions which are out of our control, and in some cases under no religious influence of any kind. While we call the attention of our brethren to the great mistake of not patronizing and cherishing our own colleges, we would at the same time earnestly enforce the reasonable duty of making our own schools and colleges so perfectly fitted to afford the very best training, that they may justly claim support on this ground alone.

There is another point of great importance in connection with this subject to which the Committee would call your attention.

In most of our old institutions the course of studies has been changed or enlarged, chiefly on account of the rapid advance in science and invention. In some, scientific schools have been added with a distinct programme, mainly in physical science and practical art. In these scientific and technological schools, the physical and practical, being of visible utility, threaten to drown out the aesthetical and ethical, and ardent young men longing to take their places and use their arms in the great arena of life pursue the attractive and immediately applicable courses. Thus the old moral teachings are brought to the test of physical experiment. Some of the most skilful teachers of physics sneer at the Bible, and while we may hope the danger is far less in those institutions which are under the control of the Church, still even in these we must be on our guard against the drift of the age. What we need in all our colleges is able Christian professors. In our chairs of moral science, including Christian ethics and Christian evidences, men au courant with the advance of physical science, able to expose every falsehood and fallacy, to answer all the questions of enquiring youth, and to set forth and defend the ground of their faith to their students with the help of science itself. The first question to be asked in regard to every applicant for the post of professor, tutor, or master in any Church institution should be this: Is he a devout Christian man in his belief and practice? No literary or scientific qualification can possibly compensate for the lack of Christian influence, example, and precept.

It would be well if those who are actually engaged in the work of Church education could meet from time to time and confer together on the above and kindred subjects. It seems to your Committee that there ought to be in each Diocese a committee on Christian education, appointed by its Convention, to whom the promotion of this cause should be especially entrusted, and to whom persons in the Diocese, engaged in the work of teaching, or desirous of engaging in it, could be referred by the Bishop. With these Diocesan Committees, this Committee, if a Standing Committee of the General Convention, could communicate in preparing future reports, and thus a full view could be more readily obtained and presented to the Church, of the present and prospective condition of her educational work.

In regard to the immeasurable importance of Christian education your Committee are of one mind. The heart and conscience of the Church need to be quickened that our duty to our own baptised youth-and to the youth of this land-may be performed to the utmost of our powers; that the downward tendencies of a godless education, world- i liness, and vice and infidelity, may be stayed, and that, exercising in full faith the "Divine instrumentalities committed to our trust," our may grow up as the young plants, and that our daughters may be as the polished corners of the Temple.

sons

Your Committee would recommend the adoption of the following resolutions :

"Resolved, That the members of the Church be again most earnestly reminded of their sacred duty to uphold the schools and colleges which are under Church direction and influence."

"Resolved, That it be recommended to every Diocese to appoint a Standing Committee of Christian Education, which may communicate with this Committee of the General Convention, collect the statistics of Church education, and of other educational work in the Diocese, and adopt such measures as may be most feasible for supplying teachers and for promoting the efficiency and permanence of our own institutions."

Resolved, That the Joint Committee on Christian Education be continued, that they may have time to deliberate and mature a Report on Education, to be presented at the next General Convention, which may prove of service in the further consideration of the subject."

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Rev. HENRY A. COIT, D.D.

Rev. CHAS. MINNIGERODE, D.D.
Rev. ALDERT SMEDES, D.D.
Rev. GEORGE BECKETT, D.D.
Rev. EDWIN E. JOHNSON.

Rev. GILES A. EASTON.

Mr. NATHANIEL H. R. DAWSON.
Mr. HENRY COPPEE, LL.D.

Mr. CHARLES J. JENKINS, LL.D.
Mr. ISAAC ATWATER.

The resolutions reported were adopted unanimously.

SPANISH PRAYER-BOOK.

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York, from the Special Committee to report a version of the Book of Common Prayer in Spanish, submitted the following report:

"The Joint Committee appointed at the last General Convention to report a version of the Book of Common Prayer in the Spanish language ask leave to report:

"That although, owing to the fact that the members of the Committee were so widely scattered, any joint action has been a matter of considerable difficulty, yet the proposed version has been begun on the basis of an existing version, and some progress has been made. The Committee therefore ask to be continued.

I

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. merely wish to remark that, in consequence of the fact stated in the report, but little progress has been made, not so much as it might have been expected would be accomplished. I am now happy to state that under a reorganization of the Committee, and under special arrangements now in our power and at our command, we hope to be able to make a rapid and more satisfactory progress. I move therefore that the Committee be continued, and that the President be instructed to fill vacancies on the part of this House. The motion was agreed to.

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT.

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. It seems to me that the time has arrived when the matter of the hour of final adjournment should be agreed upon, and in order to elicit the judgment of the House on the subject

"The Committee on Canons have had under careful consideration the Memorials coming from more than five hundred of the clergy of this Church, and a very large number of vestries and other laymen, together with the nearly unanimous action of one of the largest Dioceses, praying for some relaxation of the Rubrics in the Office for Infant Baptism, as granted in a former age in case of the Apostles' Creed, which tended to the peace of the Church, without altering its doctrine or perceptibly its practice.

'In view of the number and character of the petitioners, it is deemed reasonable at least, if not their due, that their petition should be so far responded to as to put it in the power of the General Convention to extend the desired relief, if in its judgment the best interests of the Church should so require.

"The Committee, therefore, without being understood to pledge any of its members upon the vote thereon, do submit for the action of the House the following resolutions :

"1. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That it be, and hereby is, proposed to add as a Rubric at the end of the Office for Infant Baptism the words following, viz.:

"The minister may, at his discretion, omit the exhortation preceding the Lord's Prayer in the above Office, and in place of the Thanksgiving substitute the Collect for Easter Even. This Rubric, however, is not to be construed as implying any change in the doctrine of the Church.

"2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Secretary of the House of Deputies cause the proposed Rubric to be made known to the Dioceses, as required by the Constitution and Canons."

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. It will be observed, Mr. President-and I wish to call special attention to it-that no proposition is made to change anything at the present time, or to change the doctrine of the Prayer-Book at all. It is only asked that this subject be referred to the Dioceses to be acted upon three years hence; and it is also to be understood that no man commits himself to the final vote, because as in 1856, when at the request of a number of parties a proposition for the establishment of an appellate court was asked for by its friends, to be referred to the next General Convention, it was done almost by unanimous consent, whereas in 1859 that proposition failed by a very large majority. It may be so in the present case. No man asserts anything by voting for this present proposition. That is understood in the Committee on Canons, and I am perfectly willing and desire that it should be so understood by the House.

If this were a new subject, it would be easily disposed of. But, unfortunately, it is an old subject, and not only an old subject, but one productive of controversy, voluminous, protracted and intense beyond anything which has plagued the Church since the Reformation.

In fact, no part of the Church Catholic has been so much disturbed by the question of Baptism as ours has been. The Greek, Roman Catholic and Non-Episcopal churches are all at peace among themselves respecting it, while we are in perpetual strife, as we have long been, and the prospect anything but encouraging; and all growing out of the peculiar structure of our office for Infant Baptism.

A venerable clergyman, to whom General Conventions have long been indebted for learning and wis

dom in council, said to me a few months ago: "I am old and shall not live to attend more than one more General Convention, but such is my conviction of the hindrance which this office has proved to our Church, that I cannot leave the Church or leave the world without leaving upon record in some shape or other my testimony respecting it;" and but for sickness which precedes the end he would have been here today at the head of the Deputation from Pennsylvania, and you would have been listening to his voice instead of mine. Would to God I were able to speak as he would have spoken, and if I ever coveted abilities with which nature has not endowed me it is in pleading before you a cause which is so intimately connected with the prosperity of the Church of our common love.

Coming before us in its present shape, at the instance of one of the largest Dioceses the historic Diocese in which the Church was first planted in this country-a Diocese acting in its official capacity by a vote of its Convention of one hundred and fifty (including both its Bishops) to fourteen, yet withal so conservative and with such careful regard even to the prejudices of others, as you have heard. This alone, I am confident, will ensure for it here the most respectful consideration.

But this is not all. Petitions of like tenor are before us from every quarter of the Church; which, considering the number and character of the petitions, have not been equalled by any hitherto presented to this body.

In an experience of a quarter of a century in this House, no one thing has been asked of it which, in my judgment, could be granted with so little sacrifice on the part of any, and which at the same time would be received with so much thankfulness and do so much good.

Nothing could prove such an end of controversy, nothing so arrest a spreading discontent within and disarm assailants from without, and promote a hearty union among ourselves for the work to which the Lord has called us, as the granting by the majority, or supposed majority, the consideration now asked of it for the minority, or supposed minority, so far exceeding in numbers and power its proportionate representation here.

And what reasons can there be against granting the liberty desired? If any ask what reasons there be for it, I can answer that question in a manner which no man can misunderstand.

It is desired by three classes. The first class consists of those who believe that now the word "regenerate," when it occurs in the Baptismal office, teaches a doctrine contrary to the Word of God, and therefore their conscience is sore distressed in using it; which I take as evidence, not of a weak conscience, but of a strong conscience; for it is a weak conscience which either does not concern itself about such questions, or which can pronounce as the mouthpiece of the Church, yet which personally it believes to be false.

And though I do not belong to this class, I hold that their petition ought to be granted; for it is a great hardship and wrong either to enforce or enact a law compelling men upon pain of extrusion from the ministry, to say that which they believed to be contrary to the wiil of God, unless it can be shown not only that they have mistaken the will of God, but also that the enforced word is essential to a valid baptism, which no man pretends; and if the Broad Church party will confine itself to points like that, it is bound, sooner or later, to prevail.

The second class consists of those who have no difficulty about reconciling the office to Scripture, being able as they conceive to demonstrate that the hypothetical theory of its interpretation is the true one, as in the case of the Burial office, but are yet strenuous for its revision, or some legal relaxation in

its use, on account of its extreme liability to perversion, as its whole history shows.

This liability to perversion six out of the seven of the principal schools of interpretation (or five of the six, if my generous opponent from Wisconsin prefers it), are forced to admit, holding as they do, that each of the seven except its own has, in point of fact, perverted it; or, though honestly trying to find the true meaning, have not been able. It is on this ground that I am so strongly with the petitioners, not only because it has been made to teach error so extensively (as it did not for at least the first half century of its history), but of late more than ever.

The leader of the Romish party in England, Dr. Pusey, says of the regeneration effected by baptism, "No change of heart or of the affections, no repentance, however radical, no faith, no love, came up to the idea of this birth from above. It is the creation of a new heart, new affections, new desires,' etc.-a statement more bold and contrary to the Bible than I can find in any Roman Catholic writer -and yet he declares for himself and party in these and other extreme opinions, "We have made our way by the Prayer-Book."

This of course we believe they have not done honestly; but I do not wish to be ever disentangling the web of sophistry by which such monstrous conclusions are reached, but which are being continually circulated among our people.

I do not wish, when using the Baptismal Office, now being more generally scrutinized and censured than ever, to be obliged to explain as if there were two kinds of regeneration, or read the Bishops' Declaration, or notice the fallacious distinction recently set up in theology, between being begotten of the Spirit and being born of the Spirit, in order that our Church may not be unjustly censured.

And I trust no one will think it a sufficient answer to this objection to say that the Bible may be perverted too, instituting a parallel between the unalterable and perfect work of God with the imperfect and alterable work of man. It is no answer at all, but only an evasion. The class petitioning for liberty on these grounds is numerous and daily increasing.

The third class consists of those holding different theories themselves, yet believe the request of the petitioners, upon one ground or another, to be reasonable, and ought to be granted-an example of Christian charity which, if generally followed, and working both ways, would be the forerunner of peace throughout all our borders,

We come, then, to these objections or supposed objections. What are they? One will have no change without regard to what change may be proposed, but simply for no change's sake, and calls it conservatism.

I must say that I sympathize with this party. It is not common with old Conservatives of my time of life to desire change. But upon a question like this history and common sense are entitled to a hearing.

There was an antecedent probability touching all works of this sort, that in the course of time they would require change.

Lord Bacon, and every philosopher of note, recognizes this principle. And there is no human composition extant, except the Prayer-Book, so voluminous and covering so many subjects, civil or ecclesiastical, having the force of law, which has not within three hundred years been changed again and again to keep pace with altered facts or other necessities, and none has suffered more from such readjustment being too long delayed.

But even the Prayer-Book has been obliged to yield once and again to this necessity. Public opinion in England would no longer endure the denunciatory political prayers of the State services,

and they were abolished a few years since. The Lectionary is lately revised, and there is a general demand for a revision of the Rubrics and for shorter services, and where this will stop, or ought to stop, does not appear and ought not to be asked. God has constituted not only the world, but the Church, on its human side, upon the principle of progression-not of revolution or of innovation, but of progression in its highest and noblest sense, and to fight against this principle is to fight against God. And surely a glance at the history of the Church will be sufficient to establish the proposition. Look at from Abraham to David, and from David to the carrying away to Babylon, and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Advent, and from the Advent to this day-never stationary-in no two ages alike, and yet, as to its essential being, ever in all ages one and the same. A true conservatism, if it does not yield too soon, does not resist too long.

No change! Why, sir, in the apprehensions of men the fundamental principles of morals are undergoing continual change.

Look at the Old Testament saints. Look at the Fathers of the Church, the great Augustine included, in so many respects "bright patterns of the Christian life "-it is impossible to deny the evidence that, if they did not forge miracles, they endorsed those which they knew to be forged. They had not learned the sin of doing evil that good might come. Look at Theodosius, the pride of the Church, guilty of crimes which no Turkish Sultan would now dream of committing.

For the indiscriminate murder of 15,000 people, men, women, and children, the great St. Ambrose was thought a wonder of discipline for suspending the Emperor from the Communion for a few Sundays.

And look at the wars instigated by the Popes of Rome, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as wicked in their inception and as savage in their conduct as any ever waged by Goths and Vandals.

No change! How long since persecution unto death for opinion's sake was thought necessary by the best of men?

And much later still-two generations after the Prayer-Book was made-see the head of the Church, in the person of James I., helping to torture, with his own hand, a wretched victim of superstition, whom he charged with raising a tempest by which he was near being drowned on his return from Den

mark.

And thousands all over Europe, after horrible tortures, were executed for witchcraft according to the then reigning public opinion, shared in by the great and good Chief Justice Hale, the sainted Baxter, and the last revisers of the Prayer-Book. All agreed that such executions were necessary-Catholic and Protestant, Churchman and Puritan. They were all in darkness.

Such was the Church in this thing, and at so recent a day; and there is no greater error than in looking for its perfection in the past instead of the future.

The doctrine, then, of historical development, i.e., the development not of truth itself, but of the ap prehension of it in the mind of the Church, is a true doctrine, and must go on until creeds and offices, Canons and Rubrics, touching faith and morals, doctrine, and discipline, shall perfectly coincide with Holy Scripture.

And surely our Ritualistic brethren will not object to change upon the score of principle, for they are compelled to go much further, and hold, with Mr. Newman, to objective development, or the power of the Church to develop the body of truth itself, which though, as Mr. Newman foresaw, is a far safer basis on which to

found the pretensions of Rome as it is, than the doctrine of "stability," viz., that their whole system is contained in the Bible, yet it is a fearful thing to begin with, for by it, once begun in the direction taken at Trent, and long before, Rome was bound, of logical necessity, to land in the blasphemous decree of 1870.

But admitting this to be true, the second class objects-"I do not want any change or revision of the Prayer-Book, and will not hear of it." But I, for one, do not wish you to hear of it. I am as much opposed to revision as you are. What is revision? Our version of the Bible is now being revised; and how? Chapter by chapter and verse by verse, for correction as need shall appear-a work which, in the judgment of the most learned, conservative, and orthodox of the English world, time had rendered absolutely necessary; and yet, for years, what an ignorant outcry was raised against it!

And has not the Prayer-Book too been revised time and again, and in this sense? Upon its fourth or fifth revision in 1662, after the failure of the obstructives of the Savoy Conference, the Convocation took up the work and made some six hundred alterations [so says Dr. Blakeney; I have not verified the statement], most of them small and for the letter, but some of them very important, and leaving the book on the whole more Protestant than it was before. And it is no more than just to those revisers to say that, little qualified as some of them were for their office, they never dreamed that their work was to be final, or that they were fixing formularies for all time, but distinctly contemplated future revisions as likely to become necessary.

And pray what has been the history of all Church formularies from the beginning but a history of revision, from the three Creeds in their rudimentary state which through centuries were revised again and again, and never ceased to be revised so long as any doubt about their meaning remained, and their object was secured.

But revision is not asked for, and no man is more opposed than I am to opening the book to any commission for that purpose. If any man or party have a proposition to make, let it come up singly and upon its own merits; and, after suitable time for reflection, I shall be ready to vote upon it. If in favor of it, it will be because I think it just and reasonable, and that it ought to be conceded. If against it, it will be because, upon its own merits, I think it ought not to be granted, and not from the pusillanimous apprehension of "entering wedges," and because, if granted, something else may possibly be asked, holding myself ready to consider such possible thing in the same way, without being so afraid of doing harm as not to do good.

The Diocese of Virginia does not ask a single line of the Prayer-Book to be changed. Nor does any one. The Diocese of Virginia only asks liberty for those who desire it to omit a word, not essential to a valid baptism, which has never settled anything, never will settle anything, and everybody knows it, and which all experience shows had better be left optional.

But the third class replies: "This is the very thing which I will not grant." But why, I ask, in the name of all that is reasonable and kindwhy? How can you defend yourself as towards your brethren for such refusal, unless it can be shown that in some way or other a revealed doctrine about Infant Baptism would be injured by any concession whatever from the particular form now in use? And if so, what doctrine is it? Can any one tell ?-for there is certainly no agreement about it.

In the first place, what does the word "regenerate mean in the "Service"? I say, a moral change. The Catechism settles that question: "A

death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness -for can there be "a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness" without a moral change? No wonder that those who, forced by the exigencies of their theories, must try to make some distinction between them, resort to subtleties which confuse the minds of their readers and their own.

66

Not only the Prayer-Book uses the word regeneration" in the sense of a moral change, but the Homilies, Hooker, and nearly every great writer, until about the opening of the eighteenth century; so that Waterland and others, who charge the identification of regeneration with a moral change upon the Puritans, are themselves chargeable with the novelty, as só clearly shown in the latest and most elaborate work written upon the PrayerBook.

But as to this regeneration actually taking place in or by baptism, this is supposed or a hypothesis, like the faith which the infant (not the sponsor) by hypothesis professes. So that faith and regeneration as antecedent and consequent go together in the Prayer-Book as in Scripture, and all is well.

But no, says a learned divine, writing to me a few days ago, "there are objections to that theory of interpretation. I see flaws in it." "I admit it" (was my reply), "and you can attack it if you please, but beware how you set up one of your own. The difference between you and me is this-you see flaws in my theory which I admit, and I see chasms in yours which you deny." But what kind of a change is it which the Office "determines?" A moral change? No, say the Bishops, which is undoubtedly true, and as great a step in the direction of peace as it was of truth. The truth is, the office is not entirely consistent with itself on any theory of interpretation, as the advocates of each do virtually confess by their labors to reduce the more stubborn parts to harmony. That there is some ambiguity must be admitted by all who have followed its conduct through the English courts of law. We admit that the book as a whole is imperfect, but insist that each particular part is just as it should be, giving occasion to the taunt of the Romanist Our Church cannot err-yours never does."

Nor is this the worst of it-each gloss put upon the Office becomes a glass through which the beholder looks at Scripture, seeing meanings in texts which, but for his theory, never would have been thought of. How has Scripture suffered at the hands of theorists! What sad work of it is madee.g., by Mr. Sadler. So we see thousands led to believe that the Bible teaches unconditional reprobation, de arbitrio, because the Westminster Confession rules, Rom. ix., to teach that doctrine.

a

So it is that the compulsory use of this Officeword for word-is becoming more and more stumbling block. As to the fact, no man can fail to see it or how it works. Let me illustrate: A man builds a fine residence, but by some means or other a big stone is left in the road leading to it, which, after a while, becomes a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. Complaints are made; but the proprietor is conservative, and will not allow it to be removed. And when accidents occur he says, "Go over it, or go round it, but it shall not be removed." Accidents becoming more numerous, he says, "Put up sign-boards." Then, "hang up lights about it," when each for his personal safety hangs up his own; and there are red lights, green lights, blue lights - when in the confusion which ensues there are more accidents than ever. The proprietor is entreated and remonstrated with-What good has come of this stone? How much better other proprietors get on who have nothing of the sort! He only gets angry, and becomes

more conservative than before. But finally another occupant comes into possession, and takes away stone, sign-boards, lights, and all. The trouble is ended, and the former proprietor only gets into history-a case for metaphysical philosophers to cite in proof of their theories.

So of this Baptismal Office. Look at its explainers, and see, have they not made a work of it? See the numerous and conflicting guides who offer themselves to its understanding, crying, "Lo here, and lo there!"-the lights hung up. I see divers here who have hung them up. have hung up one; our Chairman, I think, two. The Bishops hung up a great light, a very Drummond, casting its beams far and wide, and showing-what? their opinion upon a single point, what is not-something to be indeed thankful for-but upon no point what is.

In

Meanwhile controversies and loss go on increasing. In Baptist neighborhood, which abound in the South shrewd disputants get hold of the Office, our people are unable to answer them, become unsettled in their minds, and decline to have their children baptized at all. This too is the initial point at which the work of secession has begun. A Bishop tells me that he has never known one to be perverted by this means, but unfortunately I have. I know these men better than the Bishop does.

One of the greatest minds in the country left our ministry solely on account of the Baptismal Office, as I had it from his own mouth, and confirmed by Bishop McIlvaine, who displaced him.

Speaking of Bishop McIlvaine, it was at his earnest request that I attended the Radical Conference at Chicago some years ago. The burden of debate was this Baptismal Office.

I had a long argument with one to whom the Bishop was much attached, an humble-minded, devout man, born in the Church, but in vain. He said when he came to the words "seeing now that this child regenerate," he could not pronounce them. He admitted the hypothesis, but said it was not understood, and that, in point of fact, error was taught. He went out, and it was with sorrow of heart on both sides that a man was deposed with whom the Bishop wished his soul to be gathered; but the law gave no chance-so it was supposed. The modest man gave no trouble of a trial. The Bishop was then in conflict with the Romanizers in his Diocese, who watched for his halting in discipline. The result was that he who held cordially all the Church's real doctrine went out, while those who were hostile to it staid in.

In Illinois, both parties happened to be of a different temper, but we all know that the sole trouble there was about this Office. Take the other seceders. I know well those of them who have given most character to the movement, and in every case it was this Office, and this alone, which started them.

Will any one then say, taking the whole case into review, that there is no evil accruent to call for any relaxation, as asked by the petitioners? Are there indeed no serious disputes, no ecclesiastical trials, depositions, actions of councils, actions of the nine Bishops, and declarations of them all!

I believe if this declaration could have been issued five years ago and appended to the Office, put upon a candlestick where it could be seen, and the liberty now asked have been granted, the agitation of the past year would never have taken place. But a break having been made, if all relaxation in this direction is refused, and nonconformists promptly punished, can any one say that no further or more extensive disaffection will ensue? Some say, "Let them go-who cares?" I, for one, care most deeply.

But one says, if you attempt to stop the Ritualists, or even grant this relaxation, they will secede,

To this answer, nothing better could happen to us. They do not love our Church. The leaders say they do not just so far as it is Protestant, and nothing can make them love it or submit to its discipline.

When charged with this even by High Churchmen, they become angry. But when charged with the same by Roman Catholics, nay, with dishonesty, in cutting sarcasm, for retaining their place, they submit to their insults with a meekness which is truly edifying. The sooner therefore they leave, the better it will be for the Protestant Church; better for their own salvation.

On the whole, with this petition granted and the negative pregnant of the Bishops, we have the best practicable settlement of the question, unless, indeed, the Office could be recast in simpler form, involving no theory and capable of no theory about the effect of baptism upon the soul of an infant. Children would then be just as effectually and more generally baptized, and then Waterland and Goode, Phillpots and Gorham, and Pusey, and Mozley, and Blakeney, with a thousand lesser tractates, "The Incarnation and New Birth," "Birth and New Birth," with the "Seven Theories," might be consigned to the catacombs of literature-for in so far as they undertake to propound any theory of the effect of baptism upon the soul of an infant, they have no connection with Scripture, even by the most attenuated thread of inference, and are a mass of speculation.

But this controversy off our hands, with the noble and unprecedented work accomplished in this Convention of 1874, ever to be memorable in the history of the Church, we can give all our energies to the work of evangelization, and united endeavors to arrest the tide of corruption, perjury, and fraud setting in upon the political and commercial world, threatening the dissolution of society, and this in presence of the Church sitting in grave debate upon genuflections and colored stoles (but now-deVoutest thanks to God-no longer) when called with trumpet-voice from heaven to bring the moral powers of the Gospel to bear down upon the kingdom of sin, Satan, and death.

In summing up for the petitioners, allow me to say that it seems reasonable that their prayer should be granted-

1. As an act of Christian charity to so many in the Church, than whom none know more of it, are more devoted to it, or have done more for it, unless it can be shown to be against some part of the Bible doctrine of Infant Baptism.

2. Because that, in point of fact, this Office has to so great an extent failed to teach what its framers intended it to teach, and has proved available for teaching so much which certainly they did not intend it to teach, and because without the proposed relaxation in its use it is manifest to all observers of the current of controversy it will become more and more a stumbling block and occasion to fall in a brother's way-on the one hand into a schism, on the other into erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word-insomuch that, in view of the whole case, the duty as well as the wisdom of the Church could not be plainer if a voice were heard from Heaven saying, take up the stumbling block out of the way of my people.

I close as I began. I ask that this may at least be referred to the Church, to be considered for three years. Then will be time enough for the final argument and final vote, and no man in the meantime need be troubled. I can hardly doubt the result. I look in the eye of my brother from Wisconsin [Rev. Dr. Adams], and I feel that he too will accede to this request.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. By no means. [The time to which speeches are limited having