mediæval ages of the past, and fettered by restraints which prevent it from availing itself of the opportunities to promote the cause of religion and advance the glory of God alongside of the other Christian churches of this land. I want our Church to have the chance, the opportunity in a constitutional, legal way, to adapt itself to the new developments of the time, to make it itself, as it ought be, the great missionary and evangelical power on this Continent. In that aspect of the case, whilst I am charged to be a stickler in favor of constitutional provisions, whilst I am in favor of adhering to all the sanctions of the Constitution, I still say that for one I am willing to trust the conservative sentiment, the Christian sentiment, the sentiment in favor of law and order of a majority of all the members elected to this Convention, in all the branches which are represented here; and with that addition to the proposition of my friend from Alabama, I do think fair, safe, and judicious means will be provided for the benefit of our Church in its further operations in the world.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask gentlemen how it would work. If we vote by Dioceses, certainly it will be a vote, even if there be not a majority of individuals making up the vote; and will it not conflict with that if we undertake to make a majority of individuals necessary?

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. A majority of all the Dioceses, I mean.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I thank my friend from Virginia for putting forward what appears to me to be so reasonable an amendment to my proposition. I accept it with all gratitude, and 1 think it makes what I have proposed entirely safe.

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, I want to say but a few words, but first I desire the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama to be read, including the amendment offered by the gen tleman from Virginia.

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. If Virginia joins the movement party, I shall have great hope for our Church. The tendency of stillness is always to keep still, and, therefore, we have this great power of obstructiveness to overcome. One of the most refreshing symptoms I have observed in our House is the speech the gentleman from Virginia has just made.

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I believe I have the floor.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I will read the proposition as it stands, the amendment proposed by myself being accepted by the learned Clerical Deputy from Alabama :

"Provided, That the Lectionary may be changed at any time by concurrent action of both Houses of the General Convention; but it shall require a majority of all the Bishops entitled to seats in the House of Bishops, and of all the Dioceses entitled to be represented in the House of Deputies, to adopt such changes in the Lectionary."

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, I understand very well the impatience of this House, and that that impatience is well founded. We are almost in the afternoon of the last day of this Cvnvention, and though all agree, as I understand, that some relief in this matter is necessary, allow me to suggest that we are treading upon dangerous ground. Let me ask you what any member of this Convention would say if a proposition were introduced at this hour to enact a new Canon, fundamental in its features, and undertake to adopt it as a law, without having it go through the hands of the Committee on Canons, or any other Committee.

Although I may, with entire respect, I think, express the opinion that I do not agree with the Chair, but I do not appeal, yet without stopping to

doubt the proposition that this is not new business, we are seeking here, in half an hour, without the consideration of a committee, without deliberate action, with but few members of the Convention present, to adopt an amendment to the Constitution that strikes, in my humble judgment, deeper in the direction of the Prayer-Book than any proposition that has been before us during this Convention.

The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution reported the other day, and this Convention on Saturday approved it, I believe, to amend the Constitution in one respect, that by indirection 'touched the Prayer-Book; and what was it? It was that this Convention by Canon might take action for shortened services. But how? By express provision in that amendment limiting that power to a compilation from the Morning and Evening Prayers. The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution were somewhat doubtful, at least we discussed for some time the propriety of reaching the question of shortened services by an amendment of the Constitution, because it touched by indirection, as some thought, the PrayerBook. But that objection was obviated in the minds of many, perhaps all of us, and so of the convention as it would seem by the vote taken, by the fact that we added to and made a part of the amendment the limitation that such shortened services should be compiled exclusively from the Prayer-Book.

Now, the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama, sprung upon this Convention, and asked to be passed upon affirmatively, without being reviewed by any Committee, without going to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, is to amend the Constitution, SO that the General Convention hereafter by Canon or by resolution-I do not remember which, and I do not care -may reform and remodel the Lectionary. Is it one reform, one remodelling? No. I say to you as a lawyer, that unless I am very much mistaken, the constraction of the gentleman's proposition will enable the General Convention by Canon or resolution to remodel that Lectionary at every single Convention for a hundred years to come. There is no limitation to remodelling. It may remodel three years hence; it may do it six years hence; it may do it nine years hence. I submit to you, gentlemen, that you are introducing into our fundamental law an element of danger, an element full of mischief. It is not at all like the amendment passed upon the other day. You do not remodel the Lectionary once, and make it stand there for aye. You do not impose any limit this proposition to amend the Constitution. I submit to you that there is danger in this kind of legislation at this hour, without the intervention of any committee, without any thoughtful consideration, impressed simply and alone by the feeling that pervades your heart and the heart of everybody, that relief in some respects is wanted. Stimulated, I say, by this universal feeling, there is, in my humble judgment, great danger that you will do an act that by and by you and I and this Church will regret.

to

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I do not rise to make a speech, but simply to move that we take the vote on this question in five minutes.

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that, the vote on this proposition be taken in five minutes. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. De ROSSET, of North Carolina. The Diocese of North Carolina will call for a vote by orders on this proposition.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. The object of this amendment, as I understand it, is to enable us to get a Lectionary. We now wish to get a Lectionary for Lent. We all agree that that is desirable. One has been prepared by a Committee

which was appointed six years ago. I believe it has been very carefully prepared, and will be accepted by the Clergy of this Church, almost, if not quite, unanimously. But, sir, this amendment must go down to the Dioceses, and come back the next General Convention, and then if it fails to pass, we are no nearer a new Lectionary than we are to-day. By my proposition we can reach the new Lectionary in three years, and no gentleman is able to point out any way by which we can reach it earlier than that. That is the earliest period at which it is possible for us to reach it. We can, if my substitute passes, reach it in three years. If the amendment to the Constitution which is proposed here passes, it is very uncertain, indeed, whether we can reach it in three years. In fact, I do not believe that the proposition of the gentleman from Alabama will pass the other House, and we are thrown back to the necessity of waiting six full years before we can possibly get a new Lectionary for Lent. I, for my part, should like to have one to read at our coming Lenten season. I wish we could do this immediately, but we cannot, and I have adopted the only way in which I think it can be done, and the only way in which it can be done soon-that is, in three years.

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. Please state your proposition, sir.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Will the Secretary read my substitute?

Mr. KING, of Long Island. By adopting the substitute of the gentleman from New York we shall avoid loose legislation. We ought not to be called upon to amend our Constitution in the loose manner proposed here.

The Secretary read the substitute proposed by Rev. Dr. Beach, as follows:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring,) That the Lectionary for week days in Lent, reported by the Joint Committee on that subject, together with that for the Rogation and Ember Days, presented by the same Committee, is hereby proposed as an addition in the Prayer-Book, and that it be made known by the Secretary of this body to the Convention of every Diocese of this Church, in accordance with the provision of Article VIII. of the Constitution, as matter for final action at the next General Convention."

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I move to amend as follows:

"Resolved, That the Rubric appointing the order in which the Psalter is appointed to be read, be amended by adding to the fourth paragraph the following words: 'Or such selections as may have been appointed or permitted by the General Convention :"

The result will be to bring the Lectionary under this provision, and put the direction of the appointment of the Lessons just where it should be by Rubric, and not by Canon, and make it just as constitutional as any other legislation before the House.

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I rise to a point of order, whether there are not already two amendments or substitutes before the House?

The PRESIDENT. the House.

Two amendments are before

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I rise to a point of order. You cannot offer an amendment to a substitute. The substitute must be acted on.

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. I suggest to the gentleman from Alabama, inasmuch as the two propositions are not inconsistent with each other, that if we adopt his proposition for a proposed constitutional amendment in place of the resolution of the gentleman from

New York, and that should go to the House of Bishops and be rejected, as it probably would be, then we should have nothing at all. I think, therefore, that we had better take the vote on the proposition of the gentleman from New York first. That will give some relief in case it be passed, as it probably will be. Then we can take a separate vote on the constitutional amendment, because the two may run pari passu, and may be each adopted if the House thinks proper.

The PRESIDENT. The first question, though, is on the amendment proposed by Dr. Fulton.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I ask Dr. Fulton to withdraw his proposition for the present, and let us vote on the proposition of the gentleman from New York, which is independent of his, not at all inconsistent with it, and if we adopt his, then come to a vote on that of the gentleman from Alabama, which presents an entirely different proposition, being a constituent amendment.

Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. I move to lay the amendment of Dr. Fulton on the table.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If that motion is insisted on, I shall call for a vote by orders.

Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. I submit that to reach Mr. Burgwin's point it is necessary to vote in this way. If we accept the substitute, we lose the opportunity of voting on the proposition of the Reverend Deputy from New York.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. In that view of the case, I withdraw my amendment until that of Dr. Beach is voted on. [" All right."]

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I rise to a point of order. Let it be withdrawn now, with the understanding by the whole House that it shall be voted on afterward, and that no question of order shall be raised.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Certainly.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I suggest to the gentleman from Alabama that he make his amendment an addition to the other. Then if it is adopted, it will be reached; but if it is voted down we shall stand alone on the other.

Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. I rise to a question of order. Is the amendment withdrawn ? Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I shall present my motion after Dr. Beach's is voted upon.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the proposition of the gentleman from New York.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point of order. I am told that if I withdraw this, I cannot bring it up again. If that is so, I move to lay mine on the table, that I may bring it up again.

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I submit that the two are inharmonious.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the resolution offered by the Deputy from New York (Rev. Dr. Beach).

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I move the adoption as an original resolution of the proposition of the gentleman from Alabama [Rev. Dr. Fulton].

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I call for a vote by Dioceses and orders.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I now offer my proposition.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. This business of altering the Constitution when brought in as an amendment to a resolution might be brought in as not new business; but when the resolution to which it was first offered is passed, it now becomes new business, and, therefore, is out of order, and cannot be voted on.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point of order; it is that I have a right to offer an additional amendment.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I am opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Alabama, but inasmuch as we voted on the proposition of the gentleman from New York, putting aside this, under the view I took, I think a point of order ought not to be raised; but we ought to come to a vote upon it. I hope, therefore, the gentleman from Long Island will withdraw his objection and let us take the vote.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I hope Dr. Fulton's proposition will be read by the Secretary, so that we may know what we are to vote on. The PRESIDENT. It will be read. The Secretary read as follows: "Resolved, That Article VIII. of the Constitution be amended by adding the following:

"Provided, That the Lectionary may be changed at any time by concurrent action of both Houses of the General Convention, but it shall require a majority of all the Bishops entitled to seats in the House of Bishops and of all the Dioceses entitled to be represented in the House of Deputies to adopt such changes in the Lectionary."

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I call for a vote by Dioceses and orders.

The PRESIDENT. That call can be made after this matter is perfected.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Very well. The question being put, there were on a division, ayes 49, noes 71.

The PRESIDENT. The amendment is rejected. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I think the only proper motion is to non-concur with the House of Bishops. They propose one thing and we propose a different thing. That is constitutional.

The question was put on the resolutions of the House of Bishops as amended, and they were concurred in.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Does not that require a constitutional vote? If we send back this proposition to the House of Bishops we are done with it.

Rev. DR. DALZELL, of Louisiana. No, we act on it three years hence.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. So far as this session is concerned, we are done with it, and it stands precisely as if it had been an independent, new proposition for the alteration of the Prayer Book. Now I call for the vote by Dioceses and Orders.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburg. I understand from the Secretary that it has not been the practice of the House to vote by Orders on such a proposition when it is introduced for the first time; but on the question of the final agreement to it in the next General Convention the vote must be taken that way.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Let us proceed with the Calendar.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair holds that the vote need not necessarily be by Dioceses and Orders. The action of the House of Bishops is concurred in with the amendment moved by Rev. Dr. Beach.

RUSSO-GREEK CHURCH.

A message (No. 82) was received from the House of Bishops announcing that that House had adopted, and asked the concurrence of the House of Deputies in, the resolutions accompanying the report of the Joint Committee on Communication with the Russo Greek Church, viz.:

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), That this General Convention has great satisfaction in learning the courteous and brotherly tenor of the letters received from the Most Reverend Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantinople; Sophronius, Patriarch of Alexandria; Hierothius, Patriarch of Antioch; Isidore, President of the Holy Governing Synod of Russia, and Theophilus, Metropolitan of Athens,

President of the Holy Synod of Greece, in answer to the communication of the action of the last General Convention, through the Joint Committee, as now reported.

Resolved, That we regard the establishment of full and free reciprocal relations of Christian brotherhood between the great Eastern Churches and our own Communion as daily growing in importance and in hopefulness, and heartily pray the Great Head of the Church that His Spirit may so rule in all our Councils as to remove all hindrances which the pride, prejudice, or error of human frailty may present to hinder its consummation.

"Resolved, That we desire the continuance and increased frequency of friendly correspondence with our brethren of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church, in the assured confidence that on either part there will be the fullest recognition of all feelings and rights which might be imperilled by undue or inconsiderate interference.

"Resolved, That the Rev. Charles R. Hale, Secretary of the Russo-Greek Committee, has merited the cordial thanks of the Church for his efficient labors, and for his liberal devotion of his private means to the furtherance of the works of the Committee.

"Resolved, That as the work to be done in the future in the cause of intercommunion will consist in great part in correspondence and conferences with the hierarchy of the various branches of the Eastern Church, which can be more fitly done by the Bishops of the Church, as occasion may arise, your Joint Commission ask to be discharged from further consideration of this matter."

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, as the senior clerical member of what has been known as the Russo-Greek Committee, I beg to move that we concur with the resolutions which have just been sent down to us from the House of Bishops. I think they require no separate discussion; but there are two matters which I should like the Convention to think about. One is the very great debt of gratitude that not only the Committee but our whole Church, and not only our whole Church, but really the Churches of God throughout the world, owe to the Secretary of that Committee, the Rev. Charles R. Hale; and I trust that the resolution in his favor will be adopted with a true sentiment of gratitude toward him. The work he has done has been simply prodigious, and I certainly feel that we are under very many obligations to him.

The only reason why our Committee has not been disbanded has been on account of the labor he has done. The other members of the Committee have been really able to do comparatively little or even nothing at all. The reason for our disbanding has been because we felt that in delicate matters of intercommunion it would be better for the Bishops to have that whole subject wholly in their hands. I move, sir, that we concur in the resolutions which have been sent down.

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I second the motion.

The resolutions were agreed to unanimously.

GERMAN PRAYER-BOOK.

I ask

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. consent to introduce the report of the Joint Committee on the Translation of the Book of Common Prayer in German. It has never been my habit to do anything out of time, out of place, or out of or der, but this report has been delayed by circumstances very much. It will require no discussion, and is brief, but contains a matter that I think the members of the Convention ought to know. Therefore, I ask the Secretary to read it.

The Secretary read the report as follows:

PRAYER-BOOK IN GERMAN LANGUAGE. "The Joint Committee on the Translation of the Prayer-Book into the German Language respectfully report, that during the past three years the work has been carefully and successfully prosecuted. The whole Prayer-Book and the appended officers, with the exception of the Institution Office, have been rendered into the German language, and a considerable portion of this translation has been printed in order to subject it to criticism and to the practical test of actual use in public services. By the liberality of a member of Grace Church, New York, we have printed the offices for Morning and Evening Prayer, the Communion Office, etc., as a book for Missionary service, and it has been tried in several places by the authority of the Ordinary. It is on sale, and Other can be obtained at a very moderate price. offices have been printed in the Kirchenblatt, and in that form have been revised by competent critics.

"The scholar to whom this very important and delicate task has been committed, the Rev. G. F. Siegmund, is a native of Germany, educated in her Universities, and remarkably qualified by nature and by previous studies, and as well, we trust, by Divine Grace, for the work. He is a Deacon of the Diocese of Western New York, a man of mature age, having been a Lutheran pastor for many years before his admission to our communion. The general rules under which he has labored with great enthusiasm, and wholly without any other reward than his interest in the Church and his love of his Master, are as follows:

"1. Whatever in our Anglican Prayer-Book is borrowed from the ancient liturgies should be translated directly from the Greek and Latin, and not from the English.

"2. Whatever can be found in the Old German Agendas translated from the ancient liturgies in the liturgical language of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries should be appropriated.

"3. Not only in the lessons and psalms, and in the literal quotations from the Bible, but even in allusions to Scriptural expressions, the German PrayerBook is to follow the text of Luther's German Bible, which is the only German translation of authority made from the Hebrew and Greek.

"4. In translating the distinctly Anglican portions of the Prayer-Book, or such parts of ancient liturgies as are not to be found in old German translations, the words and idioms should be taken from the vocabulary of the German Bible and the Old German liturgies.

"5. To secure the highest degree of verbal and idiomatic accuracy, the work of the translator should be submitted to living critics of high position in Germany, and their suggestions should be very carefully considered and respected.

"It gives us pleasure to say that such German critics as Schoeberlein, Reusch, Haupt, and others have been consulted. They have taken a generous interest in the measure, and have borne the most gratifying testimony to the beauty and liturgic spirit of the translation. They have taken pains to indicate a few desirable alterations, and their advice has been followed to a considerable extent. As they did not sufficiently allow for the very strict fidelity to the originals required by our Liturgic Constitutions, we could not always accept their improvements.

names

are

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. Mr. President, at this late period of the Convention, I certainly will not take up time by saying many words in regard to this translation. We have at last found, as we believe, the man who is capable of making a translation that the German population of our country will accept and that will be successful and useful. We have hopes and assurances from the gentlemen in Germany whose mentioned in the report, that this translation will be approved by the best writers there, and will be welcomed by them as a most valuable contribution in their work of reform in what is called the Old Catholic movement, and also in gathering around this nucleus those members of the various Protestant Churches who are the most earnest and the most evangelical. I have examined a large share of the work that is submitted to us, and can assure you that we have now a man who is making a version of the Prayer-Book in German, which bears very much the same relation to the modern German of philosophy and current literature, that the language of our Prayer-Book and of our Bible bears to the popular literature of the day. We thus obviate the great difficulty that has always hitherto stood in our way in regard to former translations that have been made, that they were made by men of literature rather than liturgical learning. This difficulty also we are assured and believe is entirely removed.

I move that the report be transmitted to the House of Bishops to be presented there, and that the Committee be continued in order to complete their work.

The motion was agreed to.

DELEGATION TO CANADIAN SYNOD.

The SECRETARY. The next business on the Calendar is the resolution reported by the Committee on the State of the Church nominating Rev. Dr. Craik, of Kentucky, Rev. Dr. Van Deusen, of Central New York, Rev. Dr. Schenck, of Long Island, and Governor Fish, of New York, Governor Stevenson, of Kentucky, and Judge Otis, of Illinois, as members on the part of this House of the Joint Delegation to the next Provincial Synod of Canada. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that that be approved and concurred in. The motion was agreed to.

PUBLICATION OF JOURNAL.

The SECRETARY. The next business on the Calender is:

"Resolved, That there be appointed a Committee of Publication, composed of a member of the House of Bishops, and of one clerical and one lay member of the House of Deputies, together with the Secretaries of both Houses, who shall take order as to the publication of the two Journals, and adopt some means by which the expense and size of the Journal may be materially reduced.

Resolved, That any scheme which may be adopted by this Committee shall include the furnishing a copy of the Constitution and Canons of this Church to every clergyman and candidate for orders in the same."

The resolutions were agreed to.

concurring," as they require the concurrence of the other House.

POINTING OF THE PSALTER.

The SECRETARY. The next business is the following resolution, reported by the Committee on the Prayer-Book, touching the introduction of the colon in the Psalter:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Standing Committee on the Standard Prayer-Book be authorized and instructed to introduce into all future editions of said Standard Prayer-Book the colon or musical pause in each verse of the Psalter and Canticles, in accordance with the pointing of the Prayer-Book of the Church of England."

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If that be adopted, I hope there will be a preamble of this sort, "That this Church does not want the poor and illiterate to join in the responses.' It will have just that effect. I happen to represent a constituency of three thousand working people. My friend on the right (Rev. Dr. Beach) who officiates to just such a class, will agree with me that every such point will be a bar to the poor joining in the responses. I know there is great difficulty in having responses now, but it is mostly a clerical difficulty, because the clergy read so fast that the people cannot follow them. Put this in, and as sure as we live we shall have still greater difficulties, for we have little idea what trouble there is to those who are illiterate. I sincerely hope the resolution will not pass.

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. The question was asked when this was brought up whether it was not a mistake of the printer in leaving out the musical note or colon. On page 189 of the Journal of 1871, it will be found that the Committee on the PrayerBook, to whom was referred a resolution touching this matter, reported:

"Resolved, That inasmuch as any departure from the standard edition of Book of Common Prayer is now wholly unauthorized, no further legislation, in the judgment of the Committee, is required."

It appears that the framers of our Liturgy made the alteration from the English Prayer-Book understandingly. The English Prayer-Book has the title of "The Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as sung or said in the Churches." The revisers of our Prayer-Book corrected the punctuation throughout, in order that the Psalter should be properly read. In Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, a distinction is made between the reading of Psalms and the singing of Psalms. The words stricken out, "or sung, seem to be a virtual prohibition of Psalms being sung except those in metre. I hope, sir, we shall not allow this resolution to pass. It will break up the reading of the psalms, as they should be read in many of their churches, and I entirely agree with the Deputy from Pennsylvania that we had better not touch that inestimable heritage which we have, our blessed Prayer-Book. If we begin to alter in this way, we may as well go on and make several other alterations. I have no objection to certain alterations, but I do protest against our breaking up a custom which has been made the custom from the time of the revision of our Liturgy down to this day; and if we once let in this entering wedge, brethren, you hardly know where we shall land. Let us hold fast to this Liturgy, and let us have our Prayer-Book as we have had it from the Revolution down.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I know of nothing more delightful, nothing more interesting than to hear the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey speak in this way concerning the Prayer-Book. It puts me a little in mind of something which I have read in Sir Walter Scott's novel of the "Fortunes of Nigel." The readers of that book will remember that

when the wickedness of Lord Dalgarno was found out, that the Duke of Buckingham and Prince Charles went to remonstrate with him on his wickedness; and King James, after hearing about it, came home, and said, "Oh, was it not delightful to hear baby Charles lecturing to Lord Dalgarno on the sin of dissimulation." [Laughter.] I wish to say that I entirely appreciate the admirable remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey; but let it be understood that the object of bringing in this colon is not to prevent people from reading the Psalter. I believe that where the Psalter cannot be sung properly, it had a great deal better be read. There is nothing to me more unpleasant than a poor, wretched attempt to sing the Psalter. But I do not suppose that this Convention is prepared to say in this day that the Psalter shall not be sung. It does not mean to go back on King David, who certainly knew as much about the Psalms as my reverend brother from New Jersey [laughter], and who is perpetually singing, "Oh, let us come and sing unto the Lord," "Oh, sing unto the Lord" this and that. I am sure we cannot go back on King David.

All that this colon provides for is that if the Psalter is sung it can be sung properly. For instance, I have no great power to sing. I go into a church where the Psalter is being sung, and I would like to join in. I find the colon, which tells me where the division is, and so, in a halting way, pretty poorly, but still I can join with them. The object of this is simply to help when the Psalter is sung that it may be sung better. It is not at all to make the singing of the Psalter universal. Not for the world would I make my reverend brother sing the Psalter if he does not want to., [Laughter.]

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I shall not try, for I cannot sing any better than he can. [Laughter.]

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. There is one thing that I am sure my reverend brother from New Jersey will believe in and will be thankful to hear; and that is that the colon is to be found in that proposed book which has become the basis of the Prayer Book of the Reformed Episcopal Church. [Laughter.]

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the discussion of this subject illustrates the importance of little things. This seems to be a small matter, and yet around it revolves the great question of the musical service of the Church. The objection has been raised by the clerical deputy from New Jersey, that it puts an obstruction to the reading of the Psalter.

Now it is a fact that in almost every verse of the Psalter in which we propose to place the colon, there is already a semicolon in the very place where we wish to have the colon. What is a semicolon? It is a colon with a caudal appendage added to it, which is a greater abstraction than the colon itself. What we desire is to cut off the appendage and lessen the obstruction.

We are told this is an alteration of the PrayerBook. In the preface to our American Prayer-Book those who revised it say, "It will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require."

The revisers of our American Prayer-Book did not intend to deprive us of any privilege belonging to us as our heritage from the English Church; but the circumstances of the time of the revision made it seem expedient that this point should be left out, because they did not suppose that we should ever require musical services. The musical service, at that time, of the Church of England was very much behindhand; but within the last thirty years it has been greatly revived; and now, in every