a square vote, our people would adopt the term service instead of the life. We could get along peaceably at present if we could be left undisturbed, but of course we must conform to law.

REDUCED REPRESENTATION.

We quite agree with Dr. Adams, that the position in which the project for reducing the size of the Assembly is now left, is adapted to confuse the action of Presbyteries. The sending down to the Presbyteries of two alternative plans is pretty certain to insure the defeat of both, and if this be not sufficient, the reference of the subject to a committee to report to the next General Assembly, will serve very effectually to tide over the subject to another year. We do not, however, agree with him in the feeling, that no reduction is called for, or is less than a matter of imperative necessity. But it is far better to bear present inconveniences with patience a while longer than to rush into some rash, crude measure, under the spur of supposed necessity. We cannot assent to that plan which, retaining our present system in other respects, changes the unit from twenty-four and its fractions to fifty and its fractions. It would place the whole control of the church in the hands of a small minority of its ministers and people. Some inequalities there must be, and to them we cheerfully submit. But all such inequalities must have their bounds, or all order and justice are subverted. To give to three ministers, constituting one Presbytery, the same power as fifty in another, is to run the principle of Presbyterial representation into the ground. It sacrifices the very end and substance and inner spirit of Presbyterial and representative organization to its mere form and letter. Far more equitable and safe, in our judgment, is the other overture, which makes the number fifteen, to be increased when necessary, the unitary basis for one, and but one delegate to the Assembly, such delegates to be in equal numbers, ministers and elders, so far as the even numbers go, and in the case of any odd number, making the delegate a minister one year and an elder the next. This, or something like it, seems to be the only method of reduction not intolerably unequal, with direct Presbyterial representation, which has not been vetoed. Although there will be some liability to occasional confusion in the order of alternation of ministers and elders, perhaps it

is as free from difficulties as any scheme which accomplishes the object.

Possibly, however, every scheme of reduction is bound to fail, because so few are willing to forego any privilege of membership in the Assembly which they now possess. We observe that every year, during and after the meeting of the Assembly, the necessity of some reduction is almost universally felt, and schemes begin to be devised and discussed for accomplishing it. The discussion of them goes on, and objections to them are made and answered, until at length, before the next Assembly meets, it begins to be insisted on that the Assembly is none too large; no reduction in its size is needed; it makes a great moral impression by the sheer force of its numbers; in a word, the great majority will not abridge their present privileges of membership. Perhaps this is the predestined result

of all schemes of reduction.

It is not to be denied, that, in a certain aspect, and for certain purposes, there is the advantage of a great moral impression in large numbers. This is true of the annual gatherings of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. It is an immense missionary mass-meeting of two or three days' duration, and is more prominently an enthusiastic than a deliberative, legislative, or judicial convocation. For such an unusual jubilation, almost every considerable city can bear a strain upon their hospitality for half a week-sustained themselves by the contagious enthusiasm of the occasionwhich would be out of the question if contínued half a month.

If, by any means, the length of the Assembly's sessions could be shortened from two weeks to one; or if the system should come into vogue, of Presbyteries bearing the expenses of their commissioners, we do not know but the continuance of the Assembly at its present size would be the easiest solution of the problem. As regards the possibility of shorten ing the Assembly's sessions, much has been already accomplished by the system of judicial commissions, which can hardly fail to be a permanent feature of our system. We are not sure that a judicious committee of expert parliamentarians might not devise ways of saving time in much of the routine business, and in the methods of disposing of the boards of the

Church, which might shorten the sessions of the Assembly. In such ways the difficulties of our present over-grown Assemblies might be mitigated without loss of their obvious advantages. But we are of opinion that, if the Assembly is not reduced, it will not be long before increasing numbers of the commissioners will attend either at their own or their Presbytery's charges.

ROMISH BAPTISM.

The Assembly of 1875, in answer to the question from the Presbytery of Genesee: "Should a convert from Romanism, applying for admission into the Presbyterian Church, be again baptized," answered unanimously, "That the decision be left to the judgment of each church session, guided by the principles governing the subject of baptism, as laid down in the standards of the Church." This did not satisfy the Synod of Missouri, which memorialized the last Assembly to declare such baptism invalid. Dr. W. L. Breckenridge supported the petition in an elaborate and protracted argument, after which the Assembly referred the whole subject to a special committee to report to the next Assembly. This action was wise. Certainly no new action ought to be taken on such a subject without a much more thorough discussion than there was either time or preparation for in the Assembly. The real discussion must take place in the church before the meeting of the next Assembly, if that body is to be prepared for it. It involves some of the profoundest questions and distinctions in theology and ecclesiology. He who thinks the case self-evident, or is settled forever by a flippant syllogism or two, made up of ambiguous terms and propositions, shows that he has not got below the surface of the subject. The fact that, in the past, Romish baptism was pronounced invalid by a decided majority in both the Old School and New School Assemblies, but against the earnest opposition of such professors and doctors of theology as Charles Hodge and H. B. Smith, and the general sentiment of Christendom, is evidence that it cannot safely be disposed of without careful and prayerful study. This it will, doubtless, receive in the year to come.

But certain collateral questions arise here, scarcely less important than the topic in chief. They respect the Assembly's function and prerogative in the premises, with the due scope and limits thereof. Locke found it a necessary pre-requisite

to learning the truth, to study and learn the measure of the instrument by which we learn it; that is the human mind. Hence his immortal treatise on the Human Understanding. It is a part of the progress and normal development of all sensitive and intellectual organisms, to constantly advance in a knowledge of themselves, their powers, and functions. All living constitutions of human societies keep alive by an ever-advancing process of self-understanding and self-exposition. This is true of the constitutions of England and the United States. They are constantly defining themselves in judicial exposition. As fast as old questions are determined respecting the powers of the government in its different departments and officers, others come to the surface which press for adjudication. It is so in the church. It is still a vexed question, what is the province of the General Assembly, as respects propounding doctrinal dogmas, or terms of communion, not explicitly set forth in our standards; or, if it propound them, how far they have more than the mere moral force belonging to the declarations of such a body of men-how far, in short, they have authority which binds the church, and subjects non-compliance with them to church discipline and censure. This has nothing to do with the binding authority of the Assembly, in respect to the bounds of presbyteries and synods, the constitution and regulation of its own boards and officers, and the usual orders to inferior courts. Nor is it the question, whether it must interpret and apply the standards in all cases judicially brought before it. Of this there is no doubt, But the question is, whether it has authority to make declarations of doctrine or practice, which, without the constitutional sanction of presbyteries, have the binding force of law in the church? Take this very question: Would its declaration, that Romish baptism is invalid, and that sessions must require re-baptism in such cases, as a condition of admission to the Lord's table, be binding, like the prescription in regard to adult baptism, if unsanctioned by the presbyteries, so that non-compliance would subject to church discipline?

Take the requirements made by the O. S. Assembly, at Pittsburgh, in 1865, in regard to the conditions of the reception of Southern ministers and Christians to our own presbyteries and churches; were they binding like "constitutional rules?"

L. H. A.

Art. IX. THE PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD IN THE

STUDY AND TEACHING OF ENGLISH.

By THEODORE W. HUNT, Adjunct Professor of History in Princeton College. IN a very instructive article upon "The German Gymnasium," in the January number of The New Englander, Doctor Keep makes the following pertinent statement as to the study of German: "No part of the plan of studies is more carefully elaborated than that according to which the native language is taught." "The department," he adds, by way of comparison, "is made more interesting and profitable to German youth than the study of the English language and literature in our schools and colleges." The substantial correctness of this comparison must be admitted. There is no question but that our institutions are seriously at fault in this particular, and that they are called upon by every consideration to place the study of English upon a better basis. The question, therefore, as to the position and nature of the difficulty, becomes a question of practical moment.

We have before us the catalogues of a large number of our colleges-enough, indeed, to justify us in making a general inference as to the precise position of this department. While noting the important fact, that some of our less prominent institutions are, as to this special study, in advance of those more widely known, we observe that the course mapped out in the various colleges, as to the time allotted it, the area it covers, and the results it contemplates, is substantially the same. It is true that different colleges professedly give distinction to separate divisions of the study. In many of them we note the absence of any attention to the primitive periods of our language. The substantial similarity of their courses is, however, a noticeable feature. Further than this, there is a general acknowledgment of the growing importance of the study in our systems of education. In some of the exhibits it is presented under the head of "Special Features." As far as we can gather, the department has its fair apportionment of time in our crowded curricula, and not a little zeal is manifested in the furtherance of its interests. What, then, is the diffi