in the way of converts from other denominations, and especially such of their ministers as are worth having, than the required use of these words in our baptismal service. A slight alteration in the preface to our Confirmation-service, or rather another preface, to be used at the pleasure of the Bishop, would also be desirable.

"As I fear my brethren will be wearied with many and lengthy communications, I omit other suggestions of less importance, (in relation to the service,) and sincerely commend them to the direction of the Great Head of the Church.

"Your friend and brother,

WILLIAM MEADE."

It will be perceived that in the above nothing like a complete scheme was attempted. That was not even thought of. I only offered a few unconnected suggestions for those who were appointed to draw up some regular plan for the consideration of the Church. As to the substance of them, they are less in amount than the changes proposed by the Bishops in 1826, and therefore, as an individual, I may shelter myself behind them from any charge of presumption or desire of change. I voted for those proposed by the Bishops and House of Delegates in 1826, believing it to be better to settle by law any thing which might be regarded as a serious departure from the order of our service, rather than leave it to individual discretion, though always maintaining that, as to smaller matters, there must ever be room left for the exercise of a sound discretion, and that even as to greater ones occasions must arise justifying a departure from them, on the principle that God loves mercy more than sacrifice, and that laws were made for men and not men for laws. I believe that some wholesome change may be made in the arrangements of the services, which, so far from interfering with their original use and design, will be conformable with the same. I trust that in a wise and conservative spirit such arrangements will be made. It was not for the purpose of encouraging an unlimited license in the use of the service that I opposed the Commission, nor do I believe that it is for such a purpose that some still contend against it, as has been sometimes intimated. I believe that there is now a disposition on the part of many who have hitherto been most strenuous for rubrical exactness and lengthened services to make more changes and relaxations than I ever practised, countenanced, or now desire. The omission of the ante-Communion service, except on Communion-days, was in truth almost all that distinguished some who were deemed irregular from the most strictly rubrical according to their understanding of rubrics. I am, however, willing for other arrangements more in accordance

VOL. II.-25

with the original plan and use of our varied services. In relation to the suggestion in my letter as to the omission of certain parts of our baptismal service after the rite is performed, I do not know that any others have made the same to the Committee, but I know full well that there are many, and they not of one party only, who feel the desirableness of it. It ought to be much less objectionable than that of Bishop Hobart, which was agreed to by the whole House of Bishops and by a large majority of the other House in the year 1826. That proposed to repudiate all high views of baptismal regeneration, as doing injustice and injury to the Church, and to establish the lowest theory-namely, a mere change of state and conditional title to salvation-as the doctrine of the Church. This only proposes to omit the use of certain parts following after the baptism, and not at all essential to its completeness, and about whose meaning there ever have been disputes in the Church, from the times of the fathers to the present moment, and will be perhaps to the end of the world. It leaves every one to form his own opinion as to the efficiency of the rite, drawing it of course from Scripture, the only authoritative source, if, indeed, he believes that Scripture speaks on the subject, or else to be content to remain in ignorance and only perform the duties enjoined by the ordinance. It only forbears to define and to render thanks for something of which we can have no certain knowledge. It will leave the service a purely devotional and scriptural one, to which none can object, which will not perplex or distress the consciences of either parents, sponsors, congregation, or minister, and will relieve the Church from much misunderstanding and censure on the part of many who hear it. I am well aware that in some of the confessions of other Reformed Churches there may be found expressions of the same kind, which of course are liable to a similar objection; but there is this difference, that in their case the expressions are locked up in books that are seldom seen. They are not used in the public administration of baptism; not put in the form of positive thanksgivings for a spiritual regeneration certainly received at a given moment and through a certain act, and are therefore not the occasion of such unhappy disputation. It is the great shame and reproach of Christendom that so much strife and bitterness have ever been about those things which lie beyond the reach and above the range of the human mind, and that the clergy especially should be the most curious and anxious to be wise above what is written and should puzzle their poor people with such questions. The disputes about the Divine decrees and the effects

of baptism on the condition and the souls of unconscious infants. are of this kind. How numerous and how contradictory and extravagant the theories as to the latter! How intolerant the feelings and speeches and conduct of some toward those who differ from them! Is it not time that these should cease? Could there be a better way of beginning it than by cutting off the continuallyrecurring occasions of bringing it before the minds and consciences of men? The Church has adopted this plan in relation to a clause in the Apostles' Creed and in the service for the ordination of priests, and has left some other things optional with the minister. Might not the same method be adopted with happy effect in relation to the interminable dispute about baptismal regeneration? None of the various expositions would then be either affirmed or condemned in the service. I am persuaded that though there always might be differences, great differences, requiring to be discussed, false doctrines concerning it requiring to be exposed, yet the omission of any thing like defining or seeming to render thanks for an effect certainly produced would greatly diminish controversy and be a solemn testimony on the part of the Church against the attempt to be wise above what is written. I confess I shall have little confidence in the existence or strength of a spirit of compromise in the Church for the sake of unity and peace, if there be not a willingness merely to omit a few words, about whose meaning there are such various opinions, and which no one can hold to be essential to the ordinance. To be baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is commanded and required. That the word should accompany it, and prayer be offered up for God's blessing, is manifestly proper; but that we should undertake to define the effect produced, and render thanks for it, is nowhere enjoined. The addition is the work of man, and has been a great unhappiness to the Church. Should any be disposed to think or say that some of us are desirous to dispose of some words in the service which interfere with our views of regeneration, I can most conscientiously say that such is not my case. As I understand the service, and believe it ought to be understood, after having examined all that has been written on the subject, it expresses my own convictions on the subject of baptism; but there are peculiarities and difficulties in the mode of presenting the subject, and in the terms used, which require continual explanations and defences, that perplex and injure the cause. It is therefore maintained that the omission of these words, which are the causes of almost all the controversy, would promote the peace and welfare of the Church; which

words, it is again affirmed, are not at all necessary to the right performance of baptism. It is complete without them.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

If I may be allowed to express an opinion as to the present state and prospects of our Church, I should say that some are now as much disposed to undervalue her efficacy for good, even without the proposed changes, as many were formerly to overrate it. Very soon after my entrance on the ministry, I read a sermon by one of our most distinguished Bishops on those words of the Psalmist,"Walk about Zion; mark well her bulwarks; consider her palaces,' &c. They were applied to our Church in this country, and her praises highly spoken. It was confidently affirmed that she must greatly prevail over others by reason of her divine organizatio. and many excellencies. The same glorious things were continually spoken of her by such as claimed to be her true sons; and those who did not firmly believe that she must outstrip, or perhaps overwhelm, all others, were considered as wanting faith in the promises of God to his Church, and a hearty zeal in her behalf. Just at this time I met with a sermon, on the same text and in the very same style, by one of the oldest and most respectable Baptist ministers in Virginia, showing that the Baptist Church was so clearly the true Apostolic Church-of course after God's own heart-that it must carry every thing before it; that the signs of the times could not be mistaken. Shortly after this I went to the West, and heard of an eminent Presbyterian minister who was preaching from place to place a sermon, or series of sermons, if not from the same text, yet on the same subject, in which he declared his firm conviction that his Church was, as to her constitution, doctrine, and discipline, so scriptural and so suited to the genius of our government that in twenty years the whole land would embrace it. At this time also a favourite song with many Methodists was,

"The Methodists are gaining ground;

The devil's kingdom's tumbling down;
Hallelujah Hallelujah!"

Doubtless all these were most sincere in their belief that what

they earnestly desired would surely come to pass. Forty years have since elapsed, and no one of them has taken the place of the other. On the contrary, all of them have, by God's blessing, done much good on the different theatres assigned them, are still doing good, and will do more good. Moreover, they have sustained very

much the same relation to each other as to numbers and success. All of them have had their trials, their declensions, their reverses, which should make them humble, and cause them to refrain from taunts and reproaches, rather remembering the admonition that

"Brethren in calamity should love.”

I believe that there are very few now to be found who would venture the prophecy that their own denomination must soon swallow up all others. Our own Church has not been favoured with the same abundant opportunities of preaching the Gospel to the poor, (except on Southern plantations,) while she has enjoyed greater opportunities of presenting it with acceptableness to the wealthy and educated. Nor have her evangelical Liturgy and the faithful preaching of many of her ministers been unblessed in the behalf of such. Sadly has she been afflicted for the last fifteen years with the hankerings of some of her ministers and people after Rome. Their apostasy has indeed been most mortifying, and is well calculated to punish her for much vain boasting, and to lead to a more chastened estimate of her character and mission. She has certainly lost much in the confidence of the community, and given to her enemies, both in the Church and the world, occasion for increased opposition and condemnation. It is needless to close our eyes on this most notorious fact. It will be wisdom, honesty, and good policy to acknowledge it freely. Sins must be confessed as well as forsaken, in order to be fully forgiven and their evil consequences prevented.

We must also adopt the most effectual means for recovering what has been lost. It is most encouraging to know that all of God's favour has not been lost. On the contrary, never has the Gospel been more faithfully and earnestly preached by greater numbers of our ministers in England and America than during our recent fiery trial. Though the enemy came in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord, speaking from thousands of pulpits, has lifted up the standard of truth against him. The heretical movement has been arrested, and now stands, covered with shame and confusion, seeking to find out some object on which to lay the blame of its own mischievous proceedings.

Together with many who are guiltless of the evil sought to be removed, some of those who have contributed to it are now proposing certain changes in the mode of the Church's worship, in order to regain what is lost and press forward in the duty assigned us by God. It is believed that an abridgment of the usual worship, y a partial separation of services once distinct, will remove one