cannot be lessened by mere ridicule and by the mere declaration that it cannot work well. Therefore it is that I have felt very anxious when this matter came up before the Convention, that there should be an understanding of the precise course we are pursuing.

Some persons have imagined that we are trying to lower education; but, so far from that, we are trying on the other hand to elevate it. Some persons have supposed that we are attempting a partial course in connection with our institution. So far from

that, we are urging upon our students to take as long a course as they can possibly take.

I must say that I do not agree with my brother from Newton (Dr. HOVEY), in the remark he made as to the disadvantage of having more than one-third of the class not thorough college graduates, because I have seen very different results from what he has anticipated. I very readily admit, that in the mere instruction of those who take only my English course, it is impossible to go over all the line of argument which he has suggested, but I would ask him and the members of this Convention to consider, whether that disadvantage is not fully met by the higher course of theology taken in connection with Latin text-books, and in connection with polemic theology, where we are able to go over the whole argument in every direction and in all its ramifications.

Dr. EATON: I regard this question of ministerial education in point of interest as a culminating one, in respect to the objects. for which we have assembled here. There can be no sound education in the land unless our ministers are thoroughly educated.

It is important, therefore, that we should have a substantial agreement upon this subject, and it seems now that we have made some advance. We are agreed, as I understand, upon two points. One is, that we must carry ministerial culture to the very highest point which is possible, and we are also agreed as to providing for a certain class of ministers who cannot receive such culture.

But my respected brother (Dr. ROBINSON) speaks of a third class—a class of men whom we should discourage from coming to our theological seminaries, and should at once give them a commission for lay preaching. As to what manner of men within the circle of the Baptist denomination these are, I am not very well informed. Are they to be clothed with ministerial functions, not only to preach, but to baptize and administer the Lord's Supper? I doubt whether you will find many of that class who would expect

an ordination for preaching, without being clothed with these other functions.

Now, Mr. President, it seems to me the main point is, what are we to do with a class of men in whose hearts a desire for preaching and saving souls is like fire, and who feel the absolute necessity for some further preparation than they have already had? Shall we repel them from our theological seminaries, where theology is taught, and say to them, "You cannot come here-you cannot avail yourselves of the treasures which we deal out to another class -if you want to preach, go to preaching”?

What I want to say is, that I believe the churches have special duties in regard to that class of men-that they should provide for them such instruction as will meet their case.

I have had some experience upon this very point, and I want to give a brief description of our work in regard to it. We have had what we call two courses at Hamilton for many years—a shorter course and a full course. The first beginning of our course was literary and theological, four years in extent. During that régime we sent forth such men as Wade, Kincaid, Jacob Knapp-men of that class, most efficient men, who have been instrumental, in the hands of God, in saving thousands of souls.

Then we extended that course. I do not know whether my brother meant to depreciate literary and theological education as connected; but we did institute a course extending over eight years. For the fruits of this new full course, I only need ask you to look over this congregation. Here are old men-gray-haired veterans, who have been the victors on many well-fought battlefields of God, and who have gathered their trophies of immortal souls. Here are others, of middle age, that our institution, for that period, sent forth to the churches throughout the land-able ministers of the New Testament.

Then the time came when we admitted others than those studying for the ministry; and then the time came when we had a university charter brought to us. That was a disturbing element that disintegrated the institution which was united before, and since then we have had two institutions at Hamilton, a university and a theological seminary, where students could receive all the culture they could find at any other institution, and a full theological course.

Let me say, in reference to the class of shorter course men, that a great many of them have been men of wonderful power in the work of saving souls; but we find some difficulty in taking them

along as a body with those who take the full course. What we have done now, therefore, is, I think, the very thing that our theological seminaries ought to do. We have encouraged a certain class of men-men advanced in life-men with families— men of twenty-eight, twenty-nine, or thirty years of age, to come and take a special course. We have encouraged them to come and take that course independently of the other course, unless they were fully prepared for it.

They have come in considerable numbers, with their wives and children, and have thrown themselves with amazing energy into their studies. They have come with a living impulse in their souls, and a desire for education burning like fire in their bosoms, and have taken hold of their studies with an earnestness and a pertinacious desire for success that is absolutely surprising. I supposed we would have had difficulty with this class of men ; but some of these men, notwithstanding all their embarrassment, have received every time for the last six weeks (they stumbled at first) as high a mark as any of the class who have gone over the whole course. We expect a great deal from that class of men. I say they are welcome, and we mean to take care of them. We do not mean to interfere with our full course; but we mean to give them the full benefit of the best kind of instruction that we can give them in the English language, in the English Scriptures, and in English theology, just as the brethren told us they do in the South. We do not mean that it shall create any embarrassment whatever to our regular course; but we mean to provide for this class of men I have spoken of, and we believe that out of this class we shall send to the churches men of power, of faith, and full of the Holy Ghost.

Dr. BULKLEY: I want to ask a question upon another point altogether, but do not want to engage in any discussion in regard to it. I understood Dr. ROBINSON (if I misunderstood him I shall be glad to be corrected) to refer to the origin of the Baptists in connection with the Reformation, and to refer to it without any reference to the fact that there were Baptist churches previous to that time. Of course he believes, as I do, that there was a Baptist church in Jerusalem, another in Corinth, and another at Ephesus. I think Dr. ROBINSON did not guard that point as he should.

Dr. ROBINSON: I have heard of that question before. I suppose that men who have looked at Protestant Christianity in

its various organizations, admit, without much discussion, that the organizations now existing began at the Reformation. I suppose that our Baptist churches, as a part of Protestant Christendom, then begun to be. I do not consider that question is open for discussion.

The papers of Dr. ROBINSON and Dr. DODGE were referred to the Committee on Questions of Theological Education. The Convention then adjourned till to-morrow.

THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

MORNING SESSION.

The Convention met, and was opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. FREEMAN, of Connecticut. Rev. Dr. CHAMPLIN, of Maine, offered the following resolution :

Rssolved, That as a Convention of Baptist educators, who rely upon the Bible for our faith, and regard it as the basis of our common civilization, we deem it all-important that its truths should be linked with the earliest associations of our children, and take this opportunity to utter our solemn protest against the attempt now making to exclude it from our common schools."

This resolution was referred to the Committee on Denominational Work in Education. Rev. Dr. NORTHRUP, of Illinois, addressed the Convention on the next topic in order :

THE DUTY OF EDUCATORS TO LEAD THE CAUSE OF EDUCATION.

Owing to circumstances-with which most of those present are acquainted-I supposed it would be impossible for me to be present on this occasion, and I had fully given up the thought of coming, until a few days before I left home. I say this to explain the fact that my discussion does not assume the form which I would otherwise have given to it.

The topic assigned to me is, "The duty of Educators to lead the cause of Education." A thorough discussion of this topic would require us to consider three general questions :

I. What is the work which educators should do?

II. Why should they do this work?

III. How should they do it?

I. The first question to be considered is, What is the work required of educators in leading the cause of education? The cause of education is very comprehensive. It includes, as I conceive, two general departments, the one embracing whatever pertains immediately to the power and efficiency of our various insti tutions of learning, academies, colleges, theological seminaries, schools of law and medicine; the other, the work of awakening among the people a deeper and wider interest in education, and guiding wisely the interest thus awakened. It is to this latter work that I suppose the topic assigned to me refers; the duty of educators, by individual effort and by organized effort, to make the power of their position, culture, and experience, effective in influencing the public mind upon the subject of education; developing a more living and profound convic

tion of its importance, and giving a right direction to the efforts made for its advancement. I pass now to consider

II. Why educators should do this work. I answer, in general, because they are better qualified to do it than any other class in the land.

1. They have a more thorough understanding of the general cause of education than any other class; they have truer conceptions of its nature and importance, of its relations to all the permanent institutions of society, the family, the State, and the Church; they recognize more clearly the proper results to be aimed at, and the best methods of accomplishing those results; they have a deeper and a truer insight into the nature of the tendencies of the day, as particularly affecting the cause of education. Some of these tendencies are wise, healthful, in every way to be encouraged; but as to others, there is ground for the gravest doubt. There is not one educator here who has not been seriously troubled by the increasing popular tendency of to-day to subordinate the interests of high and thorough culture to the demands of a false utility, which has already caused a large number of young men to turn aside from that course of study through which alone the most important ends of education can be reached. This tendency, springing, as it does, from the intensely practical spirit of our people, from our extraordinary material development, and our universal eagerness for immediate results in every sphere of labor, has already been the source of great injury to the interests of education, and we have, as yet, seen but the beginning of the end, unless right means shall be brought to bear with power upon the public mind. And there is no body of men so well qualified as the educators themselves to judge and to speak in relation to this matter. They are the most competent judges of the changes in the course of education required by the new circumstances of our time; of the tendencies which are healthful, and those which are pernicious in their influence. It is not to be supposed that perfection has been reached in the methods of education: improvements are possible; modifications of existing methods are demanded; but the nature of these changes, in what directions they should be made, the extent to which they should be carried-of these and other related questions, educators are the most competent judges; and thus, possessing the most thorough understanding of all the interests involved, they are the most competent to guide public sentiment aright.

2. A second reason why educators ought to lead in this work, is, that they can present the claims of education most effectively before the common mind. There are three elements essential to the most effective public presentation of any subject-viz. simplicity, freshness, and enthusiasm; and certainly, in the advocacy of the cause of education, no class of men would combine those elements in so high a degree as educators.

Their power to unfold this subject with simplicity springs directly from the thoroughness of their acquaintance with it. It may be laid down as an axiom, that the simplicity, and hence the effectiveness, with which any one unfolds a topic, is as the fulness of his knowledge and the depth of his thinking upon that topic. I am aware that a different impression prevails, to some extent. Some years ago, while riding in the cars, I chanced to occupy a seat next to two young lawyers, who were engaged in discussing the question of success in their profession. The conclusion they came to was, that profundity is a damage to a lawyer, especially in addressing a jury. And so it is often said, such and such speakers are superficial; but they are deep enough for the common mind. Now, I can but regard this as an utter mistake. Profundity never damaged any man, whether at the bar, or on the platform, or in the pulpit. It never damaged Demosthenes, or Cicero, or Burke, or Webster; it never damaged the Apostle Paul,