along which some more successful leader would bring out the church into larger light and liberty.

It will be remembered that last year we asked the Presbytery of West Jersey, with which we had been a long time connected, to advise us: 1, As to the right, under the Constitution of the church, of a minister who was convinced that an error had crept into its system of doctrine at an important point to agitate for its removal: and 2, Whether the discussion of the teachings of the standards upon the question of endless torment which has been carried on in this magazine was so far outside of our privileges and duties in the case that we ought to withdraw from the Presbytery. In response to this request a committee was appointed to consider the whole question, and report a suitable reply. We have already published the answer to our first question (see page 215, Vol. III), conceding the right to introduce such a matter in the ecclesiastical courts. This part of the report was adopted last June. We herewith present the whole report, as amended and finally adopted.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

The Committee, appointed by the Presbytery of West Jersey to advise with the Rev. L. C. Baker, hereby renew the expression of our high esteem for Brother Baker, and our confidence in his piety and in the sincerity of his convictions. Having held two meetings, and sought Divine guidance; having listened to Mr. Baker's oral and written statements; and each member of the Committee having given his written opinion-we do now concur in this answer to the two main questions which were proposed for our consideration, viz.:

First Question. If a minister of this Church has been led to believe that a wrong interpretation of Scripture has crept into our system of doctrine at an important point, what constitu

tional right has he to agitate for its removal, and what duty in reference thereto is put upon him by his ordination vows?

Answer. It is his first duty to inform his Presbytery of the change in his views. He has a right to bring the subject before the ecclesiastical courts in a regular and constitutional manner. How long, or how far, he may continue the discussion and agitation is a difficult question, and to be decided according to each man's own conscience, remembering his ordination vows, in which he adopted the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and promised to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel, and the purity and peace of the Church.

Second Question. Are the views which Mr. Baker has published from time to time in his magazine, called Words of Reconciliation, irreconcilable with our system of doctrine, insomuch that any one holding them should withdraw from the Presbyterian Church?

Answer. Mr. Baker admits an important divergence from the standards. He believes that the death and resurrection of Christ inure to the benefit of the unregenerate, especially the heathen, as well as those who die in a state of regeneration. Resurrection is redemptive in its effect.

He says: "This new gift of life brings with it the opportunities of life, but it, nevertheless, is conferred according to the harvest law which prevails in all God's realms of life, and which requires that every man must reap as he has sown, and, "To every seed its own body.' Such a resurrection, graded as to time and order according to character, gives room for what Scripture teaches concerning a 'resurrection of judgment.' But it makes room also for corrective discipline, and for the possible salvation of those who have not in this life hardened themselves against the Gospel. Incorrigible sinners must incur the second death, which, without dogmatizing, he is inclined to believe, involves the ultimate extinction of all such lives as are hopelessly separated from God, the source of all life."

By Mr. Baker's own admission these views are not in accord with our standards. In our view they are not sus

tained by the Scriptures. Instead of promoting unity, we fear that the continued agitation of his views will promote division and discord.

We would not repress the liberty of honest investigation respecting the unseen spiritual world, so long as that investigation is conducted in harmony with the teachings of Divine revelation.

We do not maintain the infallibility of every clause in the Confession and Catechisms; but we do not think the time has come to attempt a general revision, and not even upon this one topic, especially when we remember that the late reunion was effected upon the basis of these standards. If Mr. Baker could hold his peculiar views privately without agitating the church, we would be content to retain the same relation as heretofore to one whom we sincerely love and honor for his piety and ability. But if, as he has intimated to the committee, he cannot cease from a course of agitation, which must unsettle the faith of some and disturb the peace of the church, we believe that it would be more manly, more honorable, and more consistent with his solemn ordination vows first to withdraw from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church.

When the second part of the report was taken up there was considerable opposition manifested to its passage in the form first presented. It was amended at several points at our suggestion because we declined to accept its resumé of our views. And it was agreed on both sides that the matter should be postponed for further consideration. Several brethren hoped that Presbytery would content itself with the fact that the advice asked for had been given by a committee, without their being called upon to adopt the report. And many were anxious for the adoption of some course which would not require the sundering of the tie which bound us to the church. It was, however, mutually agreed that some definite settlement should be reached at the re

cent spring meeting. On our own part we saw no way in which it could be satisfactorily settled but by definite action on the part of the Presbytery upon our request for advice. We had testified to what we believed to be important truth. We believed the church to be in error at an important point. We had introduced an overture requesting the General Assembly to provide for a re-examination of the Scripture grounds upon which our doctrine of endless torment, now largely ignored among us, was based. We had claimed the right to discuss before the church this issue, and to show from Scripture the point at which the framers of the standards had erred.

When the matter came up for final action we summed up the case from our point of view in the following

ADDRESS.

A year ago I asked the advice of this Presbytery upon two questions of great interest to myself, and of equal interest to the church. As is well known, in WORDS OF RECONCILIATION, a magazine published by me, I had deemed it my duty to call the attention of our church to what seemed to me its false position in holding on tenaciously to certain doctrinal statements in its standards, which had ceased to be a fair and honest expression of its views upon the points involved. It was but a necessary consequence of this position that I should seek to show that the statements in question were based upon a misapprehension of Scripture, and to set forth that principle of Scripture interpretation which was overlooked, and around which as I believed, the whole of the Eschatology of the Reformed Church must sooner or later be reconstructed. This discussion brought me under the reproach of opposing the doctrine of the church at an important point, and of apparent infidelity to my ordination vows. At the same time those vows bound me to seek the purity of the church, and to teach nothing which I believed to be con

trary to the Word of God. In the strained relations in which I was thus brought to the Presbytery and to the church, two courses were open. I might either wait until some of the brethren would feel constrained to bring the issues involved before the courts of the church by my personal arraignment, or I might take the course authorized by the Assembly of 1878, and myself ask the advice of the Presbytery as to whether I was transcending my constitutional rights in moving, as I had done, for a revision of the Standards, and whether the views concerning human destiny I was teaching were such that I ought to withdraw from its fellowship.

The motives which led me to decline the first course were these. It would involve a long process of litigation as painful to you as to me. The strain and sacrifice required I would however submit to, if it were certain that the questions of Scripture interpretation raised could be settled in the court of Scripture, and the issues involved could be unequivocally met and decided. But anyone who has had experience in our church courts knows how impossible it has hitherto been to carry the appeal back of the Standards which the church has adopted as her authoritative interpretation of Scripture, to the Scriptures themselves.

case.

Moreover, we are aware how difficult it is, through the mass of technicalities and side issues that are likely to be raised, to bring out distinctly before the church the real and living issues of the What I might attempt as a contest for the highest interests of the church, and at the sacrifice of everything which a man counts dear in his relation to it, would appear to many as a selfish struggle to maintain my own position in it. If a leading lawyer in this Presbytery, in giving his views upon this case in the local newspaper, can only view it as "Mr. Baker's private and personal quarrel," what hope is there that the average intelligence of the church will be able to discern through the dust raised on the arena of a long church trial the true issue!

I see no sufficient reason therefore for departing from the course entered upon a year ago. And I shall now ask you to give me the advice then asked for, and to come to a decision