which virtually put an end to slavery, was publicly presented to the Government by the liberal lady who had purchased it for that purpose, and that Mr. Stephens was one of the speakers on the occasion. It was not an event with which he could strongly sympathize, for he had been the advocate and shield of slavery through his whole life, and in his celebrated "corner-stone" speech had laid the foundation of the Confederate Government on slavery; while Mr. Lincoln was the man who had knocked away the foundation and demolished the building. He evidently felt the awkwardness of his position, and his speech was not one of his most brilliant efforts; but the disposition which it showed to forget the past was every-where appreciated, and his speech made up in goodness what it lacked in strength.

Goodness. That word, perhaps, comes nearer to expressing the leading trait in his character than any other. In public life he was hardly known as a man of piety, but in one of his letters he says: "I have for years made it my business to devote a portion of each day to prayer." He also refers to his early religious impressions, his subsequent lapse into infidelity, his misanthropy and dissatisfaction with himself and with the world, and how, like the prodigal, he "came to himself." He says he began to think that the trouble was with him; and hence he determined to adopt a new line of policy. This was, first, to cease finding fault and troubling himself about what he could not understand; and, second, to nurture and cultivate the kindlier affections of the heart, and with this, he says, "every day, at some hour, to put myself in communion with God." On this régime he soon became "a much more contented and happy man," and thenceforward it became the settled policy of his life. Linton, whether in college, or at the bar, or strug gling in the mazes of the rebellion, he exhorts to a trust in God, and says: "For myself, I am determined to do my duty, and leave consequences to the great Disposer of events, feeling assured that all will be right."

In his public life he takes his own counsel, and endeavors, as far as possible, to "forget the things that are behind." Hence he has not committed the indiscretion, so common among his associates, of rising on every occasion to defend the action of his State or of his section in those things which were ruled down by the sword. He does not believe that the cure of the limb

that was broken is likely to be hastened by acts which serve only to increase the inflammation, and remembers always that "soft words turn away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger." He continues to extend a helping hand to those who are thirsting for knowledge, and writes: "Don't forget to let the young men have the money. If you cannot raise it, I will send it from here," (Washington.) Some of these young men, now in college, are from among the class formerly in bondage. "Of all Christian virtues," he writes to Linton, "cultivate humility, meekness, and a spirit of dependence on the great Ruler of the universe." In another letter he says: "If I have said nothing about religion, it is not because I feel nothing. I do hope that you will not trust yourself to your own judg ment, but will ask assistance from One who is able to direct you." Although he believed in the slave system, and defended it, in Congress and out of Congress, before the war, he did not defend the cruelties which it often engendered, and was himself all that was kind and generous toward those that were in his service. In relation to his mode of living at home his biographer says:

There was, probably, no home in Georgia where the old-fashioned virtue of hospitality was, and still is, practiced on a more liberal scale than at Liberty Hall. For many years it has been Mr. Stephens' practice, during court week, to entertain all the lawyers in attendance from other counties. As he lived on the line of the railroad, every one who passed between Augusta and Atlanta, whether previously acquainted with him or not, felt entirely free to favor Mr. Stephens with a brief call, a visit of a day or two, or a stay of several weeks, as they might feel inclined. Some came out of respect, some from curiosity, some to ask pecuniary assistance, and many from the feeling that his house was open to every body. As for the people of Taliaferro County, there was not a man, woman, or child there that did not feel as much at home in his house as in their own-free to enter at any time, and stay as long as they pleased.

Rarely does a chance visitor call at Liberty Hall, at dinner time, that he does not find other guests, some of whom were as little expected as himself. But their host does not allow himself to be incommoded by these visitors. If he is occupied he welcomes his guests, and then continues what he has in hand, leaving them to take care of themselves.-Pages 453, 454.

It is generally known that Mr. Stephens was never married. Says his biographer:

With uncommon capacity for loving, his life, outside of his public services, so unblest in its needs, desires, and yearnings, has been wholly devoted to others: first and most fondly to those nearest to him, but also to all whom he could serve, by active assistance whenever possible, and, where not possible, by commiseration and sympathy.-Page 541.

The leading men of the South have been slow to learn the advantages of toleration and justice. In the book before us is a remarkable example, hidden away in a note, where the author makes a shameful apology for the Ku-Klux murders-the darkest infamy, in our country, of the nineteenth century. Clearly, if such views are entertained by the most intelligent classes, and crime ceases to be crime when it is visited on the friendless and the weak, we are not only a long way from justice, but from republican liberty.

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As, to be hated needs but to be seen."

But how can we hate it if we cannot see it? Or, if we wink at it or apologize for it, why should it not go on? But Mr. Stephens has a healthier vision, and demands protection and justice for all. It was our Lord who said, "Inasmuch as ye did it to the least of these ye did to me." Protection to the weak is the highest element of Christian character, and the first duty of the State. All democratic liberty is based on equal justice and equal law, without which liberty is but a name.

We cannot, as we have said, understand how such a man as Mr. Stephens could be the shield of such a wrong as slavery; but we can see many reasons why, having taken his position, he should be the fast friend of the South. Nay, we can even honor the feeling which made him cling to its fortunes in adversity as well as in prosperity, and, like Long Tom Coffin, prefer to go down with the ship rather than to witness its destruction from a place of safety. But the narrowness of sectionalism is not naturally an element of his character. the other hand, he has a broad expansiveness, which puts him in sympathy with the whole country and the whole world. "No pent-up Utica" contracts his powers, which belong to all mankind. He is, we may say, less of a sectionalist and more of a nationalist, less of a politician and more of a statesman, less of a partisan and more of a patriot, than any man that has come

On

out of the rebellion, if not any Southern man now in public life. And we may add that no Southern man commands more generally the confidence and affection of North and South alike, or has done more to bring back the old days of conciliation and peace. We may well hope that his health and vigor may be restored, and that his counsels in favor of honesty, peace, justice, and moderation may long be contributed to the nation.

ART. V. THE ELECTION OF PRESIDING ELDERS.

THE discussion of the constitutional right of the General Conference to make the Presiding Elders elective in the several Annual Conferences of our Church, but subject to Episcopal approval, by a mere majority vote of the General Conference and without concurrent action on part of the Annual Conferences, has not yet been very full or satisfactory. Prior to 1876, this

question had so long been devoid of interest for the Methodist public that very few were familiar with its real nature and history. Men went to the late General Conference, at Baltimore, pledged to aid the so-called reform movement, who found themselves forced to gain nearly all their historical acquaintance with the subject during the busy weeks of the session, and with imperfect resources for their work; while men on the conservative side found themselves suddenly and somewhat hotly summoned to defend an existing economy, whose history, constitutional grounds, and relations were not quite familiar. Such a state of things was not favorable to a wise and intelligent consideration of this grave question.

Then the limitation of each speaker to fifteen minutes made it impossible for those who were best informed to present any full and careful statement of the entire subject. Hence they were unable to do justice to the question or to themselves.

It would seem that there was no profound interest in the question on the part of the Church, since the discussion has already died out of our public journals. The only publications on the subject of any importance, since the General Conference adjourned, have been the pamphlets of the vivacious Dr. Wise and the venerable Dr. Cummings. We have further proof of

the lack of general interest in this topic in the fact that neither the peppery wisdom of the former document nor the politer misconceptions of the latter, have been able to provoke public curiosity to the buying point. These wares have had no sale; nearly all that have got into circulation have been given away. with or without the authors' compliments; while some, mayhap, still lumber the obscurer shelves of their publishers. It would be safe enough, perhaps, to leave them to their natural attraction for a kindly oblivion; the only peril is, that one or two copies may some day be found to have escaped their proper doom, and be quoted as representative opinions of wise and candid men among our contemporaries. These publications having come into our hands with the authors' compliments, it seemed but polite to read them. But reading begat doubt; and doubt, study; and study, conviction that these venerable men are both a good deal in the wrong. One could wish to point out one or two mistakes of fact and of reasoning in these documents; since they have to do with really important subjects. It seems quite needless, in some eyes, to do this; for one of these pamphlets confidently asserts that our deeds of settlement for Church property decide the question so plainly that we shall not need to go beyond them to find abundant light. Says the Rev. Dr. Wise, respecting this matter: "Whoever would intelligently discuss any proposition to modify our Presiding Eldership must not fail to consider that it necessarily involves the nature and tenure of the appointing power in our ecclesiastical system. These are correlated questions, but the primary one is that of the appointing power."

We cite these words at the outset, because they indicate the proper order for our inquiry, and because they emphasize the intimate connection between correct ideas of the nature and tenure of the appointing power in the Methodist Episcopal Church and any adequate interpretation of that third restriction upon the power of the General Conference, which says: "They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do away Episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant General Superintendency." We cannot comprehend the full bearing of any proposed change in our existing method of ministerial appointments, until we have obtained a clear notion of the rights and duties of all parties to the change advocated. FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXI-20