five desired it; twenty only protested against it. The presidential decree summoning the Synod was issued Nov. 29, 1871. Jules Simon, the Minister of Public Worship, gave assurances to Martin Paschoud that the Government did not intend to be used in any case as an instrument of oppression. M. Thiers said to the Paris consistory, "I am filled with the profoundest reverence for the human conscience, and my coustant aim will be to maintain religious liberty in all its integrity." By a table annexed to the decree the one hundred and three consistories of the Church in France and Algiers were divided into twenty-one synodal "circonscriptions." Delegates from the consistories to these circonscription Synods were to choose the members of the General Synod in elections held between the 1st and 15th of March. One half the number were to be laymen. The whole number was one hundred and nine. A ministerial circular signed by Jules Simon and Guillaume Guizot (son of the historian, and director of the non-Catholic forms of worship) fixed the date and place of the Synod for June 6, at Paris.

The Synod met in the Eglise du Saint Esprit. The Government had caused the nave to be hung with scarlet cloth fringed with gold to prevent the echo. The Bible had the place of honor under the dais, below which was the president's seat and the platform for the speakers. There was a notable absence of any representative from the Government, and the tradition of the "commissaire royal" was evidently regarded as a thing of the past. The venerable Emilien Frossard, the eldest member of the assembly, read first a Confession of Sins and a Liturgy attributed to Beza, who pronounced it before Charles IX. in the Colloque de Poissy. Pastor Bastie, of Bergerac, was chosen Moderator over the Liberal candidate, M. Vigué of Nismes. The members of the Synod were classified as of the Right or Orthodox and of the Left and Left Center, the latter embracing the more moderate Liberals. The orthodox majority in the decisive votes on the authority of the Synod and on the adoption of the confession of faith was sixteen, the vote being sixty-one to forty-five.

Among the most noted liberal members was Martin Paschoud, the senior of the party, to whom M. Pressensé* gives * Revue des Deux Mondes, August 15, 1872.

a high character, while still declaring him to be "the most resolute opponent that orthodoxy has had for sixty years." "MM. Pécaut and Gaufrès," says the same authority, 66 were two of the most eminent men one could meet." M. Fontanès, radical in his views, was yet grave and able in debate. MM. Viguie and Jalabert, more moderate, were effective speakers. M. Clamageran, a lawyer, an ecomonist and politician of fiery address, took a characteristic part. M. Ath. Coquerel, fils, displayed his usual vivacity of intellect and brilliant wit. But the readiest and most learned of all the liberal advocates was evidently M. Colani. His style in dealing with the most abstract subjects is remarkably easy and attractive. "Every thing which could be invoked," says M. Pressensé, "against the Christian idea of belief in order to Church membership, in the name of modern criticism, was said by Colani on the floor of the Synod, with a precision which rent every veil and disclosed theological radicalism to its very depths." On the side of the Right, M. Laurens took a prominent part, as also MM. Mettetal and Pernessin, laymen. The distinguished De Chabaud Latour was present. Pastor De l'Hombres replied effectively to M. Colani. M. Bois, Professor at Montauban, who introduced the Confession of Faith, was the most able debater on this side. At every important crisis he seemed to utter the decisive word. The most distinguished personage, however, in the whole assembly, was the revered statesman and Christian historian M. Guizot. To his interest and efforts the Synod largely owed the fact of its convocation, and his presence imparted to it a certain historic dignity which recalled the imposing character of the Synod of La Rochelle. "It was an impressive spectacle," says Pressensé, "to behold mounting the tribune of the Synod that veteran of our Parliaments, that ancient governmental leader, one of the acknowledged masters of French eloquence. He preserved that mien of authority, that magisterial gesture and that precise and picturesque language which are so characteristic of his genius. His tone was simple and natural, even to the moment when he developed with amplitude his personal convictions on the nature of relig ion, inseparable, in his view, from the idea of revelation." The determinations of the Synod on the main points at issue will be presented in the next article.

ART. V. THE ELECTION OF PRESIDING ELDERS.

THE three great questions which have most agitated the Methodist Episcopal Church are, Slavery, Lay Representation in the higher councils of the Church, and the Election of Presiding Elders. The first, after a long and terrible controversy that caused a disruption of the Church, was effectually and finally settled. The principle involved in the second has been admitted by the introduction of Lay Representation into the General Conference, and we are confident that in response to an earnest and increasing demand it will soon be admitted into the Annual Conferences. Long ere this a measure so important and necessary to secure the highest efficiency of the Church should have been adopted. The effort to secure the election of Presiding Elders was early made, and at different times has been earnestly renewed. In 1820 the rule securing it was adopted, but was afterward suspended, and so continued till 1828, when it was abrogated. Other questions of more pressing importance demanded attention.

The interest in this subject has been greatly revived, and many of the most loyal members of the Church believe that her best interests demand the change proposed, and are confident they will soon win the same success that has crowned the efforts for other reforms with which this has been more or less directly connected.

In times past the discussion of these questions was characterized by great bitterness and marred by rude personalities. It is a marked sign of improvement that in modern controversies, especially in those relating to Church questions and general literature, there is an absence of personalities and a manifestation of courtesy and of an elevation of tone and temper such as were too often wanting in former times.

But the way of the reformer is ever difficult, and requires much patience. Against him are arrayed all the conservative power of society, the influence of custom and habit, and the pride and sense of personal injury which lead many prominent men to regard an assault on established institutions as a reflection on their judgment and intellectual power. To most of this class the objections to new measures will appear more FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXI.—45

formidable and dreadful than evils with which they are familiar. However pure may be the motives and characters of reformers, they ever have been, and perhaps will be, subject to annoyance from those who, for a pretense and for personal advancement making loud professions of loyalty, offensively treat and stigmatize them as disturbers and revolutionists. Many of these champions of order, having at their command the free use of the resources and means of communication which are on the side of power, and deceived as to their real personal power, can readily make themselves merry over the seemingly limited influence and the unpopularity of those who, advocating new measures, have not the means to bring them to general notice. There are ever some who pervert good gifts; who, proud of youthful vigor, of fancied stores of learning, of their wit, eloquence, grace of manner, and of those winning qualities that ever secure public favor, will speak sneeringly, or in a lofty patronizing manner, of those they deem in all respects their inferiors, although it might reasonably be expected that a moderate degree of Christian culture would prevent such manifestations. The true reformer will allow none of these things to move him, or to turn him from the steadfastness of his purpose.

Those who advocate the limitation of the power of the high officials of the Church claim that the governed should have a voice in the election of those placed in authority over them. There evidently is an increasing demand for the practical recognition of these principles. Even those seeking reform in the Catholic Church "demand that the Bishops be elected by the clergy and believers." They claim that in the first centuries of the Church Bishops were thus selected, and that great evils resulted from a departure from the primitive rule. In the Methodist Episcopal Church the Bishops are thus selected, but to them is given the appointment of the officers next below them in rank. It is not claimed that any specific divine precepts or teachings require this arrangement, but that expediency thus demands. In our civil affairs it is an admitted principle that the people should select their rulers; but it is claimed that the Methodist ministry and Church members have not the qualities and qualifications that would render it best to commit to them the election of their Presiding Elders.

In the discussion of the Presiding Elder question we are led to notice particularly the article in the April number of this Review, which we regret to pronounce a decided exception to our general statement as to the improved tone and courtesy of controversial writings. The author speaks contemptuously of the pamphlets of which he gives so labored an examination, as having a "natural attraction for a kindly oblivion”—“ their proper doom." He speaks disparagingly of their authors, charging them with negligence, and alleging, on what authority we know not, that they had not read an important historical document from which they quote, and had not given careful attention to the parts presented in confirmation of their positions. There is a general arrogance manifest, unsuited to the occasion, and not calculated to aid in ascertaining the truth.

It is of the first importance in the discussions of all proposed changes in the economy of our Church to determine where the power of control over Church interests first existed, and what changes in the distribution of powers were afterward made. The advocates of the election of Presiding Elders claim that all the power to make rules and regulations, to establish offices, etc., was, after the organization of the Church, in the General Conference, and continues in that body, as now constituted, except so far as limited by the six Restrictive Rules.

In his able pamphlet Dr. Wise has conclusively shown that the appointing power was at first in the General Conference, and, as it was not removed by the Restrictive Rules, continues there still.

In 1784 the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized, in the full sense of the term, as an independent Church, in all Church matters subject to no dictation or control. Abundant proof from the statements of eminent men, personally and well acquainted with the facts, could be brought to show that the Methodists of that day approved in fact, if not in form, of that measure, and cordially received the preachers set apart at that Conference in their respective characters as Deacons, Elders and Superintendents, and gladly accepted the sacraments at their hands. We briefly notice the only fact that seems opposed to this view. As a token of respect and high regard for Mr. Wesley the Conference promised to obey him in all mat