(2.) Faith in the divine and supernatural inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and their sovereign authority in religious matters; (3.) Faith in the eternal divinity and miraculous birth, as well as in the resurrection, of our Lord Jesus Christ, God-man, Saviour and Redeemer of men.

The general conference of the same year declared by an overwhelming majority that "it is an abuse of power and a spiritual tyranny for a minister of Jesus Christ to take advantage of his position to propagate, directly or indirectly, ideas contrary to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, such as the authority of the Bible, the divinity and redemptive work of Jesus Christ which are conditioned in the Protestant liturgies." No less than two hundred pastors were present at this conference. It was a period of great excitement, and in the years which followed the most strenuous efforts were made, though in vain, by the liberals to gain a majority in the consistorial elections.

In objecting to the assembling of a Synod the liberals generally denied the power of the Government to summon it without some change in the constitution of the Church by legislative enactment. It was affirmed that the Law of Germinal, the acknowledged basis of the subsequent decrees, had virtually abrogated the National Synod by failing to make mention of it. To this point and to the interest of the discussion we have already alluded. To maintain this position. was now a matter of very practical moment for the liberals. They generally denied that the Confession of La Rochelle and the body of discipline connected with it had any remaining force; they asserted that it had fallen into desuetude, and so into invalidity, from the beginning of the century. On the other hand, it has been shown that the authority of the ancient discipline was recognized from time to time by consistories, pastoral conferences, and the few provincial synods which met. M. Doumergue, editor of Le Christianisme au XIX Siècle, the organ of the orthodox party, makes this evident in his L'unité de l'Eglise réformée de France, (1875.) As to the Law of Germinal in the terins introductory to the statutory provisions, vu la discipline des Eglises réformées de France, the previous existence of such discipline, dependent as it was upon synodal authority, is plainly recognized. The

reply made by the Council of State in November, 1873, to the petition of the liberals affirms that by requiring in Art. 5 the submission of all changes in the discipline to its approval the Government recognizes the legal existence of said discipline, "which is no other than the synodal constitution of the Reformed Church." The report of Portalis to the Council of State at the epoch of the institution of the law constitutes a kind of commentary on it. Portalis says that the object of the law was "to preserve to both the Lutheran and Reformed Churches their own discipline and form of government." Similar language was used by the Government commissioner, Count de Belboeuf, before the Council of State in the case of the Caen consistory before referred to. He said: "The constitution of the Reformed Church, determined by its first Synod held in Paris, 1859, is still, except the special modifications known to the council, that under which the Church lives and acts." This need seems to have been recognized by the Council, for the appeal was sustained. To recur to a much earlier date, the Annuaire of Paul Rabaud in 1807 insists that the Discipline had continued in vigor up to that time without an appeal to legal force. The Annuaire Protestant of 1821, a publication which took the place of that of Rabaud, and is continued to the present day, presented the Law of Germinal, and immediately after it, without special observation, the discipline of the Reformed Church. From these facts it appears that a Church journal of an early day was justified in asserting that "the Protestants had still a right to their Synod, and only needed boldness to insist upon the enjoyment of it."

The frequently expressed desire for a national Synod on the part of consistories and pastoral conferences and various Church organs ever since 1802 also manifests the general sentiment of the Church as to the existence of such a constitutional privilege. "The right of the Church," says M. Laurens, "to seek to realize this complement in its organization has never been denied by the Government, nor has the hope of obtaining its Synod ever been taken away." On the ground of this right, and under pressure of circumstances, increased appeals were made to President Thiers in 1871 for an authorized assembling of the Synod. It was the voice, said M. Thiers, of "an immense majority." Sixty consistories out of one hundred and

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 constant 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. Viguié 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, "were two of the most eminent men one could meet." M. Fontanès, radical in his views, was yet grave and able in debate. MM. Viguié 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 religion, 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