vocates of a four years' term be too persistent; if their proposal were even a salutary one, still it asks too much for the present state of opinion among us. Methodism has worked so well, and is, unquestionably, still working so well, that there is an almost tremulous fear of changes among us. It is impolitic to challenge this feeling exorbitantly. The addition of one year to our present term is all that can be expected till at least that addition itself has been thoroughly tested, and found to be successful. While there is no urgent demand for even this change, I think our city Churches generally wish it, and a large and important class of preachers advocate it, and look for it as the next modification in Methodism. Meanwhile there are good brethren in the conferences who resist the suggestion with quite superfluous proofs of their anti-radicalism. I have known at least one excellent man who lost his election to the General Conference, because he was considered an "innovator" in this one respect; and were not your humble servant as resolute against receiving any such honor as his brethren can be against giving it to him, it might be well for him to guard a little his pen here. But he ventures to say that he sees nothing very appalling in the proposal-nothing at all so formidable and scarecrowish as would be any magisterial protesta tions made against it in the name of "oldfashioned Methodism." It happens not to be a "radical" point in Methodism. The period of appointment has already been subject to change. Wesley thought he could not well preach longer than a year or two to the same congregation. Wesleyan Methodism, however, wisely thought otherwise, and adopted three years the arrangement works well; it could not work as well with a two years' appointment, as every man who has seen its working must be convinced. Wesleyan Methodism keeps up, however, the circuit system, even in London and Liverpool; we erred sadly when we gave that up. If we could restore it with a three years' appointment, I should 44 thank God and take courage" for our cause. The period of appointment was quite an indefinite matter in American Methodism originally; practically, however, it varied from six months to one year; leading preachers were sometimes removed at the end of half a year from Baltimore to Philadelphia, from Philadelphia to New-York, from Newport to Boston, from Boston to Lyun.

The present definite law on the subject was, as I have said, an innovation rendered necessary by the continued uncertainties which beset both the administration of the bishops, and the calculations of preachers and Churches.

The change to two years is a justificatory precedent for any other similar change which the circumstances of the Church may render necessary.

We all admit that one year or six months would be absurd in our present appointments, owing to the changed circumstances of the Church; and I think that few reflecting men will tremble at the possible consequences of the addition of another year to the present term. Its indirect effects upon our Itinerancy cannot be important; the "Itinerancy" is maintained

more thoroughly in England with three years than in this country with two. Our only policy about this question should be, I think, that when it becomes manifest that the public mind among us generally desires it, we should grant it without fear. But enough on this point.

The most important of these proposed reforms is what is called Lay Representation. And here comes into play especially the great summary principle of Methodist Church polity dis cussed above, viz.: that expediency, utilitari anism, is the basis of the whole structure. Lay' representation then is an unfortunate phrase: it presupposes a theory of rights as applicable to the system; it would require the system to take an abstract, a philosophical form, instead of its present purely practical and militant one. This its whole history ignores, as we have shown it does not deny that there are such abstract rights-" mutual rights," as they were called in the controversy of 1825-far otherwise; but it claims the right to waive an abstract right. It denies such rights no more than the republic denies that a citizen when he joins the army or navy possesses inherent rights. He puts himself under the military or naval regime voluntarily, except in extreme cases; and even then he puts himself there indirectly, for he adopts the law by which the government compels his services, even if he had nothing to do with originating it, as in the case of all citizens born after the adoption of the constitution or the law. So with the Methodist: his Church, when he enters it, shows him, on the whole face of its organization, that it is thoroughly militant in its economy, and is so because it finds that militant system the most successful. All Churches are militant; but this professes to be so in a special sense, and in respect to the very matters in question. The ministry tell this to the people; the people tell it back to the ministry. Its self-denials are common to both, save that the ministry, with more responsibili ties of power, have also more real grievances from the system.

We ac

We are a thoroughly militant Church, let it be repeated, and let us boast of the fact. knowledge no “divine right" in Church organizations, but practical expediency. We compromise our abstract rights for the common good, as the patriotic citizen does, in the wars of his country. We profess not to be democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchic, but Methodisticand we mean by that phrase, that in these economic matters practical utility is the "divine right" with us-that upon this we concentrate all our energies; for this sacrifice anything and everything except what conscience itself interdicts.

Hence, then, follows this important conclusion, viz.: that no change in our polity can be demanded, on the ground of abstract rights, except we upset the whole virtual compact, and transfer it from its present utilitarian basis to one purely philosophical-one that would have to be contrived a priori, and introduced by a revolution. And then, one party claiming its rights on ethical grounds alone, another can of course do the same; the layman claiming his abstract rights, the clergyman can do so too. What in the end becomes of your Itinerancyof everything now at once onerous and effective

gratifying to many of our best laymen throughout the country. If it should be found to work well, no one doubts that it would lead to still more satisfactory changes.

I am extending this letter, my dear sir, too far; but let me summarily say that this arrangement would have the following advantages among many others :

First. It would powerfully promote the success of our conference finances, and other business, by giving us the business talents of our ablest laymen.

Second. It would help the great interests of our work, in the interim of the sessions, for these laymen would carry to their respective districts a better knowledge of and a profounder interest in our affairs. They would stimulate them everywhere. We have a great deal of lay zeal now. Give this opportunity to our laymen, and you will see what will come of it-see it to the joy of the whole Church.

Third. It will meet the growing desire for lay cooperation in the higher responsibilities of the Church, even should it not be all that is asked for at once. It would thus quiet dissatisfactions, prevent alienations, and especially would it forestall those outbreaks for hypothetical innovations, which occasionally occur under our present economy, and which assimilate so readily with all other public disturbances among us.

Fourth. It would save us much reproach. Our system is now undeniably a very anomalous one. The most striking feature on the very face of it, is the organic isolation of the clergy in the midst of the people, as the official conductors of the system. This fact does not look well; it is folly for us to affect to say that it does. Our congregations, now filled with as capable laymen as can be found among American citizens, cannot contemplate the fact with indifference-much less can the public at large. It is only the historical origin of the fact that vindicates it. Thus considered, it is no disparagement to us. Our ministry came here a corps by themselves; they formed classes and then societies, mostly of untutored people, (and the fact was much to their evangelical honor, Matt. xi, 5;) they passed along over circuits of hundreds of miles, affiliating these small untrained societies. It was a necessity that they should discipline and govern them. They assembled among themselves periodically to report their success, re-distribute their labors, and revise their disciplinary methods; thus they grew into a consolidated and isolated body of ecclesiastics-necessarily and without ambitious design. The history of the fact, I say, excuses it. But now that our thoroughly organized Churches dot every village and city; now that we report hundreds of thousands of talented laymen-men who rule in the business and municipalities of the country, and are equally competent to do so in the affairs of the Churchshould this peculiar state of things be continued, if there is any modification of it possible? I will not reason with any man who says it should. The reason why it has been maintained thus far has, I am grateful to say, been a common one to both preachers and people-a fear lest by altering our economy we should impair its energy. So long as there is reason

-

to fear this result, let us not touch it; let people and preachers unitedly forbid any interference with it. But the above modification is found not only a priori, but experimentally feasible. It seems to me to be unexceptionable -even its possible results as a precedent, I think, can only be good, if there is any truth in the most primary maxims of the political and business prudence of the age; and happy shall we all be if, in addition to the other advantages enumerated, it shall tend to suppress the misapprehensions and impeachments which our brethren of other denominations utter so incessantly against us.

I trust, my dear sir, that I shall not be misconstrued. I have uttered in another form and with the indorsement of the Church, decided objections to the theoretical doctrine of "lay representation," chiefly because of its impracti cability. I have done so in this article; but I argue now for another thing, and one that I hail with inexpressible interest as a providential development in our history. I treat of an experiment which has already been initiated under high sanction, and I do so from as warm and loyal a heart as beats for Methodism in this land-one that owes its hopes of salvation to it, and therefore looks with filial solicitude to its future.

Another topic remains-the Presiding Eldership. I have little room for it, and I confess that I refer to it with reluctance; after what I have said above on the subject, you will believe that I regard it with much more than its usual estimation among our people. It would be a mighty arm of power, if rightly used. Let me throw my necessarily brief remarks upon it into a few propositions.

First. If we would keep it intact, we must man it with our best talents. But how shall we spare them? The Lord raise us up men!

Second. To make it elective would, I believe, help it. I confess I belong to the old school of election," in this respect. The "reform" movement of 1825 alone defeated this improvement. Bishop Hedding was elected to the Episcopate as the representative of the change in contrast with Bishop Soule, who represented the opposite opinion. Bangs, Emory, and, in fine, the Northern delegations generally were for it; but the agitation of the "reformers" coming on, drove them to other matters, and it has since been a neglected question.

Third. The question, could we have a local Presiding Elder, having charge of a station, with a suitable number of Churches under his presidency, to be visited mostly on week days? is worthy of consideration. At least, could not this arrangement be left to the option of the Annual Conferences? They now have, virtually, by their Episcopal cabinet, the determination of how many Districts or Presiding Elders they will have. Why could they not also determine whether the Presiding Elder shall have a local appointment or not; or on what District he shall travel, and on what not? This "legislative" power, if such it should be called, would be analogous only to what the Annual Conferences already exercise in many cases.

Three-fourths of our work, as I have said, need the office as it is; but if any Conference

does not need a traveling Presiding Elder, could he not be stationed? The District chairmanship of the Wesleyan Methodists is an example of what I mean. All along our northern line, in the British Provinces, it works well; the itinerancy suffers no harm from it. Could it not work as well a few miles further southward? It would supply at least two hundred more men to our pulpits. Let me add, that the experiment has actually been introduced by one of your Episcopal colaborers. He thus arranged the Liberia Conference appointments, and, I doubt not, exercised his usual good sense in doing so. After all, may we not find that our alarms about this "vexed question" are mostly imaginary, and that a little more courage in its practical solution will overcome its seeming difficulties?

I have thus, with what clearness and force I can command, reviewed these important questions. I have studiously avoided hypothetical opinions. I have recommended nothing but what has already been indorsed, though not sufficiently experimented. I believe that Methodism is on the safe route in those continual changes (much more extensive than usually supposed) which it has adopted. This, under the blessing of God, is the only safe policy for it. A former distinguished senator, the elder Bayard, who was familiar with the Church, from intermarriage with a Methodist family, predicted that Methodism would spread over the continent and become the religion of the masses, but only to break to pieces

at last with a proportionate ruin. He judged from a view of its original ministerial powers, and the supposition that men having power would not consent to new limitations on it. But he judged amiss. We have been incessantly conceding, and we shall always do so when expediency demands it. Let us only keep two things-the favor of God, and the favor of our devoted people-and the mighty mission begun by our fathers can never be defeated.

While I have taken only loyal, and what may be called, I trust, Methodistic views of these questions, I know I may be liable to misapprehension and even hostility from some of my brethren. Let me say, however, in conclusion, that I proposed no controversy, and shall have none. I have stated my honest convictions, and here drop these questions to proceed to others. I am conscious that they will commend themselves to many, though not to all frank and thoughtful men. I acknowledge the right of any one to discuss them; but I must be excused from replying. Besides my indisposition to do so, I shall, by the time this article can appear, be temporarily absent from the country—a fact that must be my excuse for any apparent disregard of opposing opinions, and at the same time my claim upon the courtesy of any opponent, so far as personal reflections are concerned.

In my next I shall treat of a topic of more general interest, if not of more importance. I am, &c., A. STEVENS.

We give in our present number the remainder of Goldsmith's "Deserted Village," with the illustrations of the "London Etching Club." The original plates, by this club, were, as we stated last month, destroyed after a limited edition; these cuts are exquisite copies of them. The poem itself will never grow old; we should be glad to re-insert it every year, if we could as often present it with as new and as good illustrations.

BIBLICAL PAPERS.-We complete in this number the article on the Dead Sea and its Explorers. In our next will be commenced a learned and interesting paper on Nineveh and its Story, as shown by Layard, Rowlinson, and other discoverers. It is designed that these papers shall comprise the best results of the latest discoveries, in illustration of Biblical criticism.

thing more than the topographical figuration of the capital. But the Academy of Sciences at Paris has pronounced this opinion to be a delusion, as we learn from an article in the London Athenæum. In the first place, it appears that it is not only at London, but at Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Turin, St. Petersburgh, and almost every other capital in Europe-at Liege, Caen, Montpelier, Toulouse, and several other large towns-wherever, in fact, there are not great local obstacles-the tendency of the wealthier inhabitants to group themselves to the west is almost as strongly marked as in the "great metropolis." In the second place, at Pompeii and other ancient towns the same thing may be noticed; and in the third place, where the local figuration of the town necessitates an increase in a different direction, the moment the obstacle ceases, houses spread toward the west. This last fact may, it is stated, be particularly observed at Rome, and, to a certain extent, at Edinburgh. When, then, all cities and towns have their best districts in the west, it is pretty clear that the cause of it must be some general law entirely distinct from local situation. What is that law? "It arises from the atmos

pheric pressure," answers the Academy of Sciences. "When," it continues, "the baro

emanations rapidly evaporate in space. In the

contrary case we see that smoke and pernicious vapors remain in apartments and on the surface of the soil. Now, every one knows that of all winds, that which causes the greatest ascension of the barometric column is that of the east, and that which lowers it most is the west. When the latter blows, it has the inconvenience of carrying with it to the eastern parts of a town all the deleterious gases which it meets in its passage over the western parts. It results from that that the inhabitants of the eastern part of a town have to support not only their own smoke and miasma, but those of the western part of the town, brought to them by the west winds. When, on the contrary, the east wind blows, it purifies the air by causing to ascend the pernicious emanations which it cannot drive to the west. Consequently, the inhabitants of the west receive pure air from whatever part of the horizon it may arrive; and it may be added that, as the west winds are those which most frequently prevail, they are the first to receive the air pure and as it arrives from the country." After thus explaining why the western parts are the best, the Academy makes these recommendations: 1. That persons who have the liberty of choice, and especially those of delicate health, should reside in the western parts of towns; 2. That all establishments from which emanate pernicious vapors and gases should be placed to the east; 3. That in building a house in a town, and even in the country, the kitchens and other dependencies from which pernicious emanations may arise should be placed to the east. The members of the Academy who have announced the preceding discovery, and made the preceding recommendations are Messrs. Pelouze, Pouillet, Boussingault, and Elie de Beaumont-all of them of European reputation as savants.

An important project is on foot in England, for "Exploring and Evangelizing Central Africa by means of Native Agents," and it is rapidly gaining a solid basis of strength, says one of our transatlantic journals. The object seems to be, to dispute the possession of Interior Africa with the followers of Mohammed. "No obstacle," says the prospectus, "exists among any of the Arab tribes, or the Twareg, the lords of the Sahara,' to induce them to oppose or impede the circulation of the Bible, since every Moslem has the highest respect and veneration for Torat, Elanbeyae walangeel Saidna Asia, the law, the prophets, and the testament of our Lord Jesus.' We can also mention the name of a Mohammedan prince and that of a cadi, residing in an oasis of the desert, who have actually already done much toward so desirable an object. Mr. Richardson, previous to his departure for Central Africa, in 1849, drew up a paper in which he says:

"While endeavoring to excite the Christian Churches to dispute Central Africa with the Mohammedans, I would not assert that Africa has not benefitted by the introduction of Mohammedanism. I would not be guilty of such injustice, even to the followers of the false prophet of Mecca. The Mohammedans have introduced deism in contradistinction to fetishism, and the worship of many gods. They have abolished human sacrifices. They have limited and regulated polygamy, and so protected the rights of widows and children. They have introduced principles of abstinence and moderation in living by the Ramadhan. They

have also introduced reading and writing with the Arabic language, besides many other things which have raised the Africans from mere brute existence to social and political confederacies. But they have failed in teaching the knowledge of the true God, as revealed in the Christian Scriptures." "

The committee add:

"Ignatius Pallme, a Bohemian, who traveled in Kordofan in the years 1837 and 1838, strongly urges European societies to direct their attention to Central Africa If they delay much longer,' he says, it will be too late; for when the negroes have once adopted the Koran, no power on earth can induce them to change their opinions. I have heard,' Pallme continues, that there are but few provinces in the interior of Africa where Mohammedanism has not already begun to gain a footing."

WOMAN AND HER POSITION.-The authoress, Mrs. Jameson, has recently published in England a brochure, entitled Sisters of Charity, Catholic and Protestant, Abroad and at Home. It is a lecture which she has delivered in several private circles, on the question "Whether there be any hope or possibility of organizing into some wise and recognized system, the talent and energy, the piety and tenderness of our women, for the good of the whole community." She takes the largest views of the subject without, however, the extravagances which have been broached upon it in this country. Her arguments are drawn chiefly from statistics and matters of fact. She says:

"In the last census of 1851 there appears an excess of the female over the male population of Great Britain of more than half a million, the proportion being one hundred and four women to every one hundred men. How shall we employ this superfluity of the feminine element' in society-how turn it to good and useful purposes, instead of allowing it to run to waste? Take of these five hundred thousand superfluous women only the one-hundredth part, say five thousand women who are willing to work for good, to join the communion of labor, under a directing power, if only they knew how-if only they could learn how-best to do their work, and if employment were open to them-what a phalanx it would be if properly organized? Everywhere I find the opinion of thoughtful and intelligent men corroborative of my own observations and conclusions. In spite of the adverse feeling of that other public, to which we the sensible reflecting public are not in the least degree related,'-in spite of routine and prejudice, the feeling of those who in the long run will lead opinion, is for us. They say: In all our national institutions we want the help of women. In our hospitals, prisons, lunatic asylums, workhouses, reformatory schools, elementary schools, -everywhere we want efficient women, and none are to be found prepared or educated for our purpose.' The men whom I have heard speak this, seem to regard this infusion of a superior class of working women into our public institutions as a new want, a new expedient. They do not seem to feel or recognize the profound truth, that the want now so generally felt and acknowledged arises out of a great unacknowledged law of the Creator-a law old as creation itself -which makes the moral health of the community to depend on the cooperation of women in all work that concerns the well-being of man. For as I have said before, it is not in one or two relations, but in all the possible relations of life, in which men and women are concerned, that they must work together for mutual improvement, and the general good.”

We give one passage more, which is as appropriate to our own country as to Great

Britain:

"We require in our country the recognition-the public recognition-by law as well as by opinion, of the woman's privilege to share in the communion of labor at her own free choice, and the foundation of institutions which shall train her to do her work well. I am anxious that you should not misunderstand me