quite sufficiently advanced. If we understand those thinkers aright, they would rather fear that it goes too far. They would rather ask a more guarded requirement of explicit evidence of a true religious experience, of a settled regenerate nature, before the final ratification of complete Church-membership. There may be, we have no doubt there are, children who have never been in an unsaved state. It would be a melancholy thing if there were not. It would be a strange Gospel that requires every human being to pass some part of his life in a state of heirship of hell. There are, so far as experience shows, those who "need no conversion;" happy but rare cases, in which Christian nurture and spirit's influences have so blended as to precede and preclude what Mr. Wesley calls the loss "of the grace received in baptism;" or as some would say, the grace received before baptism, of which baptism is but the outward sign and seal. O that Church spirituality and parental piety were strong enough to make this the rule and not the exception! Normally now the evidences of qualification for the full Church profession is through conviction of sin and conversion. Infant regeneration, if it exists, certainly does not secure childhood piety. Our children are not of course Christians. Nor, certainly, without the proper evidence are they to be called Christians. Childhood does exhibit often a tenderness of conscience, an eager interest in holy things, a simple realizing faith that makes elder Christianity blush for itself. The repulsive pictures drawn by unflinching theologians of depraved infancy and childhood are often far more applicable to even professing Christian parents, who have mature reason to guide them and so less excuse, than to the child. We shrink from such partial pictures, invidiously selecting certain special evil traits, and assuming that infant piety should be more perfect than adult regeneration. We fully approve, then, the changes of the Discipline that bids us meet our children with a tenderer feeling. Or if we have any exceptions to make, it is to the want of a sufficient demarcation line requiring in more express terms a regenerate character as condition of unqualified Church-membership.

It is matter of just gratitude to Almighty God that, late though it be and after the day of securing a pre-eminently honorable record, it is to be feared, has passed, we have, by Episcopal and General Conference action, inaugurated the exclusion of slavery from the Church. Yet we rejoice with trembling; for slavery is not dead. The powerful old pro-slavery political organism still lives unterrified and fierce for future triumph. Our present chief magistrate has, we trust, committed himself to the enterprise of securing the peace of the country on the basis of freedom. But should defeat attend his re-election or his purpose, and a pro-slavery reascendency prevail; should our bishops FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XVI.-43

postpone presenting the Church measure to the Annual Conferences, who knows that conservatism might not rally a one fourth vote and defeat a change of General Rule? Yet earnestly desiring we shall trust. Earnestly desiring the erasure of old party lines and the restoration of the perfect spirit of union, so necessary to religious prosperity, we shall trust that the adherence of all is equally firm to the antislavery cause and will equally stand in any future contest. The Church is at the present time suffering the effect of these divisions. Christ, as the advocate of the slave and of holy right, has for the time sent us "not peace but a sword." But for the consequences that follow the battle of Right with Wrong, Wrong, not Right, is to blame. Freedom is not responsible for the evil results of her battle with slavery in Church or State. That battle must last until Righteousness wins. But the maintainers of the Right are wrong if from interested motives they retain a partisan spirit after the ground of necessary di vision has passed. That is schism. And the true prosperity of the Church needs the united strength of ALL. The repairing our old breaches, the building up waste places, the inauguration of new enterprises, all demand the spirit of mutual TRUST, of liberality, of zeal, and of earnest spirituality.

It seems to us a sad oversight that our General Conference made no movement in behalf of the then pending constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery forever. That measure failed by but four votes. Had the three great ecclesiastical bodies, then in session, the Methodist and the two Presbyterian, united in an earnest representation to Congress, who knows but that an opportunity now perhaps lost forever may have been gained? And if we are now, as a single Church, truly and unanimously antislavery, why should not this be the rallying point of Church action? Why should not bishops, conferences, periodicals, Churches and people concentrate their energies upon the attainment of that great measure?

The Lay Convention, though embodying not a little weight of character, was by no means so imposing as a demonstration as its New York predecessor. On the other hand most of the elements of "onesidedness" had disappeared both in its organization and tone of proceedings. So far from a single antislavery utterance being rudely treated, an organic declaration of antislaveryism was adopted. Its address to the General Conference was excellent in its tone. The convention disused the argument of "rights," and advocated a more popular plan, if we mistake not, than heretofore proposed, of choosing Lay Delegates. We dissent from its positions in but two points. We should prefer a still broader popularity of suffrage for Delegates; and we think they erred in not resubmitting the question to a general

vote of the Church. Our belief is that the great majority of ministry and laity approve the method of making the transition by general Church vote. We believe that a plan could have been formed which, with due discussion, would have secured a large majority, and have ended the matter by the next General Conference.

But the most favorable aspect of the matter is derived from the tone and temper of the General Conference itself. That body would not, we think, have refused to resubmit the question. The action of the various individuals of that body generally ignored all old questions in the discussion of this measure. As representatives of the ministry at large, they furnished the most ample proof that there exists every disposition to concur with the expressed will of the laity upon the subject. The question was re-inaugurated and authoritatively placed for discussion before the Church. We doubt not that, while the exist ence of any special organs and organizations are very generally regretted, all the official agencies of the Church are perfectly ready for Church-wide, unpartisan, healthful action.

In our article on this subject before the last General Conference, while we pointed out the unacceptable points in the then existing movement, we were very careful to give repeated assurances that, when divested of its one-sided aspects, Lay Delegation should receive our personal vote and acceptance. That "one-sidedness" flung a large body of old antislavery Lay Representationists, for the time being, into a false position. As we then said, the great body of Lay Representationists heretofore have been antislavery men. They were. so at a time when "Abolitionism" and Lay Delegationism were the head and tail of "Radicalism." They now found the "movement" monopolized in a very curious way, and themselves completely ignored. They stood firmly aloof for the time; but surely their ultimate position could not be controlled by any movement of their former opponents. They waited for the time, which we trust has now come, for placing themselves on their old principles. The very principles of antislaveryism, favoring as they do the rights of individualism, tend to the assertion that the governed layman should have a share in his own government. Our laity have hitherto yielded that right by consent, as our clergy have abundantly yielded their own rights by consent. We understand the General Conference now very much as saying, "When we understand that a proper majority of the laity desire to withdraw that consent, we approve the concession of those rights by the clergy without standing upon their own 'rights,' in the magnanimous trust that it will conduce to the best good of the Church." Such being the case, we trust that the time has now arrived for the considering of the question and taking our stand simply upon

its own merits. And so considering it, we may now say that our own personal historical antecedents, years ago, so far at least as the testing of its feasibility is concerned, were upon the affirmative side of the question. We have not to take any indorsement from modern organizations. Our representationism is older than their existence.

It is not our editorial province in undue measure to press our personal views upon the Church. The Quarterly, in obedience to what we understand to be the spirit of the action of the General Conference, has been opened to suitable discussion. But we may at the present time note thus much. We believe in a complete self-consciousness and self-activity of the entire body of the Church. No Church since the apostles' days ever accomplished this problem spiritually like ours, and it now remains to reach the same result organically. We are now needlessly failing in this respect, and hence a large amount of popular ignorance, indifference, inefficiency in regard to our Church secularities and ecclesiastical movements. A large share of our laity are scarce aware when our General Conference is in session. Our missionary operations are effective because lay co-operation is associated. Our educational interests languish because our laymen enter not into the Church spirit and feel their own Christian honor involved. When the great institutions of the Church become a matter of conscious interest to all her membership, a new vitality will pervade every part. A revival of energy will, we believe, produce a new epoch in our history. The time has come when we can say that we shall rejoice in the day that with a common concurrence shall see a body of true-hearted Methodist laymen, chosen by the pure suffrage of the Church, take their seats as a co-ordinate part of the great Representative Body.

We trust the great questions that have divided Methodism into sectional denominations will soon disappear. Our secessions and divisions have been purely temporal and external. Each part has held fast the theology and the temperament of Methodism. To Episcopacy probably no section will object; and the adoption of Lay Delegation will remove every barrier for a grand reunion. With, then, a broad popular base crowned with an efficient Episcopacy, our reunited Church will be at once the most liberal and the most executive religious denomination existing. If the spirit of living piety shall glow at the heart, what triumphs for the Redeemer may she not win?

A pleasing part of the proceedings of the General Conference was the Addresses of the different delegates from the foreign connections, England and Canada. We trust the time approaches when accredited

brethren from other countries will gladden the general assembly of our Church with fraternal greetings. The passages in the addresses of the foreign conferences touching upon the present rebellion were of course listened to with marked interest. Our English brethren on this subject said:

Our prayer is, that the God of peace may speedily bring this national strife to a righteous and happy termination, and that the extensive territories of your country may flourish beyond all former measure in temporal and spiritual prosperity. Need we add, that the sentiments which we have often expressed on the evil of slavery, and the importance of its speedy abolition, remain unchanged? Earnestly do we look for the time when that evil shall no longer exist. That time will assuredly come. May we remind you, brethren, that, as Christians, you are called to pursue firm yet wise and pacific counsels, and in the very spirit of the Christianity which you and we profess, to proceed with calm and steady perseverance, entertaining no doubt of the final result when slavery shall be no more.

The Irish conference addresses us in these words:

From our own public assemblies and family altars fervent supplications will ascend to our heavenly Father that the vexed question of negro slavery-the source of your present trouble-may find a just solution without involving you for a protracted period in that worst of national calamities, a fratricidal war.

The address of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada has these words:

We deeply sympathize with you in the calamity of civil war which your country is now enduring, and in which you as a Church are no doubt largely sufferers.

We pray that the interest of true religion may be preserved throughout the whole, and that the Ruler of all events may crown the struggle with peace which shall be favorable to national unity, the supremacy of law and order, and the freedom of those who are now enslaved.

The address of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada contains the following explicit and very satisfactory language:

Our prayers are that the rebellion, which is now affecting the whole world, may be speedily suppressed, and that God may restore peace to your nation, and give increasing prosperity to the Church of Christ in your afflicted land.

This language assures us that the great Methodist family throughout the world recognizes the true source of our war to be slavery, and desires the attainment of a peace founded upon its destruction. Add to this that not one foreign Church sends a delegate to the Church South, and never has since its secession, and we have ample grounds of perfect satisfaction with the position of Catholic Methodism in regard to our great contest. May the blessing of Almighty God rest upon the great body, and restore the one fallen member to her pure fellowship and unity!

: