orous industry, and prevent the further demoralization of society by multiplied words of faith and love.

The "Episcopal Methodist," October 11, says:

LOYALTY OF SOUTHERN METHODISM.-There is a studied and persistent effort made by the northern religious journals to impress the public mind with the conviction that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in the maintenance of its independent ecclesiastic organization, is disloyal to the Government. It is asserted that she is nursing treason, fostering secret secession, and laying schemes by which to fasten the chain of slavery again upon the freedman. The Southern Methodist Church to-day is more thoroughly loyal to the Government, more to be trusted, than the Northern Methodist Church. We are tired of strife and excitement. We intend to seek peace and pursue it. Our oaths have been taken in good faith, and we intend to keep them; and "as much as in us lies," we intend to live in peace with all men. We "pray for those in authority, that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty." These avowals and pledges have been given to the Government, and we shall sacredly observe them; and in due time, we shall prove our fidelity and trustworthiness.

Again, (October 25) the same paper says:

To the great discredit of the cause of God, a furious strife has been raging between the two sections of the American Church for several years, and, sad to recite, since the clash of arms has subsided. Where the world had a right first to expect the overtures of peace, it has been forced to witness the last demonstrations of hostility. Ecclesiastical combatants brought up the rear with a charge of their heaviest artillery, and their batteries are yet muttering the hoarse thunder of defiance along lines long since abandoned by contending armies. Is this the spirit of the Gospel? Are Christians the last to leave the field?

The "Southern Christian Advocate," October 26, says:

We repeat, war, ecclesiastical polemics, are not to our taste; and we are resolved hereafter to avoid them as much as circumstances and duty will permit. And, happily, we think that circumstances will favor us. On the great question of the day, which brings down a host upon us seeking our destruction, there is no division among ourselves. No controversy seems likely to spring up in our own borders, as to whether we shall remain firm to our organization, or give way before the attacks from without. Everywhere, preachers and people-with rare exceptions have resolved to stand by their colors. Argument, controversy, are not necessary to keep them true to their Church. If we enter that field, it is against those who have already made up their minds to hear nothing, to believe nothing, that we can say. They have prejudged us; resolved beforehand that we are rebels, sinners, apostates, who need purgation; that we cannot, or do not, tell the truth, when we profess to speak our own sentiments or declare our purposes; that the most Christian utterances of our chief pastors are but an "affectation of sanctimony;" and, therefore, it is like darting straws against the wind, to say anything more to them on the subjects in hand. Truth is not advanced-only more bitterness, and wrath, and malice elicited. We may then content ourself hereafter generally with reproducing their choice sayings, to show how bitterly they hate or how supremely they despise us, believing that this alone will be sufficient warrant for the course our people propose to pursue, and for their general repugnance to uniting with the northern Methodists. The lamb does not generally seek the society of the wolf. What our persecutors say will be quite enough to establish our people in their purpose, without our endeavoring to answer any of the calumnies heaped on us.

The same paper, October 5, says:

How it may please Providence to dispose events, none can foretell. We hope for peace. We pray for peace. We take our position under the Government to

promote peace. Wronged, cruelly wronged as we are by these fanatical menwronged in our motives, our aims, our ends; wronged as citizens, as Christians,

as men-our duty must not be forgotten, our temper must not chafe, our patience must be enduring, our heroism calm and persistent. Although the days are dark, yet we may rest assured that Providence has restored us to the Union, and the Union to us, for purposes and ends wise and beneficent, and reaching far into futurity. A great effort will be made at the North to nationalize the animus of its pulpit, and thus shape the Government to its spirit. Another terrible struggle is inevitable unless the acrid temper of the extremists at the North is radically changed. Nor is it outside of the bounds of probability, that Providence may so overrule the removal of slavery as to qualify us for the task of defending American Institutions against the dangerous inroads of Puritanism.

The spirit of Jesus is the spirit of love, and of power, and of a sound mind; if any Northern missionaries to the negroes of the South come among us in that spirit, let them find that we are "also Christ's." When they come, let them find us before them in love and good works, so that even our adversaries cannot say aught against us.

Our Conference action on this subject will be looked to with special interest by both North and South. Methodism in Virginia must not disappoint the just expectations of its friends. The Conference may furnish such an exposition of character in connection with this matter, as shall be to its glory in the days to come. Let us so act, that men shall "account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful."

These utterances of the "Southern Christian Advocate," seem to us not unworthy a Christian spirit, and two Churches animated by that spirit need not quarrel over the negro they are both seeking to elevate.

In regard to NEGRO TREATMENT the "Southern Christian Advocate," September 21, says:

Our treatment of the blacks should be such as to stimulate their labor, and to give them every possible aid in making that labor productive. We believe southern people are disposed to do this, from an interest in the negro, from old association, from a sense of justice and from compassion. If these motives fail to secure to him sympathy, direction, and aid in the judicious and profitable employment of his labor, then let self-interest appeal for him. The class must be supported. If it does not support itself, the whites must do what it fails in: do it, at least until production by the class equals its consumption. We should do all we can to hasten that result, not by promoting the diminution of the race, but by stimulating its industry. Christianity, humanity, forbid the former, a wise economy recommends the latter, course; for that point reached, addition to the general wealth begins; and not only is the white man's burden removed, but the other race begins to promote the material prosperity of the country.

It would be as unwise in the whites to discourage or defeat the blacks in their efforts to work, as unwise to withhold from them whatever aid we can give them, as it would be in the head of the poor family, to hinder or throw obstructions in the way of the development of the capabilities and industry of his dependent chil dren. Every increment to their self-sustaining power is so much subtracted from his burden, or else so much added to the resources of the family; and when resources exceed the daily or annual demands of life, then wealth begins to accumulate. As the father would tenderly nurture the child, and stimulate, encourage, and direct his labor to bring it to the productive point, so a wise political economy would impel southern people to do the same by the negro.

Again, November 16, the same paper says:

Were it not that a powerful and unexpected temptation to the fostering of preju dices against our late slaves has partially beclouded the sober Christian judgment of many of our people, there would be no occasion to argue either the importance or the obligation of the Churches doing all in their power to maintain whatever of

morality and religion may be found among the negroes, and to increase them a thousand fold. For a little while, there was much irritation against the blacks, for their ungrateful behavior toward those who had always been their best friends; but this temper is giving way to one more rational and more Christian. The consequence is, that questions of Christian duty come before us and press upon us imperatively; for they are not to be dismissed by our passions, antipathies, or prejudices.

The Church is to give the Gospel to the people; to those around her altars; to the poor. The duty is no less ours now than it was before the slaves were emancipated. It is as much our duty to look after their spiritual interests as it is to send missionaries to the Indians or to China. And what is our duty is our interest-in this case the interest of the entire community. It is the province of the Church to inculcate all morality, to counteract all vice and crime. The negro more than ever needs the teachings and restraints of Christianity. The control over his habits and manner of living once exercised by a kind and judicious master is no longer felt. Nothing can so well take its place as religious principle.

The "Richmond Christian Advocate," October 26, says:

If northern Christians do half as much for the negro as they declare they intend to do, we will rejoice; but we cannot rejoice in advance of facts. We shall not hinder them by word or act. They are committed, by ten thousand high-sounding professions of zeal in this matter, to do great things. But while we boast of no great wealth, and a very humble share of piety is all we claim, yet, when the genuineness of our regard for the colored race is brought fairly to the test, the logic of facts will vindicate us. Now is the time for us to show, by ecclesiastical action and personal labors, how ready we are to answer to the demands of the hour.

In regard to CHURCH CONCILIATION, Dr. McFerrin says in a letter to the "Southern Christian Advocate," September 21:

To say in advance, that we will entertain no proposition for fraternal relations is both unwise and unchristian. We will, the whole Southern Church will, entertain any proposition coming from the North for fraternal relations, when that proposition comes from a proper source, and with reasonable and Christian conditions and suggestions. No, sir, we will reject no one, nor any body of Christians, who come to us in the spirit of our Master and with broad, Bible, equitable, generous Methodistic proposals. We are willing to meet any body of Christians on the platform of the New Testament.

But no proposition has yet been offered; no official communication has yet been made to us as a Church; and perhaps none ever will be. There are brethren at the North who respect us, who love us, who are willing and anxious to fraternize with us; aye, are anxious to be one with us; meeting us on the common-platform of Methodism, giving us the right hand of fellowship, and recognizing us as equals, extending to us and receiving from us all the rights, privileges and immunities of the Church of God-of two great branches of the same family. Such men we honor, such ministers we love. But alas! I fear they are in the minority.

Dr. Rosser, late editor of the "Richmond Advocate," says in the "Episcopal Methodist," November 15:

The South is ready for reunion. The following is one of the resolutions adopted by the Southern Convention in Louisville, in 1845:

"Resolved, That we cannot abandon or compromise the principles of action upon which we proceed to a separate organization in the South; nevertheless, cherishing a sincere desire to maintain Christian union and fraternal intercourse with the Church North, we shall always be ready kindly and respectfully to entertain, and duly and carefully to consider, any proposition or plan having for its object the union of the two great bodies in the North and South, whether such proposed unior be jurisdictional or connectional."

If there be no hope of reunion, there is hope (though it be against hope) that fraternal relations may yet be formed between the two great Churches. And of this subject, also, the South is ready.

First. The South, in 1848, through its delegate, Dr. L. Pierce, proposed to the North "the establishment of fraternal relations and intercourse." The proposition was rejected on the ground of "serious questions and difficulties existing between the two bodies." Dr. Pierce replied: "The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, can never renew the offer of fraternal relations between the two great bodies of Wesleyan Methodists in the United States. But the proposition can be renewed at any time, either now or hereafter, by the Methodist Episcopal Church.”—Journal General Conference Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1850, pp. 188-190. By reference to the protracted and pompous discussion on the occasion, it will be found that the "serious questions," etc., all merged in the conceit that the Southern Church was a 66 proslavery Church."-See Debates General Conference North, 1848, published in northern journals at the time. A fatal conceit, fancy, error! Again, it is here unequivocally affirmed, the Southern Church never was a proslavery or antislavery Church, but the true primitive Methodist Church, as has been again and again defined and proved in these papers. Manly, wise, and fortunate would be the renunciation by the North of this old. pernicious error, that has so long sustained the resolution to rend and ruin the unoffending and innocent Southern Church. Renounce that error, and why may not Jacob and Esau cordially shake hands in fraternal intercourse? It is worthy of remark, that while Dr. Pierce and Dr. Dixon, delegates from different portions of Methodism, were on their way to Pittsburgh, the former said to the latter: "You will be received and welcomed as a messenger of the Church, while I shall be refused and rejected." Dr. Dixon "warmly replied, "I hope not; if you are rejected, it will be the occasion of everlasting regret to me."-Report of Dr. Pierce, Journal General Conference Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1850, p. 192.

Secondly. The Southern General Conference of 1850, in St. Louis, ratified the action of Dr. Pierce in the following resolution:

"That we cannot, under their [northern] acts of rejection and refusal, renew our offer of fraternal relations and intercourse; but will at all times entertain any proposition coming from the Methodist Episcopal Church to us, whether it be by written communication or by delegation, having for its object friendly relations, and predicated of the rights granted to us by the plan of separation adopted in New York, 1844."-Ibid. p. 193.

It is doubtful whether ecclesiastical history contains such an example as this of Christian affection, forbearance, willingness to forgive, and readiness to form friendly relations, if reunion be impossible, with a former Christian brotherhood. But examples are not wanting of the insensibility and repulsiveness of the adverse party.

Thirdly. The southern bishops, in their pastoral address, issued from Columbus, Georgia, August 16th, 1865, after referring to the "ineffectual mission" of Dr. Pierce in 1848, adds: "We hold ourselves acquitted of any breach of Christian unity that might appear. But if at any time they should formally and officially make the same offer to us, the door would be open for its consideration. This was in 1848. They have since made us no such offer. There the matter rests, and we might well be excused from any further reference to it "

Such is the friendly attitude of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, toward the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.

Similar and still stronger utterances occur in a letter to the "Southern Christian Advocate," (which we have mislaid,) by Rev. Dr. Summers, late editor of their "Quarterly Review." Indeed, we understand the unanimous and settled ground of the Church South to be this: We, the Church South, made the last formal proposition for recognition or union, and that was formally rejected; we now stand permanently ready, not to make further

official offers, but to hear and consider in a Christian spirit whatever propositions the Methodist Episcopal Church sees fit to make. From these extracts, uncontradicted as we find them, we, first, infer that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, whatever its past animus, professes to renounce every thought inconsistent with future loyalty to our government and peace with our states and people. We, second, infer that toward the negro, whatever the irreligious and the politicians may do, southern Methodists profess their purpose to be humane, Christian, parental. They mean (so they profess) to meet in the spirit of Christ the Northern missionary who comes in that true spirit. They mean, so far as their means permit, not to be outrivaled in deeds of Christian goodness to the lowly. We, thirdly, infer that the Church South affirms that, historically, she made the last offer of fraternity to our Church, even under the expectation of a humiliating rejection; that she has ever since been the repelled party; and yet, that at this present time, if reunion does not come, it is not because she is not Christianly ready for its coming. So they profess; and these professions were not addressed to outside ears, but were intended for home consumption. Let our readers judge of their validity.

ART. X.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

PROTESTANTISM.

GREAT BRITAIN.

CHURCH CONGRESS. The annual Church Congress was held, according to appointment, in October, at Norwich, under the presidency of the bishop of that city. It was well attended, and seems to have not been inferior to any of its predecessors. In fact, the idea of these Church Congresses is becoming decidedly popular, and their success thus far has been sufficiently great to commend to all religious denominations the consideration of the question, whether in addition to the constitutional conventions of the Connection and of the Connectional Society, a free annual gathering of members of the denomination for a full discussion of all denominational interests would not be a desirable addition.

Of the questions discussed before the

recent Church Congress at Norwich, none attracted a more universal interest than the reform of the "Court of Final Appeal." The tribunal thus designated is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the highest Court of Appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes. This board, consisting in its majority of laymen appointed by the Crown, has thus been for the Church of England what the Court of Rome has been for the Roman Catholic Church, the tribunal which had to give the final decision on the most important Church questions. It is only very recently that English Churchmen began to feel the abnormal and disgraceful condition in which their Church was put by this submission to a body of politicians. The first case that aroused a violent opposition was that of Mr. Gorham, a clergyman, who boldly denied the doctrine of the English Church concerning baptismal regeneration. The other Protestant bodies of