denly at Beyrout, Syria, of heart disease. In the Christian burial-ground of that city, among the tombs of other missionaries who have given their lives to their work, the General Conference has caused his monument to be erected over his grave. The most important doing at the Conference of 1872, the first at which lay delegates appeared, was the election of eight new bishops; viz., Bowman, Harris, Foster, Wiley, Merrill, Andrews, Gilbert Haven, and Peck. As far as the selection was concerned, no other equal number of equal men could have been found in the Church. The question had been referred to the Episcopal Board, "How many new bishops are needed for the work?" to which, in due time, Bishop Ames answered, "Eight." The answer was a surprise. It was doubtless intended to relieve the pressure, which was becoming terrific, on the theory that it would be easier to elect a large number out of the superabundant list of candidates than a small number. Possibly, also, it was considered that such an election would put farther off the distressful day when the present scene might be repeated. But for once the profound sagacity of Bishop Ames was at fault. The question began to be asked, "Is the Church for the bishops, or are bishops for the Church?" The episcopate, if strengthened in one way, was weakened in another. Too many men had been elected for too many different reasons. While the memory of the General Conference of 1872 remains, that act is not likely to be repeated. At this memorable session a new "Code of Ecclesiastical Procedure" was adopted. It was prepared by a committee of legal gentlemen from among the lay delegates, and, as a consequence, was made to conform to the procedure of other parliamentary assemblies. Under its operation the last of the special powers and privileges of the bishops, in their capacity of presiding officers, disappeared. They were still allowed to decide questions of law involved in Conference proceedings; but they might no longer use their position for making motions or speeches, as had been done aforetime. They could no longer adjourn a Conference, General or annual, when, in their judgment, the legitimate business of the session was finished; nor might they refuse to put a motion which they did not regard as legal, or as germane to the business in hand. At this time the General Conference began to determine who of the bishops were "effective" and who were "noneffective." Places of episcopal residence were appointed; but it was allowed that these should be selected according to seniority. Thus one after another of the privileges of the office were taken away, until the episcopate, as compared with what it had been in the early days, was somewhat weak and limited! But there was still enough of it left to be desired as "a good work." The Conference of 1888 made the rule which requires a two-thirds majority for the election of bishops, a measure which lengthened the time required for the voting, but which gave additional dignity to the office. No important changes in the relation of the two branches of Methodist Church government occurred in 1892. In 1896, according to the rule already established, three venerable bishops-to wit, Bowman, Foster, and Taylor-were, with all due honor and regret, placed on the non-effective list. Thenceforward they were to sustain an honorary membership to the office which they had so honorably filled. At this session the placing of an additional bishop, or bishops, in foreign mission fields was much considered, Shanghai and Nagasaki being nominated as cities for episcopal residence. The proposition caused no little surprise, and even some amusement; but the project was ably supported by the scholarly Dr. Asada, lay delegate from Japan, as well as by an able article from the pen of Bishop Walden in one of the Conference papers. The territory of India is as large as the whole United States of America east of the Rocky Mountains. From Karachi to Singapore, the two cities in that Methodist mission field most remote from each other, is a longer distance than from Boston to San Francisco. And there are other episcopal routes of travel quite as long in the journeys to China and Japan. Gradually the General Conference is coming to understand the geography of world-wide Methodism, and of it the world, as well as the Church, is asking large things. One minor incident in the session of 1896 is worthy of mention; viz., the change in the manner of nominating bishops. In former Conferences there had been a viva voce nomination, which had become almost disgraceful in such a reverend and honorable body. On this occasion, for the first time, it was ordered that those who desired to present names of candidates for this high office should do so in writing, the names to be read by the secretary. This simple method of bringing order out of confusion suggested the regretful question, Why was not this done long ago? Although the right of a bishop to originate motions, and to address the House in the line of its business had long ago been taken away, on several recent occasions a bishop, "by request," has made "a statement," or "an explanation," which was evidently intended to sway the vote of the House; but at such times the case he was "stating" or "explaining" lost rather than gained thereby. Notably was this true at the Conference of 1892 at Omaha, and that of 1896 at Cleveland, when the final reports of the Committees on Constitution were under consideration. The proposed measure would have had the effect to enlarge the area of restricted territory, and thus have weakened the authority of the General Conference, as was the case when the original Restrictive Rules were enacted. On this issue the bishops joined forces with the committees. The House treated the reports with due respect. Every reasonable privilege was given to the learned and laborious committees; but on the last appearance of that ponderous document, near the close of the sessions of both these Chief Councils of the Church, due notice was served on all concerned that not easily does the Methodist General Conference part with any more of its power. PRESIDING ELDERSHIP. In the early days of Methodism in America there was a much better understanding of the word "leadership" than there ever has been in later times. The wilderness was a school in which a rough heroism was developed. Thus the masterful leadership of a presiding elder over the "saddlebags men" of his district was as much a matter of course as was the command of a colonel over his regiment. Some of those districts covered the ground now occupied by three or four Annual Conferences, and some had boundaries on two or three sides and extended in other directions as far as the elder might be able to push his way. This was the case with the great Western District to which the intrepid McKendree was appointed by Bishop Asbury in 1801. It embraced all the territory beyond the Alleghanies between Central Ohio and the borders of Georgia, and it extended westward farther and farther every day. In 1804, Benjamin Young was appointed "Presiding Elder of Illinois," his field including about a million of square miles. Hooper Crews traveled a triangular district, whose three points were Milwaukee, Galena, and Cairo. And there was that Methodist Daniel Boone, whose real name was Jesse Walker, a man who appeared on the Illinois District in 1806. He is said to have regarded roads, and even bridle-paths, as useless luxuries, and he fairly reveled in the wild free life of the woods. Then at the head of the itinerant army was the bishop, a superior being who was to the preachers and people a second edition of Moses, whom it was an instinctive part of their religion to obey. And what, then, must a conference have been? Even a quarterly conference, with the presiding elder present to preach and hold the love-feast, and celebrate the holy communion, and baptize the infants and the newly-converted, was a great occasion, which good Methodists would sometimes ride. twenty miles to reach. An annual conference was an aweinspiring body. The bishop himself was there, along with perhaps four or five presiding elders and twenty or thirty preachers, an occasion memorable and mighty. But the General Conference! That was something too high. for ordinary mortals. If a frontier Methodist ever saw one he handed down the fact as a family tradition, a token of superiority. It was in that mysterious realm that the Book of Discipline was made. A very little book indeed it was; but spiritually great in inverse ratio to its size. That was a profound piece of Churchly wisdom which led the early Presbyterians to put forth "The Shorter Cathechism." The Larger Catechism alone never could have dominated for a dozen generations the theology of the English-speaking world. It was at the General Conference of 1792 that the assistant bishops, as they might have been called, received the title of "presiding elders." The itinerant ministry now numbered 266, their fields of labor extending from Upper Canada and Nova Scotia down almost to the Gulf of Mexico. Concerning the need for this intermediary office, there was no room for doubt. No mortal man, even though that man were Asbury, could superintend the whole of this vast diocese. There was his colleague, Dr. Coke. But he had evidently fulfilled his whole mission to America when he had conveyed from the apostolic Wesley to his "assistant" in the New World the order of general superintendent or bishop. The history of the O'Kelley schism draws attention to the danger that lurks in this high position; that is to say, the danger that a presiding elder may, under special temptations, mistake himself for a bishop. But temptations of this sort have rarely been fatal. In the American Minutes of the Conference of 1792 the following questions occur: "Ques. 1. By whom are the presiding elders to be chosen? (In 1872 the following words were added, not by way of amendment, but for more complete expression of the sense originally intended: "By whom they are also to be stationed and changed.") "Ques. 3. How long may a bishop allow an elder to preside in the same district? "Ans. A bishop may allow an elder to preside in the same district for any term not exceeding four years." With the lengthening of the pastoral term to five years by the General Conference of 1888, the term of the presiding eldership was lengthened to six years. Although this office is an intermediate one between the bishop and the preacher, it belongs strictly to the episcopate, of which it is the sole official representative. This will appear from a careful study of the duties of this officer, as laid down in the original statement thereof, thus: "What are the duties of a presiding elder? "Ans. I. To travel through his appointed district. "II. In the absence of the bishop to take charge of all the |