a few choice selections from the Bible, each complete in itself, giving a full, clear view of some grand topic, would be better than the whole Bible stowed away in a confused jumble.

It is natural to ask how long this elementary work of the memory in Bible study shall last. Such a question is pertinent, too; for with a growing knowledge of what the Scriptures say, will certainly come a growing desire to know what they mean. Some general idea of the sense will ordinarily follow the earliest efforts of a child to master the language, especially if aided by judicious hints from a good teacher. The more thorough and critical study of the text belongs, of course, to a period of riper reflection, when the use of the memory shall be a less mechanical effort. The time will eventually come when the best of scholars will deem it unnecessary to spend a great deal of time in that way. The question, however, will easily settle itself. There is little danger of overdoing such a preliminary work, for it is inconceivable that the mind can be too amply stored with the words of inspiration, any more than the world can be too full of light. It is perfectly safe to advise the continuance of this mode as long as practicable, and scholars habituated to so wholesome an exercise may usually be in no haste to abandon it. Then, too, as the habit becomes settled, the labor required will gradually diminish, till hardly more than a careful reading or two will be necessary to fix a lesson of moderate length in the mind. Not until at least the salient points of the Gospel story shall have been mastered, with enough of the Old Testament to "sample" it well, should this prime effort be allowed to slacken. With the infant departments brought speedily into line, as indicated, with a corresponding application of the same principle, so far as prac ticable, to the older classes, and with reasonable effort on the part of teachers to urge on the work, a familiarity with the Bible, quite unknown to the mass of modern pupils, will soon reward the endeavor. And it will be strange, indeed, if a taste for the study of sacred truth is not created, wholly impossible with the wretched surface-skimming of the present day. Then, as attention shall be gradually diverted to the more critical study and discussion of the themes presented in the Bible, there will have been a solid basis of material secured, which will lend unflagging interest to these later investigations.

To provide for this want, an arrangement, not unlike the International Series, is needful, but simplified, to reach the majority better. There is no necessity, for ordinary uses, of so comprehensive and elaborate a plan. It will do for theologians and for thinkers; but the masses in the Sunday-school are not of such. Instead of a grand system of doctrinal philosophy, running along from year to year, some prominent topic should be chosen, and pursued from week to week until finished. Instead of little fragments of Bible text, hammered off here and there, once in a chapter or two, merely to illustrate a general plan, the lessons should follow the single topic, with nothing essential omitted to break their continuity. When finished, let another theme be taken up and followed in like manner. Thus would completer views be gained, and more vivid impressions wrought, than through the present system, even though less ground should seem to be traversed in doing it. The verses would also be easier to commit, if desired, because more consecutive; likewise more profitable and available, for the same reason. With the great cardinal subjects and leading characters of the Bible thus assigned, in portions of moderate length, for weekly study, it would be easy enough both to master all the essential facts and principles of each, and to gain a good, practical understanding of their sense.

And this involves not. the least difficulty. The Uniform Series can, without the sacrifice of one essential quality, be readily adjusted to meet this requirement. The International: Committee has only to shift a point or two in its course, and the thing is done. The essential idea of popular, uniform study need not be changed. The plan of suggestive questions requires no alteration. The arrangement of home readings, collateral topics, and the like, is well enough. Only let the general scope of the system be more carefully adapted to the wants and the capacities of the majority, who, by the improved elementary training already suggested, will soon come to require and to appreciate it. But let no sensible person ever dream of bridging over, with any abundance of story-telling, picture-drawing, or other cheap device now practiced, the wide, deep gulf between the ignorant masses and the solid intelligence required to work the present system. As well try to prepare them in that way to enjoy algebra or conic sections,

before they have learned the multiplication table. Whoever tries to ignore the conditions of healthy progress în such a manner will find up-hill business before he gets through. There is no way to talk a great deal of accurate, available Bible knowledge into the head of one who has either neglected or refused to study for it himself.

It has been mildly objected to such a modification of the present system, that it would act as a hinderance to the forward scholars, who like to advance more rapidly. Well, so it might, especially if forward scholarship is merely reckoned by the ground gone over. But if the Sunday-school was not expressly created for the one in ten or so, who would study the Bible whether there was any school or not, the one in ten ought not to mind a little hinderance if the other nine could be quickened all the more. This, however, is a groundless fear. It is not proposed to simplify the Bible, nor to disregard one of its truths, nor to delay for a moment its legitimate study, but to compact and to simplify the method of searching it. The man who should hoe a single row in his field, then skip a dozen, intending to go back sometime and hoe another, would be likely to find himself the gainer, in the long run, by finishing as he went. And if any are too wise or too worthy to time their own studies somewhat to the moral needs of the multitude living in ignorance, there is little place for them among the workers for God. They have outlived their day, and had better pray to be translated at once to the region where human aid is no longer available.

Is the modern Sunday school method a success? As a guide to progressive study, as a help to careful reflection, its merits have been fully attested in the foregoing pages. To those largely familiar with the Scriptures, it is especially rich in suggestions. Whatever its defects, it has undoubtedly given a healthy impulse to the general interests of Bible culture. It has united the friends of the Sunday-school, and centralized their efforts. It has attracted and aided intelligent searchers of the divine word. It has quickened to new interest many who had ceased to improve their beginnings of knowledge. Others, unblessed with early acquirements, but exceptionally energetic, have caught its inspiration, and learned at last, by its help, to love the Scriptures. For these mature and self

reliant minds it is, in all likelihood, the best arrangement that ever existed. But as to the general mass of those who fill our Sunday-school classes, whose knowledge of the Bible is virtually limited to the instruction there received, it is a widespread, though unpalatable, conviction, that it has, from the outset, been a practical failure.

ART. VI. THE DISRUPTION OF METHODISM.

The Disruption of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1844-1846. Comprising a Thirty Years' History of the Relations of the Two Methodisms. By EDWARD H. MEYERS, D.D. With an Introduction by Dr. SUMMERS. Nashville and Macon: A. H. Redford, Agent. 1875.

METHODISM was planted in America and nurtured faithfully by men of God who were in perfect accord with John Wesley's views on religious experience and Christian morality. American slavery was deemed "the vilest that ever saw the sun," as Mr. Wesley put it, and he struck at "the root of this complicated villainy" by saying, "I absolutely deny all slave-holding to be consistent with any degree of natural justice."

Therefore the attitude of the Methodist Episcopal Church was at the beginning positively and unqualifiedly antislavery. Prohibitory rules were adopted very early in its history. The Discipline in 1796 required all official members to emancipate their slaves; whoever bought or sold a slave was liable to expulsion, and a general system of agitation was inaugurated to eradicate "the enormous evil." And in 1800 traveling preachers who might become slave-owners were required to emancipate their slaves or forfeit ministerial character.

The General Conferences of 1796 and 1800 directed the publication of Coke and Asbury's notes on the Discipline, which denounced "the buying and selling of the souls and bodies of men" as a "complicated crime." With this platforın on the subject of slavery the Methodist Episcopal Church entered the nineteenth century under the lead of Bishop Asbury, whose recorded prayer for twenty years had been, "O Lord, banish the infernal spirit of slavery from thy dear Zion!"

"The Attitude of the Original Methodist Episcopal Church toward Slavery," is the title of chapter one of the book under

review. It does not contain any of the above facts, dismissing the subject very summarily with the remark that "it would be tedious and irrelevant to give a complete history of the forward and backward movements of the Church in legislating on slavery. Its attitude in 1844 is what now concerns us."

But the "original" Church was not organized in 1844, nor is the attitude of 1844 that of the original Church, and the promise of the caption is not fulfilled in the chapter. For the purpose of special pleading the stand-point chosen is doubtless preferable. It avoids the embarrassment of incongruous antecedents, and furnishes a plausible starting-point for the argument to be constructed. The truth of history, however, and the legitimacy of the conclusions arrived at, demand that the attitude of the Church at the beginning, the changes of attitude, and the forces at work in the South which revolutionized the platform of Methodism, should all be considered. For it came to pass in 1844 that "the South stood upon the accepted platform of the Church on the slavery question, the North took a new departure," as our author states the case.

The original attitude given, the changes of position claim brief notice. In 1804 slavery ceased to be designated, as before, a "crying" evil. Slave-selling was allowed anywhere if approved by a committee. In North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, members were exempt from the rule against slave-selling. 1808. All that related to slave-holding by private members was stricken out of the Discipline. 1812. Annual Conferences were authorized to form their own regulations relative to buying and selling slaves. 1816. The expression, "more than ever convinced of the great evil of slavery," was changed to "as much as ever." 1820. The power

given to the Annual Conferences to act against the slave traffic was withheld. 1824. The members were only required to teach their slaves to read, and allow them time to attend public worship. 1828. A slave-holder, Dr. W. Capers, was elected by the General Conference delegate to the British Conference. 1832. James O. Andrew was elected bishop, who said, in 1844, that at the time "no one asked me if I was a slave holder, 'no one asked me my principles on the subject, and no one dared to ask a pledge of me, or it would have been met as it deserved." 1836. The General Conference by resolution disapFOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXVIII.-19