may be proposed. I do not think that it is among the teeming masses of heathenism that the evil is seen at the worst; but in the mission-fields of our sparsely-settled districts the evil is still more apparent. I know, for instance, in my own country, a village of about 2,500 or 3,000 population, in which there are three Methodist churches-good substantial buildings-and three Methodist ministers, each of them having small congregations; and it does seem as if a good deal of money was paid for the simple purpose of having the privilege of worshipping apart, for I can see no other good really to come of it. I would not for a moment express any sympathy with those who are constantly speaking against denominational feelings. I believe that without denominational loyalty and denominationl attachment we cannot successfully maintain our position and promote our work. But there is something higher and dearer and more important than loyalty to our denominational interests, and that is loyalty to one common Christianity and to the cause of our common Master, and all our missionary operations, and all our adjustments of our work, and all our occupations of our different fields, should be in harmony with the grand sentiment, "One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." With regard to the proposal to meet this difficulty by establishing Methodist Churches in Germany and other foreign fields, there is-however fine this may sound as regards liberality-a serious practical difficulty, and that is that our different missionary societies will not continue to contribute the funds necessary for the support and prosecution of the work after they cease to have any direction over it. This may become accomplished in the future when the missionary societies in these different countries are sufficiently strong to maintain themselves and to prosecute their work with vigour; but it seems to me there is a practical difficulty as long as these Churches are not self-sustaining and sufficiently vigorous in the occupation of the fields that are allotted to them. I believe there can be very little done for the present in the mere withdrawal of missionaries from certain quarters; but upon the lines indicated by the papers read, and by the speeches already delivered, I believe much can be done-that is in the general policy pursued. For it is not a mere waste of labour and of money that we have to meet in this question, but there is a waste of moral influence and religious power also through our contentions and rivalries; and I hope and trust that though we may not be able to withdraw missionaries in order to form churches, an influence will go forth, especially upon the missionary authorities of the different Churches we represent, that will enable them to work upon the general lines of unity and amicable understanding, which will prevent that loss of moral influence and that waste of labour and money which we all so much deprecate in the past.

REV. J. C. BARRATT (British Wesleyan Church): It must be admitted that in Germany there have been waste and friction arising from occupation of the same fields by various Methodist missionary bodies. Let me give one illustration. In a certain city of South Germany at the time to which I refer, two Methodist missionary bodies had been established for some years -the one body seventeen or eighteen years; the second body about half as long. At that time the third Methodist missionary body at work in Germany sent in a preacher, the only ground for which, as given, was this: "Members of our own community have removed from various parts of the land, and are now found centred in this city." But surely that cannot be a sufficient reason for establishing a new section of Methodist agency in any place occupied by one or two such bodies already. If each Methodist body possesses all the essentials of Methodism, surely the Methodist Churches not represented in such a city may send their members to the bodies already existing there. If this reason be followed out to its logical sequence, we must have a multiplication of triple representations of Methodism, for, in

nearly every large town and city of South Germany, members are to be found belonging to each of these Methodist Churches. What is the remedy? We are told amalgamation, organic union. I can only say that, beautiful as the ideal of a National Methodist Church is, at present it seems to me to be impracticable. I can speak with reference to one of the Methodist bodies represented in Germany, and I am within the limits of truth when I say that seven-eighths of the preachers and people are not prepared for such union. As to a second Methodist body represented there, certainly the majority are against such an organic union; and I submit that if any blessing is to come out of such a union, the impulse must come from within, not from outside agitation. As soon as this becomes a necessity, and the affinities draw together, then the work of union will be easy, and unquestionably will be most blessed. I think that the remedy for this state of things is the cultivation of the spirit of brotherly love between the preachers of the various denominations, and the fair and legitimate use of every opportunity that offers for united action, so that it may be seen that these various Methodist bodies are not opposing forces, but that they are branches of one great Church-that they are various corps of one great army. I will only add an expression of a hope that when France is to be occupied-as we were told the other day would most probably be the case by another Methodist body-sufficient care in the selection of centres and in the organisation of the working plan will be taken to manifest to the world that Methodist brotherhood is not a sentiment merely, but a fact.

BISHOP PECK: I rise, sir, to make a motion which is in accordance, I think, with the feelings of this body. This is a matter about which we ought to do something. It is not sufficient merely to talk about it. I therefore move that a Select Committee be appointed of four men to draft such suggestions as this Conference may submit to the respective Missionary Boards. If I were to express my desire, I would have the Rev. Dr. Maclay the chairman of that Select Committee. I will not, however, go further. I think that four careful men, knowing missiorary fields, and understanding them as Dr. Rigg understands them, can draw up a brief form of recommendation to the respective Missionary Boards that will make this Conference somewhat influential in avoiding future difficulties, if not in correcting those of the past. I move that such a committee be appointed.

REV. W. ARTHUR: I do not rise to oppose the motion, but I do rise with very great earnestness to give serious caution to the Conference with regard to the direction which it now seems to be taking. I believe there are very few things from which greater danger may be apprehended. I have watched the rise of this tendency from a very early time of my connection with missionary operations, and I confess that practically, in all the cases in which I have known our missionary society to enter into a formal arrangement with another missionary society to keep out of or to forsake a given territory, the result has been much more trouble than ever had arisen from the presence upon the same ground of two or more denominations. I state a simple fact. Dr. Rigg has already alluded to one case, the celebrated one of the Samoan Islands. Now, that was a mistake that must never be repeated anywhere. No two missionary committees anywhere must sit down behind the backs of the native churches of any country and arrange that those churches should be handed over to anybody else. Methodist work has spread far more by liberty than by uniformity, and divisions in all church history have arisen much more from the craving for uniformity than from the free exercise of liberty. So long as a man is a missionary in a great city, I can never understand his feeling offended when another man comes into that city to do Christ's work. I am in the midst of 50,000 Roman Catholics, and to think it a great intrusion

upon me if another minister, not of the same denomination, comes into the district to do mission-work, is to me perfectly monstrous. The way to show union in such a case is not to claim that such territory should be left to me, but to take the brother by the hand, and to say, "If God gives you more success than He has given me, I shall praise His name." I should be very glad of any steps tending to correct cases such as Dr. Dewart has pointed out, cases of real waste. When you come to deal with village populations, with dispersed populations, then I believe a great deal of good may thus be done; but when you come to deal with city centres, when you come to deal with great territorial tracts in India, it is to me perfectly absurd to try to fix the future so that such tracts should be left to any one denomination. Go on the Methodist principle of union-union in diversity-and when actual combination arises, let it arise from an internal feeling in the bosoms of the brethren, and of the Churches themselves, of the want of union. Do not let it arise from external action proceeding from any one centre whatever.

BISHOP PECK: I have no idea, if the Conference should appoint this committee, that they will in principle recommend any policy differing essentially from the broad and clear ideas of our brother Arthur; but this is a fact which we have to meet. There is a general expectation that this Conference will suggest something in regard to this matter. If they only report that there can be nothing done, they will help us throughout all our Churches. If they should report that there can be some prudential measures adopted, and can name what they are-nothing of the radical changes which my brother deprecates-that report would give us rest with regard to the matter. Without having any idea that a committee would be appointed which would attempt anything revolutionary or radical, I still believe that a judicious, wise committee can do something which will give the Church rest, even if everything remains just as it is now.

REV. DR. J. M. REID (Methodist Episcopal Church): I desire but a few words now that Mr. Arthur has said what he has so well and so appropriately; but I do desire to say a word or two. In the first place, it seems to me that these differences, so far as the foreign fields are concerned, are greatly exaggerated. I have in one instance, where there was much complaint in regard to this matter, diligently inquired into it, and I could find in that whole mission-field but one single case of collision, and yet there were more than eighty men on our part employed in the field; and where there are 150 preachers at work it ought not to have been surprising if, in their activity and zeal, there had been at least one case of thwarting or crossing each other's track. Now, sir, I would deplore the impression going out to the world, on whom we depend for our missionary contributions, that we are in a state of wrangle in our foreign fields. I know of no such thing, and I have diligently looked into the matter. I have my anxieties in regard to it, and I know there are points of danger to which the excellent essayist referred. The society of which I am secretary stands upon the general principles established years ago. We went into the north-west of India, where there was not a missionary among all those millions, and where it was hard to go, for we had no railroads, and other means of travel were not very swift or easy. In the same way we went to Foochow, a city where there was no mission, in the heart of the country, and when there was no thought of its becoming a commercial city. These have been our general principles; but in the case of Germany, for instance, we have grown so rapidly by the blessing of God that it has become an Annual Conference. There are now eighty-five preachers making up that Conference, and they are zealous men, and it would not be astonishing at all if, in the prosecution of their independent work, each man for himself, and each responsible to his Conference, there should be some little overstepping

now and then. I would rather have a man overstepping twice or three times every year of his life, than doing nothing in his conservatism; I would immensely rather that there should be a little overplus of zeal, than a staid conservatism that brings about no results. Now I desire to say that I have never heard until this morning from anybody in the universe-and I have tried to study missions-I have never heard that there was ever a proposition from any body, or any society, to transfer churches, or societies, or congregations, without their consent; I never heard of an instance in which there was a proposition that there should even be a consultation about the matter. So far as our society is concerned, we simply go on and prosecute our work. There has never been a discussion either in our private committees or in our public board, or in our general committee, upon this subject. We have no policy in respect to it. We are going forward, awaiting God's providence. I confess to you, when I saw there were some 150 Methodist preachers in Germany, I desired to see them united, not for the sake of preventing their crossing each other's path-for I do not believe they would do it much-but for the sake of having the whole 150 presenting one grand front, to speak to the Emperor, to speak to the legislature, to speak to the great people of Germany, whenever their rights were involved. I said over and over again in Germany, in the presence of all classes of people, that I hoped the time would come when German Methodism would be one, and that was for the sake of influencing persons of all our denominations to hasten the result. I have not any faith in Ecumenical Methodism : I mean œcumenical in the sense of an organic Methodism all over the world. I believe that just as inevitably as we needed American Methodism when we became an independent nation, so there must be in the end a German Methodism, an Italian Methodism. I only wait till God says the time is at hand.

ŘEV. E. E. JENKINS (Wesleyan Methodist): I agree with the general sentiments which I have heard on this subject, but we must come from general sentiments to facts. I hope Dr. Peck's suggestion will be carried out. Even if it fail, I am for attempting something. I was in Madras three or four years ago, and I found there that the brethren of America were preaching the Gospel, and earnestly doing it too, in neighbourhoods where our own missionaries were preaching the Gospel, thus disturbing each other's success. This has been the case in Bangalore as well as Madras, to my certain knowledge. Now, the brethren there, and probably in other fields, are expecting this Conference to say something. I do not believe there is any important difference in the views entertained in the Ecumenical Conference to-day on this point, and if the committee, suggested by Bishop Peck, could meet together and recommend for the consideration of the separate societies represented here, certain rules for the mapping out of districts and working together, I think we should secure a more harmonious co-operation in our great work hereafter.

BISHOP PECK'S resolution was then agreed to, with the suggestion that the Business Committee should nominate the members of the committee.

The proceedings closed with a hymn and the Benediction.

ELEVENTH DAY, Monday, September 19th.

President-REV. R. CHEW, United Methodist Free Churches

SUBJECT:

"FOREIGN MISSIONS"—Continued.

THE

THE CONFERENCE resumed this morning at Ten o'clock. The REV. J. KIRSOP, of Manchester, conducted the Devotional Services.

REV. J. BOND brought up the report from the Business Committee with reference to the closing meeting. They recommend:

"That Dr. Osborn be requested to preside at that meeting and give a résumé of the Conference with regard to the initiation of the movement, its progress, &c., and responses, by the Rev. Dr. George, the Hon. Oliver Hoyt, Rev. Dr. McFerrin, Bishop Wood, Rev. Dr. Buckley, Rev. W. Arthur, and others, closing prayers to be offered by the Rev. Bishop McTyeire and the Rev. Dr. Rigg, the Benediction by Bishop Simpson."

MR. S. D. WADDY moved an amendment to the report. He thought that by that time they would have had quite enough of speeches and résumés, and proposed that the closing meeting should take the form of a good earnest Methodist prayer-meeting from beginning to end. They did not want anybody to write their biographies, or to tell them what they had been doing during the last few days.

BISHOP PECK Seconded the amendment, which was supported by REV. DR. WALDEN, DR. MARSHALL, and MR. NEWTON.

REV. DR. RIGG supported the recommendation of the Committee. Of course the opportunity for prayer would be desired and provided, but at the same time it would scarcely be right to part with their visitors without giving them an opportunity to say farewell.

A second amendment was proposed by the REV. W. ARTHUR, to the effect that the half-hour at the close of the morning session, and