remarked, in allusion to the judge's diminutive size, "His robes will cost him little; one buck rabbit will clothe him to his heels." One of his best witticisms flashed from his lips when, remarking on his many battles for reform, he said, "The whole of my life has passed like a razor-in hot water or a scrape." This was genuine wit, in that, by using two words in a double sense, he disclosed a relation between the uses to which a razor is put and the conditions under which his life had been passed, which no ordinary mind could have perceived, and which excited an emotion of pleased surprise because it was so unexpected and yet so real. Smith's wit did not smell of the lamp, but was spontaneous, as all true wit must be. He was, as Leigh Hunt said of Rossini," the genius of animal spirits," out of which his jests bubbled like water from a perennial spring, though he no doubt unconsciously cultivated it, by training his mind to look for occult relations between things apparently unrelated. Hence, he was always full of it, and it flowed from his lips as freely at his own fireside as in the gay assemblies at Holland House. Said Lord Macaulay, after spending a few days with him at Foston rectory: "He is not one of those show talkers who reserve all their good things for special occasions. It seems to be his greatest luxury to keep his wife and daughters laughing for two or three hours every day." To his credit it must be said that, as a rule, Sydney used this gift in the interests of humanity and as "the vehicle of his wisdom." "Laughing to teach the truth What hinders? As some teachers give to boys His only serious abuse of this endowment was, as hinted above, his persistent tirades against spiritual religion, upon which he leveled his bitterest jokes, in doing which he illustrated the Greek proverb, "Mirth out of season is a grievous ill." Never, perhaps, did a clergyman more significantly illustrate Paul's assertion, that to comprehend spiritual things one must possess that "discernment" which is the exclusive possession of a "spiritually minded" man. Sydney Smith was not such a man. He did not profess to be one, but persistently denounced experimental piety, believing it, as he said, "to be very possible to be a good Christian without degrading the human understanding to such trash and folly as Methodism." No doubt he was as good a Christian as mere belief in Christianity, without that trust which begets spiritual affections, can make a man. He was eminently moral, intellectually religious, observant of the forms of Christian worship, but apparently not the possessor of that inner spiritual life which is begotten and sustained by what Paul described as " Christ in you the hope of glory." On no other ground can one harmonize his bitter and even profane attacks on evangelical churchmen and dissenters with his honesty. And it is one of the creditable features of Mr. Reid's book that he not only does not defend Mr. Smith in this thing, but squarely censures him: He was a man who never approached certain subjects without displaying the fact that his mind was warped, so far as they were concerned, by invincible prejudice. But although he completely misunderstood the Wesleyan revival and grossly caricatured the splendid efforts of the non-conformist churches to awaken the religious enthusiasm of the people in the work of foreign missions, it cannot be questioned, in spite of such blemishes on his reputation, that his influence as a whole was given steadily and at much personal cost to the advocacy of the very principles of toleration which have now triumphed to such an extent that his own essays on the dissenters and their missionary schemes are little more than a magazine of exploded fallacies, and read like the record of an archaic period. Sydney Smith misunderstood the evangelical enthusiasm, and refused to separate the chaff of fanaticism from the wheat of self-sacrifice, but his sweeping tirades have long since been refuted by experience, and aggressive work in heathen lands forms now a recognized sphere of activity among Christians of every shade of conviction, and, judged by its fruits, is unassailable. This is frank and honorable. It was due to the parties Smith so ruthlessly assailed, and does no injustice to the memory of Mr. Smith, who, despite his faults, will long be remembered for his humor, admired for his courage, respected for his abilities, and esteemed for his benevolence. Despite the inconsistency of his excessive, frolicsome, incessant humor with his clerical office, one cannot help loving the merry-hearted man. Neither can one who believes Christianity to be not only a doctrine and a code of ethics, but also a life having its seat in 16-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. I. the affections, help regretting that this highly gifted man, whom many "wise men loved, and even wits admired," did not add to his humane benevolence, his unquestionable moral courage, his obvious sincerity, his manly independence, and his unique literary ability the crowning glory of a "life hid with Christ in God." Had he done so, his reputation as a minister might have been equal to his fame as a reviewer. Mr. Reid's sketch of Sydney Smith's "Life and Times" is very entertaining reading. As a biography, it is more complete, more satisfactory, and more artistically constructed than Lady Holland's "Memoirs." It gives a clearer view of Smith's happy domestic life, of his clerical labors, of his opposition to Puseyism, and of his influence on his times. While it does not do away with one's impression that, for a clergyman, he lived far too much in an atmosphere of merriment and laughter, and was too tolerant of worldly amusements, it nevertheless so portrays the serious work of his life, while keeping its playful side somewhat in the background, as to give him a more assured place in public opinion among men who have honestly and successfully wrought for the improvement of society. Mr. Reid has also given variety and value to his work by his graphic notes on many of the distinguished men with whom Sydney Smith was associated. It is a charming volume, a valuable addition to our biographical literature, and a desirable addendum to its subject's "Memoirs" by Lady Holland. ART. V.—“ THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS." THE question whether there is an order of bishops distinct from and superior to the order of presbyters has long agitated the Christian Church. This question is not devoid of real interest, and in view of the practical matters involved, it is a very important one, and especially so as to what views the Methodist Episcopal Church holds, and has held, upon the subject. In its ecclesiastical use, the word "order" has a very different meaning from the word "office." An "order" has certain rights and privileges that inhere in itself-arc its prerogatives, and therefore are exclusive and inalienable; while an "office" is endowed with only such functions as may be vested in it by the authority that created it. Nor is any one of any given order, if elected to an office within the scope and sphere of his order, thereby elevated to another and higher order. No one who is familiar with the history and organism of the Methodist Episcopal Church will deny that it recognizes the clerical order, and also a distinction between order and office. Its one complete ministerial order is that of an elder; but it has also the office of presiding elder, thus practically discriminating between office and order. It recognizes the presiding elder as in office over other elders, but of the same order, and from this fact may be started the inquiry, whether the episcopacy is not of the same order, though superior in office to all other elders? Our study of the question will be historical, and the main purpose will be to ascertain how the episcopacy was viewed by those who originated or first received it. Of the teaching of the Founder of Methodism, Dr. Abel Stevens gives the following summary: That Wesley, while he believed in episcopacy, belonged to that class of Episcopalians who contend that episcopacy is not a distinct "order" (in the usual technical or ecclesiastical sense of the term), but a distinct office, in the ministry; that bishops and presbyters, or elders, are of the same order, and have essentially the same prerogatives; but that for convenience some of this order may be raised to the episcopal office, and some of the functions originally pertaining to the whole order, as ordination, for example, may be confined to them; the presbyter thus elevated being but primus inter pares—the first among equals—a presiding officer.* Before the war of the Revolution, the Rev. John Wesley was the governmental head of the Methodists in America as well as in Europe. He was the supreme authority, and his word was law. After the war, the American Methodists still acknowledged his authority, and in 1784 Mr. Wesley asserted it by appointing the Rev. Thomas Coke, D.C.L., who was a presbyter of the Church of England, and Francis Asbury, who was a preacher in America, to be Superintendents, as before he had appointed Thomas Rankin and Francis Asbury to be his General Assistants in directing the work of Methodism in America. * Stevens's "History of Methodism," vol. ii, p. 221. Mr. Wesley, though only a presbyter, set apart Dr. Coke to his designated work with prayer and imposition of hands. This act has been severely criticised and denounced as an absurdity, but the Rev. Richard Watson has justly remarked, This "absurdity" could not arise from the principle which Mr. Wesley had adopted, namely, that the orders were identical, and the censure, therefore, rests only upon the assumption that bishops and priests were of different orders, which he denied. He never did pretend to ordain bishops in the modern sense, but only according to his view of primitive episcopacy.* His action in setting apart a presbyter to the work of a Superintendent could not, therefore, mean the conferring of a higher order. In appointing these Superintendents, Mr. Wesley did not mean to give up his authority over the American Methodists any more than he did when he previously appointed his Assistants. He now uses a different name-that of Superintendent for his "Assistants," to whom he delegated larger powers, but it is evident that he still intended to control the Superintendents as formerly he had the Assistants. Now that Mr. Wesley, a presbyter, considered himself superior to the Superintendents he had appointed, including Dr. Coke, whom he had solemnly set apart, shows that he did not deem a Superintendent to be of higher ministerial order than a presbyter, as manifestly it would have been inconsistent for one of a lower to exercise authority over one of a superior order. The fact that he appointed them, directed them, and himself set one of them apart, was an assertion of his superiority in authority, and, of course, his not inferiority of order. Acting under Wesley's orders, and armed with his commission as Superintendent, Dr. Coke came to America in the autumn of 1784. At Asbury's suggestion, the preachers in the United States were called together, and met in Conference on the twenty-fourth of December; and this Conference, which lasted about ten days, has been called "the Christmas Conference," on account of the season in which it convened. Superintendent Coke presided, and his first official act was the presentation of Wesley's Circular Letter, which was read to the Conference. This letter was, so to speak, the charter under which the Conference acted. It declared in unmistakable *Watson's "Life of Wesley," American edition, p. 247. |