His real charge against me is, that I am a high-spirited, honest, uncompromising man, whom he and all the bench of bishops could not turn upon vital questions; this is the reason why, as far as depends upon others, I am not a bishop."

Resigning himself to his fate, and professing to "have lost all wish to become a bishop," he confined himself to St Paul's, where he was required to "do duty" for three months in the year; and where he preached some excellent sermons, the most of which, it appears, were not of his own composition. For one that was much admired, he was indebted to our country, as he tells us in a letter to Lady Grey :-" I think Channing an admirable writer. Yet admirable as his sermon on war is, I have the vanity to think my own equally good; and you will be the more inclined to agree with me in this comparison, when I tell you that I preached in St Paul's the identical sermon which Lord Grey so much admired. I thought I could not write anything half so good; so I preached Channing."

It is wonderful that he should have condescended to own that any good could proceed from us, and to acknowledge his obligations. For, as a country, we have been honoured by incurring the severest vituperation of one who loaded with calumny some of the best men and women that ever lived. It was Sydney Smith that said, "Literature the Americans have none-no native literature, we mean; it is all imported. They had a Franklin, indeed; and may afford to live for half a century on his fame. There is, or was, a Mr Dwight, who wrote some poems, and his baptismal name was Timothy. There is also a small account of Virginia by Jefferson, and an Epic by Joel Barlow; and some pieces of pleasantry by Mr Irving. But why should the Americans write books, when a six weeks' passage brings them in their own tongue, our sense, science, and genius, in bales and hogsheads. They have made no approaches to the heroic, either in their morality or their character. Since the period of their separation from us, a far greater proportion of their statesmen, artists, and political writers have been foreigners, than ever occurred before in the history of any civilised and educated people. During the years of their independence, they have done absolutely nothing for the sciences, for the arts, for literature, or even for the statesmen-like studies of politics, or political economy. In the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?" At a later period, he says: "There appears not at this moment in America one man of any considerable talents." Afterwards he adds, " Mrs Trollope's picture of American manners is excellent-why should they not be ridiculed?" This is but a small specimen of his obloquy and abuse. His petition to the American Congress respecting the repu

diation of some of the States, and the letters that followed, are well known. He had invested money in the Pennsylvania State funds; and because the interest was not regularly paid, he embraced the opportunity of publishing his disappointment and spite; of declaring "I meddle in these matters, because I hate fraud, pity the misery it has occasioned, and mourn over the hatred it has excited against free institutions." Such opprobrious epithets as he was accustomed to use to others, he pours out most copiously against the inhabitants of Pennsylvania; he abuses them for their dishonesty, calls them "men who prefer any load of infamy, however great, to any pressure of taxation, however light," and tells them that their "government is unstable, in the very foundations of social life."

From the "Letters and Correspondence," we see in him no little excitement on the subject. Writing to his friends, he says:-" I hope you were pleased with my attack upon the Americans-they really deserved it-it is a monstrous and increasing villany. Fancy a meeting in Philadelphia, convened by public advertisement, where they came to resolutions that the debt was too great for the people to pay; that the people could not pay it, and ought not to pay it. It is a fortunate thing for the world that the separate American States are making such progress in dishonesty, and are absolutely refusing to pay their debts. They would soon have been too formidable if they had added the moral of good faith to their physical strength. I verily believe they are cracking; for a nation cannot exist in such a state of morals. There is nothing in the crimes of kings worse than this villany of democracy." After all this, there was no occasion for him to say-"I envy Lord Byron for his skill in satirical nomenclature."

In following Sydney Smith through the evening of his days, we hoped that we should at last see some of that seriousness and sobriety which become the man of years, the professed Christian, and the minister of religion. But he had such a dread of gravity, and such a horror of solemnity, that he would not yield, but fought against them most vigorously, even when life was closing and the grave opening. At the age of seventy-two he writes to a friend—“ I am learning to sing some of Moore's songs, which I think I shall do to great perfection "-no doubt some of those convivial songs which would lead him to drive away melancholy. It was probably suggested by a visit which the poet had made to him a few weeks before; for he says"We have had little Tommy Moore here, who seemed to be very much pleased with his visit; he talked and sung in his peculiar fashion, like any nightingale of the Flower Valley,' to the delight of us all." After the death of Sydney Smith, this poet was applied to, to write the memoir of his friend, but his serious and

sudden illness prevented. It was truly unfortunate that the design was not executed. It would have been peculiarly fitting for two such intimate friends to be thus associated; for the minister of religion, to whom Byron dedicated some stanzas in his "Don Juan," to have his life written by Thomas Moore.

But little is said of his death, nothing of his feelings, in view of the past, or hope of the future. It was to be expected that these things would be hurried over. One last saying, however, is striking, uttered when he must have known that there was no hope of recovery-"I feel so weak, both in body and mind, that I verily believe that if the knife were put into my hand, I should not have strength or energy enough to stick it into a Dissenter." There is "a ruling passion strong in death;" there are exceptions to the remark of Young,

"Men may live fools; but fools they cannot die."

Though Sydney Smith was through life an enemy of evangelical religion, and a very unsuitable man for the clerical profession, there is much to admire in the manly perseverance with which he laboured in an obscure parish, for the improvement of the people according to his own standard of religion. He was a disappointed man, more to be pitied than either admired or imitated.

ART. IV.-The Church-Its Perpetuity.

THE Church is perpetual. Of this there is, among Christians, neither doubt nor dispute. But as to what is meant both by the subject and predicate of this proposition, there exist radically different views. By the Church, Romanists understand the external visible society united in the profession of the same faith, by communion in the sacraments, and subjection to bishops having succession, especially to the Roman Pontiff. The perpetuity of the Church, therefore, must on their theory include the continued existence of an organised society, professing the true faith; the continued legitimate administration of the sacraments; and the uninterrupted succession of prelates and popes.

Anglicans understand by the Church an external society professing the true faith, united in the communion of the same sacraments, and in subjection to bishops canonically ordained.

land.

By Anglicans is meant the Laudean, or Oxford party, in the Church of Eng

Perpetuity with them, therefore, must include perpetual adherence to the truth, the due administration of the sacraments, and the uninterrupted succession of bishops.

Protestants hold that the true Church is the body of true believers; and that the empirical or visible Church is the body of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. All therefore that the perpetuity of the Church, according to the Protestant theory, involves, is the continued existence on earth of sincere believers who profess the true religion.

It is obvious that everything depends on the definition of the Church. If you determine the nature of the subject, you determine the nature of its attributes. If the Romish or Anglican definition of the Church be correct, then their view of all its attributes, its visibility, perpetuity, holiness, and unity, must also be correct. And, on the other hand, if the Protestant definition of the Church be accepted, so must also the Protestant view of its attributes. It is also obvious that the consideration of any one of these points involves all the others. The perpetuity of the Church, for example, brings up the question, whether external organisation is necessary to its existence; whether the Church may depart from the faith; whether the prelatical office is necessary, and whether an uninterrupted succession of ordinations is essential to the ministry; how far the sacraments are necessary to the being of the Church; whether Peter was the head of the College of the Apostles; whether the bishop of Rome is his successor in that office; and whether submission to the Roman Pontiff is essential to the unity, and, of course, to the existence of the Church. All these points are involved in the Romish theory on this subject; and all, except the last two, in the Anglican doctrine. It would be impossible to go over all this ground in less compass than that of a volume. On each of these topics ponderous tomes have been written. We propose simply to present, in a series of propositions, a brief outline of the Protestant answer to the question, In what sense is the Church perpetual ?

The predictions of the Old Testament, and the promises of the New, it is universally conceded, secure the existence of the Church on earth until the second advent of Christ. Our Lord said to his disciples, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." He promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church. As to the fact, therefore, that the Church is to exist on earth as long as the world lasts, there is and can be no dispute among Christians. Christians. The only question is, How are these promises to be understood?

The first proposition which Protestants maintain in answer to the above question, is, that the promise of Christ does not

secure the continued existence of any particular Church as an organised body. By a particular Church is meant a body of professing Christians, united by some ecclesiastical organisation, as the Church of Antioch, of Jerusalem, of England, or of Holland. The proposition is, that, from all that appears in Scripture, any such Church may apostatise from the truth, or cease to exist even nominally. This proposition is almost universally conceded. Many of the apostolic churches have long since perished. The Churches of Antioch, of Ephesus, of Corinth, of Thessalonica, have been blotted out of existence. Romanists teach that the Eastern Churches, and those of England, Scotland, Holland, &c., have so far departed from the faith and order of the true Church, as no longer to belong to the body of Christ. Anglicans teach, that all societies which have rejected the office, or lost the regular successions of the episcopate, have ceased to be Churches. Protestants, with one voice, deny that any particular Church is either infallible, or secure from fatal apostasy. All parties therefore agree in asserting that the promise of Christ does not secure the perpetuity of any one particular Church.

The great majority of Papists do indeed make an exception in favour of the city of Rome. As the bishop of that city is regarded as the vicar of Christ, and as all other Churches are required to recognise and obey him as such on pain of exclusion from the body of Christ, so long as the Church continues on earth, that bishop must continue worthy of recognition and obedience. Any member of the body may die, but if the head perish, the whole body perishes with it.

But since there is no special promise in Scripture to the Church of Rome, it can be made an exception to the general liability to defection only on the assumption, 1. That Peter was made the head of the whole Church. 2. That the recognition of him in that character is essential to membership in the body of Christ. 3. That he was the bishop of Rome. 4. That the Popes are his legitimate successors in the bishopric of that city, and in his headship over the Church. 5. That the recognition of the supremacy of the Pope is an essential condition for all ages of the existence of the Church. Every one of these as sumptions, however, is false.

The second proposition is, that the promise of Christ does not secure his Church from all error in matters of faith. The Protestant doctrine is that particular Churches, and even the whole visible Church, may err in matters of doctrine, and yet retain their character as Churches. "The purest Churches under heaven," says the Westminster Confession, "are subject to mixture and error." By the profession of the truth, therefore, which is declared to be essential to the existence of the