There is much to be said in favor of missionary episcopacy. It has been tried in Africa since 1858, during which time three good men have exercised its functions, and in Southern Asia since 1888, represented, likewise, by three men of exceptional ability. It has succeeded so far as its limitations will allow. This plan provides a leader who may also be a missionary. It requires continuous residence on the field. It insures continuity of administration. In the opinion of the Central Conference in the large mission field where the plan has been tried for the past fifteen years, "None can dispute the fact that the system which now operates in our wide and expanding field has made many advances possible that would not otherwise have been contemplated, and besides administering nearly all the field in detail has left its impress upon every institution connected with our Church. Best of all, it has made feasible frequent personal counsel and advice for every responsible worker from one intimately acquainted with the genesis and growth of the enterprises each represents." And the senior missionary bishop has affirmed that "The presence of a superintending leader is of the utmost importance. The isolation of the workers, the inexperience of most of the convert preachers, the pioneer character of the work, the necessity of devising new measures, the constant care to make organization keep pace with progress, the liability of dissension-these, and a score of other reasons, might be named as indicating the urgent need of a superintending leader on the field." But missionary episcopacy, as a policy, is but a tentative measure. At best it is only a makeshift. It has inherent weaknesses which may become more fully manifest at any time. A quadrennial episcopal candidature on the mission field does not conduce to harmony. The selection of a missionary bishop is not restricted to a choice from among missionaries of long residence on the field. The one chosen may not be a missionary at all. If taken from the nonmissionary ranks the result might be the opposite of those claimed for the system. The choice from among missionaries is limited; a misfit would be a calamity difficult to recover from. Furthermore, missionary episcopacy is limited episcopacy. A missionary bishop is not a general superintendent, and cannot become one except by

distinct election to that office. He is not a bishop at all out of his own field. He cannot perform any of the special functions of the regular bishops beyond the limits of his diocese. His field must be inspected at least once in every quadrennium by a general superintendent. It may not have been so intended, but this is a degradation of the man and of the Mission. As some one has said, "The missionary episcopacy must struggle hard to ennoble itself. The office humiliates the officer." And hence a great man submitting to it for the work's sake was yet clear-minded enough to see that "the restrictions imposed on missionary bishops are a trifle absurd." It "forbids a man who has authority to ordain in Lucknow and Bombay to perform the same duty after he passes Aden, at the mouth of the Red Sea, even though requested to do so by sixteen bishops." Missionary episcopacy takes the mission field, in a measure, out of touch with the home Church. The field loses some sympathy by having its own special advocate, and yet when he is on his field he is away from the source of supplies, and when he is away from his field he is not a bishop. The absurdity of this disjointed and limited episcopacy renders it objectionable, especially as all its many undoubted advantages would still be retained after a simple and just act of legislation, inaugurating a better plan, had done away with it.

Fixing episcopal residences in foreign fields for general superintendents is an advance upon all previous legislation, for it insures, what is essential to the success of the work, "the continuous personal superintendence of a responsible leader," and gives a definite field of labor to a general superintendent. This is much better than "a series of annual visits from an ever-changing number of bishops." It is even better, in some ways, than missionary episcopacy, for it is not limited. But still it is liable to some serious weaknesses. The person sent may not go from choice. He is simply assigned to the field. He may not have any special interest in missions. He will, usually, be the latest addition to the Board of Bishops. If he has no particular liking for the field to which he has been assigned he may not remain on it continuously. The quadrennial inspection of a Mission under the jurisdiction of a missionary bishop by a general superintendent

has occurred twice, and has been successful as far as the limitations of the plan will allow. It corrects one of the defects of missionary episcopacy by bringing the field into closer touch with the Missionary Society, in whose interests the visitation is made; but it also appears to point out and emphasize the defects and limitations of missionary episcopacy and tends to minify and degrade the office. Moreover, it seems like a useless expense, and, in fact, would never have been thought of had the bishop in the foreign field been a general superintendent. It would be rendered entirely unnecessary if the changes herein advocated were adopted.

We come, therefore, to the conclusion that no plan for the episcopal government of foreign missions has yet been devised which has not in its practical workings shown inherent weaknesses. These weaknesses are all in the policy; for no one can find fault with the administration of the incumbents, whether general superintendents or missionary bishops. There never will be that harmony which is desirable until a plan is devised which will conserve the strength and unity of episcopacy and at the same time meet all the requirements of the work on the field. The kind of episcopacy that is needed is that which provides a leader who thoroughly knows both the foreign mission and the home Church, and who is not only once a bishop but always a bishop, a bishop everywhere and all the time. He should be familiar with the particular field over which he has supervision, and, if possible, know the language, history, literature, religions, customs, habits, feelings, and heart life of the people among whom he lives. He should know the men and women working in his field and their ability and adaptability in and for the work to which he appoints them. At the same time he should be a man of the largest influence at home. He should be able to exercise full episcopal powers in all lands and in all climes. He should feel, and be able to make others feel, that the Church is one, and has but one form of episcopal administration, and that there is no territorial limit to episcopal functions and powers, and that in the Methodist Episcopal Church, from Boston to Borneo and from Bareilly to Berlin, there is but one kind of bishop; and that there is no administrative need to have one bishop sent to inspect another's work

or to have the work spasmodically administered by an unfamiliar official of the Church. There are but three easy steps to the accomplishment of the much-needed plan proposed. Each of the plans now in operation can contribute something toward the success of the desirable plan, which, when in operation, will at once eliminate the main defects of the methods now being tried. The first step is to so group the Conferences and mission fields as to allow a bishop to exercise his episcopal functions in a certain district during a quadrennium, the same bishop being eligible for reappointment. This is practicable, for it has already been done for China and Europe. The next step will be to delete from the Book of Discipline all reference to missionary episcopacy, whether in the Third Restrictive Rule or in Part Third. This can be done in the Disciplinary way provided for in the Constitution of the General Conference. And the last step will be to elect to the general superintendency the three noble men-the peers of any bishops on the Board-now serving as missionary bishops in Africa and Southern Asia, and assign them, as general superintendents, to their present respective fields. To provide for succession in office let well-tried men on the various fields, or men familiar with those fields and who have the missionary spirit, be elected, as required, to the office, and assigned, as they naturally would be, to the fields which they are best fitted to administer. This plan would do away with the present grades in the episcopal office, would bring the Missions into closer touch with the mother Church, and, by having able men, who have power to administer anywhere, preside over them, would give the Missions a more efficient administration, would remove that unrest and friction among the missionaries on the field over the ever-recurring and never-settled question of administration and succession, and, lastly, would tend to bring about that unity and harmony throughout the whole Church so essential to its success.

J. E. Scott.

ART. IX. THE ENGLISH MAY MEETINGS.

LONDON is not England any more than New York is America, but an observer who wished to gauge the sentiment of the English Churches or to estimate the style of English religious eloquence might gather all the necessary material by spending two or three weeks in the English metropolis-provided they were the right weeks. At one particular time of year there may be found within two or three London halls representatives of all the Churches from all parts of the kingdom, and the speakers who address these assemblies are equally varied in ecclesiastical connection and local habitation. The area covered by the unique institution of the May Meeting is surprisingly large. Originally every May Meeting was held in May, but the program has become so enlarged that four additional months have been pressed into service. Last year the first entry on the official list was the meeting in behalf of the Children's Hospital for Hip Disease, on March 25, and the last the anniversary of the Pentecostal League on July 21. But in spite of this expansion May still retains the most important place, as of the twenty-two pages in the guidebook twelve are devoted to that month. The range of organizations represented is of corresponding extent. All the Protestant Churches-Anglican, Methodist, Congregationalist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Moravian, etc.have their own denominational meetings, mainly in connection with their home and foreign missions. The great undenominational religious societies, such as the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Religious Tract Society, and the Young Men's Christian Association, appear on the list, as well as Protestant associations, temperance societies, and peace and arbitration societies of various shades. One notable feature is the number of organizations for the promotion of the religious life among members of specific professions and occupations; for example, the Medical Prayer Union, the Lawyers' Prayer Union, the Law Clerks' Christian Association, the Civil Service Prayer Union, the Commercial Travelers' Christian Union, the Soldiers' Christian Association, the Christian Police Association, the Railway Mission,