he is good; but he can only condemn for wicked ones, because he is just (ii. 356. 358).

There is danger in all the questions concerning predestination, election, or any other doctrines which involve the divine attributes, and are therefore incomprehensible, because God and his ways cannot be compassed by finite intellect; and in all these questions the danger consists in the temptation they afford to turn aside from the practical part of the question which affects ourselves, to discuss the abstract part of it which has no practical bearing, and so we may lose ourselves in vague speculation. We are fallen men: we cannot rightly conceive of man save as fallen: the only part of the question in which we are practically interested is that which is limited to fallen man, and it should be narrowed still further: our enquiries should be limited to those who have heard the Gospel and are in the Church: we have heard of Christ: every one before whom these questions can properly come-every one who can entertain such questions with the least hope of understanding them, even to say nothing of elucidating and solving them-every one who who would read or think to any advantage on predestination, election, &c., must be already in the Church; for the case of the heathen or of unbelievers is to us of no more importance, and no more within the legitimate province of enquiry, than the case of man unfallen or the abstract purpose of God: every one who takes up such questions, should feel that the mere fact of their being brought under his knowledge lays him under the responsibility of regarding them as practical questions, in which he has a personal interest; that God has shewn an intention to bless him in the means of knowledge which are already put within his reach; and that, if he does not use these means to secure the fulness of the blessing, he has only himself to blame.

One of the questions discussed by Davenant is concerning diversity of degrees in the ministers of the Gospel, and especially the superiority of bishops over priests. The original diversity or disparity of ministers he establishes by shewing that Christ at first chose twelve to be nearest to himself, and have supremacy over the spiritual Israel, indicated by the promise that they should sit on twelve thrones in the kingdom of heaven after which Christ chose other seventy disciples, to whom he gave nearly the same commission as ministers, but who were evidently inferior to the apostles during our Lord's lifetime, and who, in the work of building the Church, only prepared the way of apostles by preaching the Gospel; after whom apostles proceeded to lay hands on those who believed the word of these evangelists: as at Samaria (Acts viii. 5).

But it is in the subsequent ordinations by the apostles that the distinction between bishops and priests appears; for in the Acts of the Apostles we find that many elders or priests were ordained in every city; yet from the epistles we learn that some one in each city was regarded as president or ruler, and the distinctness and responsibility of that office of rule appears still more clearly in the epistles to the seven Churches in the Apocalypse, each city being regarded as one body or Church, the responsible head of which is called the "angel," and the Church being addressed in the person of him its head. The Church could not be capable of a fixed organization until the body became sufficiently numerous in any place to assume something like a permanent character there, and this is the only reason why a difficulty is found in tracing settled bishops to times coeval with the apostles. St. Peter alludes to the elders that rule well, and are therefore entitled to double honour; and Timothy certainly exercised, in all respects, the functions of a bishop under St. Paul; while the traditions of every Church which was planted by apostles have preserved lists of their bishops in uninterrupted succession from him, who was first set over each Church by the apostle who founded it. But the apostles, themselves, at first did the work which was afterwards done by bishops, and they, being limited in number, went about from place to place, as also did Timothy and Titus, who were St. Paul's ministers and delegates. There is every reason for believing, however, that both Timothy and Titus became ultimately fixed as bishops, each in his own diocese; and it is not at all unlikely that some local bishops were appointed, even before those two became stationary. Nor is it reasonable to doubt the general tradition of the Church that James became Bishop of Jerusalem, and that one other apostle was in like manner fixed in each particular episcopate.

Davenant instances the differences between bishops and presbyters only in three particulars-one bishop in every city, but many presbyters-the power of ordination restricted to bishops and jurisdiction over the clergy exercised by bishops alone. These are but a few of the distinctions; but a copious enumeration of them may be found in Bingham, in the third chapter of his second book of "Ecclesiastical Antiquities," with references to the authorities on which these assertions are made and these distinctions are founded. But it is quite certain that the opinion of the Church has varied at different times concerning the extent of the episcopal office, and the prerogatives of the bishop as compared with those of the priest. The tendency of Rome has been to elevate the priests

and depress the bishops, because the former could not enter into competition with the Bishop of Rome, but the latter might: while the tendency of episcopalians, who are not in communion with Rome, is to exaggerate the prerogatives of the bishop, in the desire of vindicating their independence, by making every bishop capable of doing all that a pope can do.

We close our remarks with thanks to Mr. Allport for the service he has rendered to the Church by his careful translation of so seasonable a work; and we should observe that he has rendered it more useful by the biographical and other remarks made in the notes on the matters needing explanation contained in the text, and has rendered it more available as a book of reference by a general index, an index of subjects, and an index of the texts of Scripture which have been illustrated.

It is probable we shall again have occasion to return to the subject, when Mr. Allport publishes his translation of the remaining works of Davenant.

ART. V.-The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, A.M., Principal of the University of Glasgow from 1637 to 1662. Edited from the Author's Manuscripts by DAVID LAING, Esq. In Three Vols.: Edinburgh.

THE literary history of this work is soon told. "Baillie's Letters and Journals" have been long familiar to those who have investigated the original documents of the era they describe. It was a necessary work for the historical student: Hume did not overlook it: it was known to Robertson professionally, as a member of the Church of which Baillie has left such speaking records. Members of our own Church will probably recall the name of Baillie in connection with the quotations from his pages which Dr. Wordsworth has given, in his "Ecclesiastical Biography," relative to the proceedings of the Westminster Assembly. So great was the authority attached to the narrative of Baillie that numerous manuscripts were at different times made, and in 1771 an edition was given to the press with many mistakes and still more omissions, the editor having sup pressed the passages relating to the author's life, and which are some of the happiest in the volume. On the whole, however, it was the best that could then be had. It has been long out of print, and when copies were met with they brought great prices.

In 1838 the Bannatyne Club in Edinburgh resolved to print an edition for the use of the members, permitting, at the same

time, in accordance with its rules, some additional copies to be struck off in a cheaper form for general sale. The editorship was entrusted to Mr. David Laing, whose knowledge of Scottish affairs was a sufficient guarantee for its due performance.

Baillie was a man singularly qualified for such a work as he has left us. When James Boswell is represented as unique, Robert Baillie is either forgotten or unknown: the one left records of his times-the other those of an individual; but here the distinction in great measure ceases. Sometimes we are reminded of the garrulous Pepys and of other memoir writers of the same class; but the latter, for the most part, were mere observers of events-speculators on what was passing around them. Baillie, on the contrary, was an actor and no inefficient performer in the events he has chronicled. Plodding and persevering, fond of study yet still fonder of gossip, and indefatigable with his pen, Baillie mingled with the stirring spirits of the age as their equal. Without vigour to take the foremost part, and destitute, probably, of the practical ability that is necessary to head a party, he nevertheless proved an indispensable accessory to those of wider views and bolder ambition. He aided them by his ready pen, was their constant diplomatic agent, and, in short, "oiled many a spring" which more conspicuous persons moved. Once enlisted in his party, he adhered to it through good and evil-per famam et infamiam; and the usual fate of all partizans was his. He presents the remarkable spectacle of a man of moderate opinions and fond of an easy life carried gradually forward till, unconsciously, he becomes the advocate and abettor of the most extreme measures. Still, there was a boundary beyond which he would not advance. He was a Royalist as well as a Covenanter; and, during the usurpation of Cromwell and the triumphs of the Independents, he endured something which the worthy man might have dignified with the name of "persecution," though the worst that happened to him was a two years' silence in the Church courts, and the being confined to the duties of his professorship in Glasgow College. It required, however, amidst the abounding apostasy, some steadiness of principle to remain firm to even his modified notions of loyalty. On the arrival of Charles II. in Scotland, he narrowly escaped being made his chaplain, and after the defeat at Worcester he still continued to pray publicly for him. When the majority of Presbyterians had gone over to republicanism, and protested against Charles being considered as the King of Scotland, Baillie was one of those who resolved to live under a monarchy. Thus arose the schism between the Protesters and the Resolu

tioners a sort of Presbyterian Guelphs and Ghibellines who filled Church and State with their contests. At the Restoration, Baillie reaped the reward of his moderation: he was appointed Principal of Glasgow College, where he had long been a regent or professor; and he lived just long enough to witness the entrance of the Archbishop of Glasgow into his diocesan capital. The first public act of his life was to oppose bishops; the last was his being obliged, in an official capacity, to entertain-we cannot say to welcome-one of the body.

Though his life in one sense may be termed fruitless, since he only assisted in the rise and culmination of a spiritual power which, after establishing itself in one country and overthrowing what opposed it in another, was in turn broken before a fiercer fanatacism, to survive in a state of mutilation to succeeding ages; yet the lessons he has left behind him, in the course of his varied correspondence, make his name of importance to those who can derive experience from the errors of others without going to school for it in their own persons; and inferior to none who have wielded the historical pen with more philosophical pretensions. The course of Providence, as displayed in a lengthened series of human affairs, ever appears to revolve in circles: we talk of a circle of events-one time answers in a strange manner to another. Sir Walter Scott supposed that some great national crisis usually occurs about the middle of each century this may be only the imagination of the poet; but we cannot deny, as a fact, that in 1643 the seeds of a tremendous revolution were ripened-that in 1745 the country was threatened with the only serious civil war that had occurred for generations; and that in 1846-absit omen-there are indications in the political horizon that portend change from some quarter, and that apparently not far from the same quarter whence the lightning flashed and the thunderbolt fell two centuries ago.

Before we proceed to point out some indications of a state of society not very different from our own, it will be necessary to pass in review a few of the previous events. Our retrospect must be historical, but it will be brief.

On his accession to the throne of the two kingdoms it became, as is well known, a favourite object with James I. to bring both to a conformity with regard to their Church polity. James had suffered too much under the Presbyterian discipline to have any affection for its yoke. The conference at Hampton Court with the Puritans, as we have it described by Fuller, shows how severely he smarted under the recollection. One resource only remained-viz., to introduce episcopacy into Scot