incline. Pity-at least so some persons seem to think-pity that certain journalists of our time have betaken themselves to such awkward habits of research. Here, now, is a writer in the "London Review" for June 4, June 11, and July 2 of the present year, who has been rummaging the State Paper Office, and published for the first time the correspondence of Daniel Defoe. And in what light do these letters exhibit him? We assert unhesitatingly that they prove the perfect justice of those charges which Mr Bode ascribes to mere political rancour. They show that Defoe did become a mere hireling writer; that while bought by one political party, he pretended to remain in the service of the other, on the understanding that his employers, the Government of the day, should still pretend to hold him in displeasure, and as one separated from them. They prove that he was a traitor to all sides. For full evidence we must refer to the "London Reviewer" (to whom our best thanks are due), and meanwhile we say with him, "How much credit is to be attached to the statements of a writer in his other works against his political and religious opponents, when he could thus prostitute his honour and his talents, we need not insist upon."

Such proves to be, on the evidence of his own handwriting, the last of the four witnesses against Scottish Episcopacy; such the man to whom appeal is constantly made by our Presbyterian brethren when they would enumerate the sins of our Communion during the time when it was established by the State. It will be long, we know, before these facts filter through and saturate the public mind in Scotland. But the day will come; it is even now arriving. Magna est veritas et prævalebit.

Do we mean to say, that during all that period the Church of which we are members was immaculate? Not so; we are no believers in that imaginary Church militant which claims to anticipate the glories of the Church triumphant; which, even here on earth, boasts that within her pale there grows pure wheat altogether unmingled with tares; which, even here, hopes to succeed in ejecting from her precincts the whole of the uncircumcised and the unclean. No; such a Church may have been imagined by Donatists; may have been the day-dream of a Kirkton; may have suited the poetic fancy of him who pourtrayed the “milkwhite hind,"

"Without unspotted, innocent within ;"

but it cannot be supposed to have been realised as yet by fair and candid students of Ecclesiastical History. Here, "we have this

treasure in earthen vessels;" the general faults of an age, the defects of a particular race and nation-and each has its defectswill in this world sully the form that in itself is most fair and excellent.

But if, by any chance, the eye of a Presbyterian reader should light upon these pages, we would wish, calmly and temperately, to ask such an one, whether it is quite reasonable to accept the character of a rival communion entirely, or almost entirely, at the hands of these four witnesses? Let us imagine, for a moment, that it was the character of an individual that was at stake in a court of justice. Let us suppose that of four men who bore testimony against him, it was shown that one was a dreamer, whose own friends were obliged to confess that his visions were pure imaginations, wholly unbased on facts; that a second was most credulous and superstitious on all points that made in favour of his own side, and strongly suspected of garbling the documents of his opponents; that a third had once been a friend of the accused, but had deserted him under circumstances which made it his interest to blacken those whom he had once praised, and to bestow praise where he had once dealt the severest censure; and that the fourth was proved, by his own admission, to have been a hireling and a traitor to all parties. Those sentiments which, in such case, it would be right to feel towards one so accused, the same, we would earnestly plead, should be cherished by lovers of truth towards this loudlycondemned Established Church of A.D. 1661 to 1690. Never, perhaps, in the annals of Christendom has the history of a religious community been (until lately) so largely handed down and commented on by its keenest enemies alone. We have far too great confidence in our cause to wish for anything but truth. Let all our faults be told; we trust that we are prepared to confess and to deplore them. But while we ask of our critics, that they would "nothing extenuate;" we also entreat them, quite as much for their own sakes as for ours, that they would likewise strive to carry out the spirit of the context. A Church so long misrepresented may well exclaim

DR LEE AND THE REFORM OF THE ESTABLISHED
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

WHATEVER weight we may attribute to the authority and opinions of Dr Robert Lee, or whatever estimate we may have formed of his taste, judgment, and learning, it is impossible to deny that he has fairly established a claim to be heard on the general ecclesiastical and social questions of the day. We have no sympathy whatever with the endeavours which have been made in some quarters to put him down, and to undervalue his ability and earnestness in regard to the Reformation he is anxious to bring about in the ecclesiastical character and ritual of the Established Kirk. The end he has at present in view will not, we feel persuaded, satisfy himself, should he ever attain to it. As he mounts higher and higher on the upward path of success he will see height after height, of which he does not dream now, rising above him. And from what we know of his courage and consistency, we do not doubt that as each successive one comes into view, he and his friends will brace themselves manfully to the task of surmounting it. His aim now is altogether praiseworthy and such as, we feel, ought to be an object of sympathy to every member of our communion. He wishes to reform the habits and customs which have almost banished even the semblance of religious worship from Presbyterian congregations. He is sensible of the evils of extempore prayer being the only mode allowable in the public service of the Sanctuary. He desires to see the worshippers of God kneeling reverently to offer their petitions with one mind and one mouth, and standing when they sing the praises of the Almighty in Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs. Boldly confessing the near approach of his Brethren to the practice of the Church of Rome in their dealing with the Bible; in no way hiding the truth, that as a rule the Word of God is not openly read to Presbyterian Congregations, but only some selected chapters and passages at the option of the Minister, he advocates the restoration of the Holy Scriptures to the position which they hold in the Anglican Churches. With much sense and good reason he argues for the adoption of seasons in the Ecclesiastical year which shall specially commemorate the great events and doctrines on which Christianity is founded. Nor does he shrink from encountering prejudices and abuse which were sure to be excited by the proposal to introduce the use of organs, the practice of Private Communion of the Sick and Dying, the adoption of a prescribed service for Matrimony and the Burial of

VOL. I.-NO. VII.

2 H

the Dead into the Scottish Kirk. He has gone as far as law and the forbearance of the General Assembly will allow in showing how ready many of his fellow Presbyterians are to welcome and adopt these views and customs. We can hardly imagine any one being present at the services in the Greyfriars Church in Edinburgh, without wishing from his heart that all other ministers and congregations were like Dr Robert Lee and his congregation in these respects-without confessing that the reverence, hearty congregational singing, and general demeanour of the worshippers may well be looked upon as a rebuke, and worthy model of imitation to many Episcopalian congregations.

Dr Robert Lee has published a book in order to stimulate the movement in favour of Ritual in his own communion. We almost doubt the wisdom of this step. Are things ready for it, in the first place? Was it needed? Will it effect its purpose? We must determine these questions by a consideration of the Book itself. Its title is alarming. Dr Lee aims at a Reformation. This is a bold avowal. The author proceeds to argue out the grounds on which he maintains the need of a Reformation, and nothing short of it; and then gives a statement of the particular reforms he wishes to effect, and the reasons which may be adduced in their favour. Dr Lee must be necessarily better informed than we are, and he and his friends will doubtless think us somewhat presumptuous in even casting doubts on the wisdom of publishing this book. But we do doubt it, because we think that the practical arguments which may be drawn from the congregation of the Greyfriars, and the quiet growth of a feeling in favour of the ritual and practices which have conduced to make it what it is, are both more potent and more promising methods of advancing his cause. The book is really a pamphlet bound in boards, and must necessarily be ephemeral. We want something deeper, more really learned, less questionable in taste and expression, to become in the Church of Scotland what Hooker, and Strype, and Nicholls, and Comber, and Cardwell, and Palmer, and Lathbury, and Procter, are among ourselves. It contains ad captandum arguments addressed to the minds and circumstances of the present day. It does not, like the great work of Hooker, find in the eternal laws of God, and the depths of a true, living Theology, the real fountain of worship and ritual. Dr Lee is rather the smart debater than the learned theologian. We use the latter term in its truest and highest sense, as indicating one who seeks in the knowledge of God alone, the source from which all law, and order, and piety must be drawn. Dr Lee, by taking ex

ception to the dogmatic tone of the English Prayer Book on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, has done himself and his cause injustice. At any rate, all Church history will tell him that it is not minds of his order, or holding such views, who have ever really reformed the Church, or left their impress on the ecclesiastical and devotional habits of their fellow-Christians.

We earnestly hope, however, that these drawbacks in the book, and in the mind of its author, will in no way hinder our fellowchurchmen from wishing God-speed to the movement of which it is a fruit. Nothing could be more shortsighted than for us to sneer at and decry a work of this sort because it does not come quite up to our standard. It is a movement in the right direction. We should recognise it, and hail it with sympathy and encouragement. Instead of meeting it with abuse, and with charges of inconsistency, we should be thankful for the signs it manifeststhat prejudices are being broken down, gulfs of separation being bridged over, a fairer field opening around us on every side for the calm discussion of the views which once could not be mentioned, still less acted on, without raising a storm. We should above all pray most earnestly and lovingly that God would purify our hearts and minds from all that hinders us from Godly union and concord; that He would take away all conceit and selfseeking and ignorance from us; that whatever the leaders and actors in the movement may be, He would be pleased to over-rule all their acts, and thoughts, and desires, to the furtherance of His own glory, and of the great ends of our Redemption and Sanctification through Jesus Christ.

Dr Lee, too, we are persuaded, will join in the prayer that no failing, or weakness, or error of his may be allowed for one instant to affect the character of the cause for which he pleads, or to prejudice the minds of men against it. We have wished to show our good will and good wishes for him and his friends. We earnestly desire for them and for ourselves the teaching and the grace of God, that in humility and self-distrust we may do only His will, and maintain His cause.

There are parts of Dr Lee's Book which demand special notice from us. But we reserve the consideration of them for our next number, in the hope that we may have so far established friendly relations with him, as to give greater weight in his mind to what we shall have to say about his chapters on Secessions to the Episcopal Church, and on the Book of Common Prayer.