begin to take such names as Zion, Moriah, Salem, Bethany, Olivet, Hermon, Calvary, Nazareth. Or a name may be preferred that is more distinctly redolent of some great Christian truth, or of some characteristic Christian sentiment-such as Grace, Redemption, Providence, Hope, Perseverance; but the danger is that such names will be too quaint or far-fetched, or may have the effect of investing great truths with undevout associations. And generally this whole method of nomenclature in which names are given to churches according to the taste or fancy of the people who unite in forming them, is liable to the objection that the taste and fancy of those who constitute the church may happen to be ludicrously misdirected; and thus some Congregational church might be as oddly named as that odd-looking structure, yclept St. Gabriel's, which rears its uncouth figure hard by a certain railroad, as if it were trying to frighten the iron horse as Balaam's ass was frightened by the angel.

But it is time that we return from this digression to our inquiring stranger. His next discovery is that the Episcopalians have no other church-covenant than that which is implied in baptism. He finds that in their assemblies all receive the Lord's Supper who have been baptized as adults, "and all who, having been baptized in infancy, renew their covenant and profess their faith in the presence of the congregation." He finds furthermore that with them all "discipline is in the hands of the pastor," so that they have no church-meetings, or meetings of the communicants, for the exercise of discipline. The minister, however, "can not excommunicate, except where there is plain and undoubted proof of such guilt as, even in the judgment of charity, can not exist along with a true repentance." And yet discipline when it must be exercised, is exercised by the minister. Thus it happens that among the Episcopalians, "the stranger hears nothing of investigations, trials, committees, divisions amongst neighbors concerning some scandalous story."

What his meditations are on these points of information, the respected author does not distinctly tell us. We think however that a shrewd New England man, familiar with the New Testament, would reflect and reason somewhat after this manner. 'As to the conditions and method of admission to the Lord's table, I do not see that these Episcopalians, if their way is correctly represented, differ much from us, except in form. My old minister used to speak of baptism as admission into Christ's church; he always told us that the children of believing parents belong to the church, and that their baptism is the acknowledgment of that relation to the church which is theirs by inheritance. When I made what we call a personal profession of religion before the congregation, I understood that I was renewing the covenant which my parents made in my behalf when they offered

me to God in baptism; and that the faith which I then professed was that in which I had been trained. And as to the question of who shall be excluded from communion, I see no great difference in theory. Our churches "can not excommunicate, except where there is plain and undoubted proof of such guilt as, even in the judgment of charity, can not exist along with a true repentance." Of them, not less than of those who rule in the Episcopal church, it is true that they can not impose terms of communion which Christ has not commanded; "that they can not search the hearts of their brethren;" and that " they must not expel any whom their Master may admit." But as for the idea that discipline when exercised must be exercised by the minister alone,-I do not see how it is to be reconciled with the New Testament. Certainly there were in the church at Corinth, those very things which Episcopalianism glories in getting rid of a "scandalous story," an "investigation" or "trial," "divisions among neighbors," and "church-meetings, meetings of communicants, for the exercise of discipline." The Congregational system may have its inconveniences; but on this point I am sure it agrees, more nearly than the Episcopalian system, with the arrangements made by the Apostles.'

In the next place, the stranger being informed that in case of any mistake on the part of a minister in the exercise of discipline, an appeal may be made to the bishop, finds himself arriving at "that feature of the Episcopal church which gives its name: the Episcopal office, the office of bishops." He has read of bishops in the New Testament; but it is plain enough that they were nothing more than elders and that there was a plurality of them in a single congregation. But now he is reminded that Timothy and Titus, though not apostles, "were set over elders and were more than elders;" and he is led to ask, "What were they?" He looks through the epistles addressed to these men; and overlooking the fact that one of them is expressly called "an evangelist" he lights upon the confessedly spurious notes appended to these epistles, and reads that Timothy was "ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, and Titus the first bishop of the church of the Cretians." These statements, he is told, though they are no part of Scripture, "are very ancient ;" and he is supposed to be simple enough not to know that many errors and falsehoods, particularly in relation to this subject, "are very ancient." He is furthermore informed that "immediately after the times of the Apostles, all churches had bishops, who presided over the elders and deacons ;" and that unless he can find Congregational churches in the New Testament, "he can not find a single one in all the countries where the Apostles preached the gospel, nor in any other country, till modern times." He is reminded, withal, of certain martyrs and fathers of the second

century, who are named in history as bishops, and particularly of "Clement, one of the first bishops of Rome, who is mentioned by St. Paul as one of those whose names are in the book of life,' and who wrote an epistle to the Corinthians that is next to the New Testament in age, authority and spirit." And the impression which all this produces on his mind seems to be deep and strong. He has found" a church that has bishops still.”

But let us suppose that the stranger, instead of being quite carried away by these representations, dares to inquire a little for himself, looking into books of ecclesiastical history and taking the advice of some one who understands the other side of the question. He finds that the earliest bishops who appear authentically in ecclesiastical history, make their appearance not far from half a century after the date of Paul's last epistle to Timothy; and that of the changes which had taken place in that half century there is no record. He finds that the bishop in the second century, was the pastor not of a diocese but only of a parish. He finds that when the bishop began to be distinguished from his colleagues in the eldership, he was at first only a presiding presbyter, and as such the conductor of public worship. He finds that after the distinction between the bishop and his fellowelders was recognized, every church that had an altar had also its own bishop. He reads the epistle of Clement, as it is called; and it turns out to be in form and fact a letter not from the bishop of Rome but from the church-most palpably a letter of admonition from a Congregational church at Rome to a Congregational church at Corinth, on an occasion which seemed to require such an act of the communion of churches, and quite conformable to the provisions of the Cambridge Platform, Chap. 15, Sec. 2. He sees that the argument about the episcopal office, though at first sight quite imposing to his imagination, falls to pieces upon close inspection.

.

We have already followed the progress of the stranger farther than we intended. Should we follow him to the end of his experience, we should have occasion to touch in this cursory style on almost every difference between the system of the Episcopal church and the polity and worship of other Protestant churches. Every page would give hints on which we might speak-sometimes to acknowledge the good taste, the good sense or the evangelical spirit of the author-sometimes to expose the incautiousness with which "the stranger" yields his mind to sectarian representations or to sudden impressions. But we forbear. On the whole we recommend the book, very heartily, to Episcopalians, for in its spirit, in its representations of the nature of religion, and in its expositions of the usages and institutions of their church, it is much better than the general current of their sectarian literature.

ART. XII.-THE ENGLISH REVIEWS AND THE

FRENCH REVOLUTION.

Edinburgh Review. April, July, October, 1848.

London Quarterly Review. March, July, October, 1848.

We have determined to offer some thoughts on the views of the leading British journals respecting the late French Revolution; because the English press exerts a decided influence upon the opinion which large numbers of our people form of that event. For, besides the control which it has over that pretty numerous class of persons who look upon every thing in English type with what the London Quarterly Review would call a prescriptive reverence, it has misled many of our leading newspapers and reviews, and made them quite too ready to retail wares which were manufactured in England, it is not unlikely, for the foreign as well as for the home market. We shall, however, confine our remarks to the Edinburgh and London Quarterly Reviews, both because they are more extensively read than any others, and because they are the principal source from which many persons obtain their knowledge and opinions of European politics.

We have, also, another reason for presenting this subject to our readers. The contest, which is now going on in Europe, is a contest of principles, a contest, it might almost be said, between the American and the English principles of government. And, as the cause of the people is to be argued as well as fought, it has seemed to us the argument should not be entirely surrendered into the hands of English writers. The Reviews, to which we shall direct our attention, may be regarded as the principal champions on the side of aristocracy. For, though opposed to each other on most other subjects, on the question of an aristocratical government they act in concert. They differ only in the mode of warfare. The London Quarterly is contemptuous and abusive, but earnest and sincere in its defense of venerable wrong; the Edinburgh is more philosophical, with a greater show of candor, and more plausible. The former denies there is any need of change any where; the latter admits there might be some improvement, but thinks it better to await the growth of centuries. than to risk a revolution.

In order to fix some definite limits to our remarks, we shall in the first place examine the abstract question of the grounds and necessity of revolutions; and then consider the particular case of the late French Revolution.

The October number of the Edinburgh Review contains an elaborate article on "Revolution and Reform," in which the philosophical argument against "armed revolutions" is set forth with

much ingenuity. The doctrine of the writer is, "that where there is the shadow of a constitutional government, revolutions are never likely to pay." It is not quite clear in this statement of the question, what the shadow of a government precisely might be. For example, would the Magna Charta be considered as the shadow of a constitutional government? And if so, was there no appearance of it in the time of Charles I? Did England possess what might be called the shadow of a substance at the time of "the glorious revolution of 1688?" or was there nothing but the shade of a defunct constitution? Has Ireland now a constitution? She has sixty thousand voters out of eight millions of inhabitants-she has members of parliament,-but if the question of revolution should again arise, would it be on the point whether she had a constitution, or, whether her sufferings were not intolerable, and relief from them hopeless, otherwise than by force? What increases our perplexity, is, that while the writer would admit of no revolution against even the shadow of a constitution, he holds up England, the very mother of modern revolutions, as a model to other nations. But, we suppose he would make the question of revolution turn upon the question of the mere existence of a constitution, though his arguments, if valid at all, are equally so against revolutions under any form of government.

The first argument of the writer is drawn from what he calls the law of continuity in political developments. "All great political changes," he says, "should be gradual and continuous, wrought so as not to supersede, but to harmonize with preceding institutions, and so that there shall not only be no solution of continuity in the series of political developments, but even no visible danger of it." Now, the question is not, let it be observed, whether all changes should be made by revolution, but whether any should be. Unless, therefore, the writers intend to say that this law of continuity should never be broken, an assertion, which would condemn "the glorious Revolution of 1688," and which without proof would be a palpable begging of the question, his allegation about the importance of gradual changes in the laws, is an empty truism, applicable to ordinary cases of legislation, but not pertaining to those emergencies in which the question of revolution arises. But if he does intend to say this, we may fairly demand the proof of the assertion. It is not selfevident. There is nothing in the law itself which makes it necessary. But let us look a little more carefully into this law of continuity. What is it? Government, in its ultimate analysis, is the action of mind upon mind. The law of continuity in political development is a law of development in moral beings. The development, then, is not under the control of the laws of organic life, but is the action of intellect and will. The continuity of life in organic beings, it is true, can not be severed without