the church had two or three heads at once, and the rival Popes were assailing each other with excommunications, maledictions, and all sorts of hostile measures. Above all, there was the rising of John Wickliffe, "the morning star of the reformation," whose light was not extinguished till the reformation came. It scarcely need be said that the reformation of the six-" teenth century shook the Pontifical throne to its foundation, and delivered half Europe from that miserable thraldom in which it had been for long ages bound.

The forms of government adopted among the Protestant churches of Europe, after the Reformation, were various. The Lutherans of Denmark, Sweden and Norway are Episcopal. The Lutherans of Germany may be said to be Episcopal, all but the name. What would be bishops in Denmark are called in Germany Superintendents. They are appointed by government, and claim no Episcopal succession from the Apostles.

Of the Reformed churches, so called in distinction from the Lutheran, the church of England, and its branches, only are Episcopal. The monarch of England is the nominal head of the church, and under him are the bishops and archbishops, in their respective provinces and dioceses, much after the pattern of the church in the days of Constantine.

The form of government preferred by Calvin, and which he caused to be established, whenever his pupils were scattered, or his influence extended, was Presbyterian. Such were not only the Swiss churches, but the churches of Scotland, of Holland, and the Reformed churches of France. These were all Presbyterian, though not after precisely the same model. There are circumstantial differences, for example, between the Dutch Reformed churches, and the Scottish churches, and yet both are Presbyterian. They have but one order of ministers, viz presbyters; and have their ecclesiastical courts, in which rules are framed, and questions and controversies are decided for the churches.

In one respect, the early Protestant churches were all much alike. They were closely united with the state; and so the most of them in Europe remain to this day. The union of church and state, as we have seen, was not of Divine or Apostolic origin. It was not known in the church for the first three hundred years. But when the Roman empire became Christian, under Constantine, this union was consummated, and it has continued, in most countries, to the present time. The Reformation, which shook off so many additions and corruptions, did not reach this. The Protestant churches of Europe, for the most part, are as closely united with the state, as the

Romish. This unnatural union was brought by our forefathers to America, and was in full operation here almost to our own. times.

This union of church and state was established by Constantine, no doubt, with the best intentions. This first Christian Emperor thought he was conferring a great favor upon the church, in taking it into the embrace, and under the direction of the civil power. But the experience of 1400 years has shown, that the church is in the safest and best condition, when left to the free development of its own vital, spiritual energies. It needs simple protection from the state, and nothing more.

We have seen that the churches, for the first 150 years, after Christ, were independent bodies, amenable to no earthly jurisdiction out of themselves. We have seen, too, how and when their original dependence was taken away. It may be interesting to inquire when it began to be restored.

The first Congregational and Baptist churches were established in England, near the beginning of the seventeenth century. We hear of a Congregational church in London, as early as the year 1616. We know that there was one in the north of England, some eight or ten years previous to this. But Congregational churches had no toleration in England, at that period. They were hunted and persecuted, and had no resting place. In consequence of continual vexations and persecutions, the church in the North of England, with its pastor, John Robinson, and its elder, William Brewster, migrated to Holland, in the year 1610. Here these brethren continued for about ten years, when they formed the resolution, (or a part of them did,) of embarking for America. They arrived at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in December, 1620, and commenced the settlement of the Plymouth colony. They were followed by large numbers of the like faith, ministers and others, who settled at Salem and Boston in the years 1629-30; and from these small beginnings, originated the Congregationalists of this country.

The Baptist churches, which like the Congregationalists, are independent in government, commenced their settlement in this country a little later, and for the first hundred years increased not so rapidly; but have now become a very large body of Christians. The whole number of their communicants in the United States is much larger than that of the Congregationalists.

And while the independent form of church government has thus been spreading in this country, it has greatly prospered and prevailed in England. The number of Congregational

churches in Great Britain is probably as great as in the United States. The number of Baptist churches is not so large there as here; though they constitute in England a highly respectable and influential body of Christians.

So far as the original, Apostolic principle of independency is concerned, the churches of Christendom may be divided into two classes; those holding it, and those rejecting it. Those rejecting it, are, indeed, much the largest class; including the Roman Catholics, the Greek churches, the Armenians, the Nestorians, the Copts, and other Oriental sects, the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians of all classes, and the Wesleyan Methodists. Those of the other class include the Congregationalists, the Baptists of all classes, and perhaps some smaller sects.

These are sometimes reproached for their recent origin, having been in existence, it is said, only some 250 years. But they disclaim so recent an origin. They trace their history back to the Apostles. They claim that all the churches were independent for the first 150 years; and that their appearance in modern times is but the recovery, the restoration of the primitive, Apostolic order, which ought never to have been given up.

If it be asked, in conclusion, What is the best form of church government? we cannot quite answer with some: That which is best administered. Much depends, certainly, on a wise and faithful administration of church government; and yet it cannot be doubted that some forms are better adapted than others to the free and full development of the spirit and influence of the gospel. Any forms which tend to fetter this spirit and influence, or prevent them, or check them in their onward course, cannot be regarded as coming from God, or as entitled to his approbation.

It is a recommendation, certainly, of the Congregational form, that it originated with the Apostles; that it had in the first ages, the seal and sanction of the Holy Ghost. We do not say that this consideration ought to tie us up to this form, as of Divine right, and forbid, under all circumstances, our adopting any other. But we do say that the consideration above suggested is a recommendation of it.

It is a further recommendation of Congregationalism to the American people, that it is a free, republican character, and better adapted than any other to our civil institutions, and though it may be urged, as it has been, that this form of church government is loose and irresponsible; that it has not enough of strengh to secure the highest prosperity of the church; we

may ask in reply, Were not the Apostolic churches in a prosperous state? What churches have ever exhibited more life and expansive energy, than they? And among the churches of modern times, where shall we look for more of vitality and vigor, than in the Baptist and Congregational churches of England and America?

We conclude all with saying, that it becomes evangelical Christians in these times, those who agree in holding the Head, and profess to love the Lord Jesus Christ,-to discuss questions of church order and government in a spirit of mutual kindness and charity; ever remembering that he is the best Christian, who most consistently follows the Saviour, and best exemplifies the precepts of the gospel. "What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord?"

ART. X.-NOTICES OF BOOKS.

The Problem Solved: or Sin not of God. By MILES P. SQUIER, D. D., Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy, Beloit College. New York: M. W. Dodd, 1855. (pp. 255.) New Haven: F. T. Jarman.

THE Problem Solved! After reading this book, with such an attractive title, the words of Dr. Young occurred to us: "The world's all title page; there's no contents." We do not mean by this, that we were not interested in the book, but that we read it without finding a solution, or even a full statement of the problem which we expected. A proposition was dis cussed, but the problem was not solved. Neither do we mean to assert that the book has not many valuable thoughts, and amply repays a careful reading. There is an unusual degree of life and power in some parts of it; an agreeable freshness in the mode of expressing some truths; and often a conciseness of statement which quickens the mind of the reader, and demands reflection. This quality of the book does not belong to all publications of the present day.

Some grave errors in philosophy and theology, in reference

to motives, propensities and "ab extra" influences, in their relation to moral freedom, are pointedly exposed. It is clearly enough illustrated that no accumulation of motive involves a necessity of action; that man is not obliged to yield to his propensities, but possesses an inherent ability by which he may resist and overcome them; that it is a fact of consciousness that no outside influences possess the nature of causation to acts of will; and that within the sphere of responsibility the mind must be free and elective. The object of this part of the discussion is "to cut off the reference of sin to its antecedents, and to limit it to its appropriate place in the conscious activities of the voluntary faculty." Dr. Squier then refutes the error which, since Dr. Emmons is no more, has few advocates,- that God is the only efficient cause." As a corollary from this, he states another error to be, "that all things occur in some proper sense, in accordance with the mind and will of God." We do not see the necessary connection or correlation of these two statements. The first may be an error, and not the last. Every moral agent, made in the image of God, may be as properly a cause as God himself; and it may still be true that all things occur in some proper sense in accordance with his mind and will. It cannot be doubted that God must have foreseen the results of the order or economy of things which He adopted; and if so, the purposes of God in respect of His own acts of creation and providence, must secure the certainty of all events, including the actions of moral beings. He creates them as efficient causes in themselves, with a knowledge of their future actions. Whatever events therefore are foreknown as certain-including the actions of moral beings, right and wrong-the ground of their certainty being the divine arrangement of the moral system in which they occur, -without the slightest infringement of free agency, there is a "proper sense," in which they are in accordance with the mind and will of God. We do not say or intimate that all events, including sin, are, in such a sense, according to the will of God as to meet his approbation, or indicate his preference, respecting particular acts, to others in their place, though they may be in the sense of being liable, or incidental, or necessary, to the moral system which he has actually chosen. It is in reference to this particular that the book of Dr. Squier is open to very serious objection. He asserts that God purposes only what He does and as He does it as efficient and responsible cause; so that "it is an utterly absurd idea that sin is the way and method of the Deity, and in any sense a matter of His arrangement and proposition; it is utterly impossible that God