such a system to keep up the unholy alliance, and cement parts, which, in their native properties, were so discordant. This system appears to us less calculated, than either of the others, to encourage the growth of religious truth and liberty; yet, as we do not hold religion to consist in forms, we believe, that whatever these may be, they do not necessarily restrain the exercise and the increase of piety in the heart, or of the practical virtues. For this reason, we form our estimate of the religious qualifications of others by their persons, and not by their mode of worship; by their practice, and not by their faith; by their virtues, and not by their creeds.

The Independent system was revived nearly two hundred and fifty years ago by Brown in England, and was soon after introduced into Holland. Its first advocates were called Brownists. It was modified and systematized by John Robinson, who was for some time minister of a congregation of Brownists at Leyden. From this period, the followers of Brown and Robinson, and all, who complied with their form of church government, were denominated Independents.* The name had no regard to doctrines; for although most of the Independents were Calvinists, some of them were nevertheless Arminians; and in later times, christians holding to every variety of doctrine have arranged themselves under this title. It relates exclusively to ecclesiastical government.

Mosheim supposes the name may have been derived from a passage in Robinson's writings, where he says, in speaking of his views of church government; Cœtum quemlibet particularem esse totam, integram, et perfectam ecclesiam ex suis partibus constantem, immediatè et Independenter (quoad alias ecclesias) sub ipso Christo. Apologia, cap. v. p. 22.

We have been led into these observations from a knowledge, that erroneous representations have been circulated respecting the import of the name Independent Church, as adopted by a society in this city. It has been said, that it implied a freedom of thought, a latitude of sentiment, a resoluteness of inquiry, an inde pendence of action, which those, who take the name, conceive are not common, or allowable, in other societies. This report is gratuitous, and without truth. Whatever may be the fact involving these points, it is certain they have no bearing on the name under discussion. This relates simply to the form of church government, which the persons, constituting this society, choose to establish, as the system of external order and discipline, and which they believe most nearly to resemble that of the first Christians. That is, they hold it to be the province of every christian congregation to regulate its own concerns, to form its own rules, to choose its minister, and to appoint such a mode of ordination, as they shall deem expedient. They believe this liberty essential to the universal prosperity of the christian church, and that the Scriptures themselves are sufficient on this subject, without any aid from the wisdom, counsels, or deliberations of men in forming laws and regulations, which shall be binding on those, who have no voice in framing them, and who may not be able to perceive their agreement with the word of God. They believe Christ to be the supreme head of his church, and that every man may be his sincere and acceptable follower, who obeys his instructions with a pure heart, and makes his example the mode! of his life. Such rules of order, as will facilitate this purpose, and secure harmony and christian fellowship

among the members of a congregation statedly worshipping together, ought to be instituted and obeyed.

This plan does not preclude a mutual relation between distinct societies. It allows of an adjustment of difficulties, which may occur in any congregation, by a reference to the opinions, or advice, of any persons, who may be selected from other congregations by a mutual consent of the parties. Whenever a society adheres to the principles of regulating itself, free from the shackles of a contract or combination with other societies, it is strictly independent.

Congregationalists and Independents originally dif fered only in name; but latterly a large portion of the congregational churches, especially in this country, have suffered encroachments to be made on their independence, by uniting in conventions, associations, and consociations. If this system aimed at nothing more than mutual advice, encouragement, and aid, it would be consistent with Independency. But when it is extended so far, as to allow a certain number of clergymen of different congregations to consociate and eject one of their brethren from his office, even against the consent of a majority of the congregation to which he belongs, it is in vain to look any longer for freedom, or to talk of independence. You have as potent a hierarchy as the most ambitious head of the papal see could ever have desired. The proper system of Independency considers every congregation competent to elect and discharge its minister, and to decide on all cases of misdemeanor, as well in respect to him as to each member. The Cambridge Platform, and the Plymouth Platform, have served as rules of discipline to most of the congregational churches in New England; but neither of them is consistent with scriptural free

dom. Of the latter, indeed, which is confined chiefly to Connecticut, it can hardly be said, that, in its proper latitude and spirit, it has respect to civil, much less to religious liberty. May the day soon arrive, when the only platform of christian faith, practice, and discipline, shall be the unadulterated word of God.

Sparks' Letters on the Episcopal Church.

OUR brother editors of the Richmond Evangelical and Literary Magazine, have had this work under their notice during the last five months, and have at length closed their labours. Their remarks are chiefly confined to the two last letters. Let none of our readers imagine, however, that this deliberate movement of the reviewers indicates any want of talent for despatch. By a dexterous management, they have contrived to embrace two objects in the same plan. A late work of the Rev. John Pye Smith is united with the Letters on the Episcopal Church, and made to take a leading part in the article.

The reviewers' principal task has been to give a sort of abridgment, or abstract, of Dr. Smith's work. Through their optics, every thing here is seen in most captivating colours; and to their judgment, all is wise, and profound, and learned, and convincing. But when Mr. Sparks' two last letters cross their vision, all these ima ges suddenly vanish, and the unfortunate reviewers are left to brood over a melancholy wreck of perverted intellect, and wasted attainments. The author's temerity is discovered to be inconsiderate, his arguments weak, his decisions inconclusive, his interpretations forced, his criticisms unnatural, his knowledge limited, his opinions

ridiculous. All he has said, in fact, is represented as running into some extreme either of folly or extravagance, of weakness or absurdity. Our greatest wonder has been, that the learned reviewers should think it worth while to bestow so much consideration on a work of such a character.

But we are not about to solve this problem, nor to discuss the accuracy of their opinions, or the merits of their performance. We have a word or two only to say on some of their closing observations. In alluding to Mr. Sparks' Letters they remark;

"We can neither approve the spirit nor the execution of the work before us.

We admit, that he says many

things truly, and many things well; but considering that no small part of the work is not an answer to Dr. Wyatt's Sermon, but a direct attack on the Episcopal Church, we do think that he, without occasion for it, says many things calculated to wound the feelings of our episcopal brethren. In many instances there is an air of haughtiness and of scorn, which Mr. Sparks is not warranted to assume. Because Dr. Wyatt showed himself unacquainted with biblical criticism, in its present improved state, did Mr. Sparks take him as a fair sample of southern clergymen, and suppose that he might without check or control throw out the rash interpretations of unitarian critics? One would imagine, that he thought his opponents ignorant of the first principles of their profession, as scripture interpreters, and that he might give himself full license on this subject."

Now in regard to the spirit of Mr. Sparks' work, we are persuaded the reviewers have been more hasty than discreet in their judgment. They are too sharp sighted and fastidious. The general voice of its readers is decidedly adverse to them. If we mistake not, it has