of Ham. As his posterity were doomed to be the servantø of servants, it is thought that some peculiar mark was set upon them, which, it is presumed, was the dark colour of the skin, and the crisped and wooly hair. And in confirmation of this opinion, they allege, that the black people are the descendants of Ham, and that they are the slaves of all the world, until this day.

While I am willing to admit, that God might, for reasons unknown to us, have miraculously changed the complexion and features, of a part of the human race; I must think, that the idea that the black colour was inflicted as a disgrace and a curse, is a mere prejudice. Why should not the white colour be considered as a mark of God's displeasure? for, no negro from the burning sands of Africa, can appear more shocking to the inhabitants of northern regions, than the white man does to the people of the interior of that continent.

It seems, moreover, to be a prejudice without foundation, that the colour of the whites was that of the first man. Much the larger part of the inhabitants of the earth, are of a complexion nearly midway between the two extremes. Is it not, therefore, much more probable, that our first parents were red men, or of an olive or copper colour? And this opinion derives some support from the name of the first man; for the radical signification of Adam is red. And if this be assumed as a fact, then it will be much easier to account for the various complexions of men, from natural causes, than if we suppose that either white or black was the original complexion.

But from what has been said, it will be seen, that no valid argument against the truth of the Bible can be derived from the variety, in the human species; whether that variety can be accounted for by natural causes, or not.

Note.-Other observations, omitted for want of room, will be deferred to some other occasion.-A.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN PRUSSIA.

The relation in which church and state stand to each other, and their reciprocal duties, is one of those difficult points, on which there has always been great diversity of opinion. One theory would represent the church, contemplating as she does, the moral and religious culture of men, and divinely appointed for the attainment of this object, as thereby so far exalted above the state, that the latter is bound, not only to render her all necessary aid, but also, to conform all its own movements to her directions. To this subordinate condition had the Romish church reduced almost all the governments of Europe, during the middle ages. Another theory, on the other extreme, regards the state, as designed to promote the attainment of all the objects, for which men are sent into the world, and consequently considers the church, only as an instrument in its hands, for the accomplishment of one of its multifarious purposes. A third, considers them as distinct institutions, yet having so many objects and interests in common, as to render it necessary, that they should be under one common head, and that the right of self-regulation, on the part of the church, should be restricted to very narrow bounds. A fourth, by proposing to the state no other object, than the temporal well-being of society, and supposing that the moral and religious interests of men, can be best promoted by an institution designed expressly and exclusively for that purpose, regards the church and state as essentially distinct, both as to their ends and the means of their attainment; and requires, that each should independently pursue its object, by any means not inconsistent with the rights of the other.

In point of fact, whatever theory may be invented to account for, or defend it, the whole power in the church in Prussia, and most other parts of Protestant Germany, is in the hands of the state; and has been so from the period of the reformation. The church in that country, has never enjoyed a separate and independent organization. In the unavoidable confusion, consequent on the disruption of former ties, at the time of the reformation, the power which had been previously exercised by the Catholic Bishops, was assumed without resistance by the Protestant Princes, who have retained it ever since. In England where the Bishops took part in the reformation, the previously existing organization of the church, was in a great measure retained; in France and other places, where both government and Bishops opposed it, the church was formed into an independent society; but in Germany, the Princes taking part in the work, felt authorized to assume the helm, which the church dignitaries had abandoned. The Germans have quietly acquiesced in this state of things, for more than three centuries. Recently, however, this subject has called forth a great deal of attention, and numerous works have been published, discussing the various questions connected with ecclesiastical government, and the rights of the church.

The attempt of the king of Prussia, to introduce a new liturgy into all the Lutheran and Reformed chuches (now united under the name "Evangelical"), has been one of the principal means of exciting this interest. As early as 1798, the present king appointed a commission of Lutheran and Reformed clergymen, for the purpose of forming a new book of prayer. Political events, however, turned the attention of the government to other subjects and the matter was dropped. In 1814, this commission was renewed; but before any result of their labors was made known, a new liturgy was introduced in the King's chapel and garrison church in Potsdam, and in 1821 another was published, for the whole

Prussian army. An edition, somewhat enlarged and altered, was published in 1822, designed, in the first instance, for the court-church in Berlin. The King, however, expressed in a cabinet order, his particular wish, that it might be adopted by all the superintendents and pastors, throughout the kingdom. The majority of the clergy declared themselves averse to its adoption, and desired that a synod should be called, to take the matter into consideration, before any decisive measures were taken. In 1823, some further alterations were made'; and in 1824, the clergy were called upon to answer, with a simple yes or no, whether they would receive the new agenda or not. The majority answered in the affirmative; the minority, however, was considerable, and from the character of many of the men, of whom it was composed, of no little weight. The clergy of Berlin, supported by the magistracy of the city, were particularly strenuous in their opposition. The government became now more urgent, and such was the force of hope or fear, on the minds of those who were originally opposed to the measure, that in 1825 it was found, that of the 7782 evangelical churches of Prussia, 5343 had consented to receive the new liturgy. When this result was known, the government required of all the clergy, either to adopt the new form, or to confine themselves exclusively to such as had been previously in use in their several churches; and not to allow themselves, the liberty of using what form they pleased, or none at all. This called forth an earnest protest, on the part of the clergy of Berlin, (at least of twelve of their num. ber,) in which the objections to the new agenda, and the manner of its introduction were forcibly stated.

The government now proceeded to more decisive measures, and ordered that no clergyman, who should be appointed to any congregation, where the new liturgy had been introduced, should be confirmed in his appointment, unless he bound himself to adopt it; and if it had not been previously

used, to endeavour to secure its introduction. This induced some of the clergy in Berlin, to demand, that cither the reception of the agenda should be left optional, or that the union between the Reformed and Lutheran churches, should be dissolved; in order, that the former, at least, whose mode of conducting the public worship had been sanctioned by former sovereigns, might be allowed to maintain their peculiar usages. No attention was paid to this representation, and so powerful was governmental favor, that in the fall of 1826, six sevenths of the clergy, had submitted to the will of the king. The opposition of the people, in some places, however, especially in the Rhine provinces, was so decided, that the congregations threatened to forsake the church entirely, if the pastors should introduce the new liturgy.

This opposition has proceeded from men of all religious parties, and been supported on very various grounds; on the character of the book itself; on the manner of its introduction; and on a disinclination to be tied down to any form. The most distinguished advocates for the introduction of the new agenda, were Augusti and Ammon, and its most celebrated opposers Schleiermacher of Berlin, and Nitzsch of Bonn. The objections, founded on the character of the book, though numerous, were of minor importance, as it is formed on the model of the ancient liturgies, and is admitted to be really evangelical. The essential doctrines of the gospel, especially those, of the sinfulness of men, of the atonement and the trinity, are prominently presented. The mere faults of arrangement, and of due proportion between its several parts, would not have called forth so general and serious a resistance. No part of the contents of the book, gave more offence, than the oath, which it required should be taken by all ministers, at their ordination. This oath, bound them, not only to fidelity to the symbolical books of the church, but also to allegiance to the king, as their sovereign, and supreme Bishop. They were required to swear,