NOTE C.

The tendency of Congregationalism.

Pure Congregationalism we believe to be as impracticable in the church as a pure democracy in the state, and both to be subversive of all government and society, and a return to the condition of nature, or of families, which is the next thing to it. Congregationalism, as it now exists, has so far allied itself to the principles of Pesbyterianism as to adcpt practically many of the essential features of the system. But pure Congregationalism as it formerly existed, and as it now exists in some parts of England, must be either a monarchy or an anarchy. M. Beverly, Esquire, thinks that as found in England it is an ecclesiastical monarchy. "Certainly," he says.* "we might on a lower ground embarrass the Congregational dissenters, by requesting them to explain the monarchical form of their ministerial government; for, whatever may be their opinions of the ministerial office, this is certain, that they cannot, and would not, endeavor to defend the monarchy of the ministry, by reference to the Scriptures, or even to the well-known records of the first and second centuries of church history. All the Congregational dissenters have, in practice, rejected the plurality of ministers, and have settled down into the monarchical form of government, without the pretence of an argument in favor of certificate from the Vestry of his Church of his being authorized by them to do so.

In 1810, (Dalcho, p. 511,) the motion was renewed to prevent a Clergyman from voting when his Lay-Delegates were not present; and was postponed to the next Convention.

It appears that there was no meeting in 1811; and in 1812, (Dalcho, p. 516,) the motion was taken up, and indefinitely postponed. The article was then amended giving the Clergy "a right to vote on all matters requiring the suffrages" of the Convention.

In 1813, (Dalcho, p. 524,) it was determined that the Bishop should "always be, ex-officio, President of the Convention."

In 1814, (Dalcho, pp. 530 and 532,) the third rule was again amended, limiting the suffrage of the Clergy to matters not involving the temporal concerns of the Churches, except authorized to vote on those matters by their Churches.

In 1821, (page 21 of the Journal,) on a revision of the Rules, it was proposed to allow the vote by orders. This was lost, there not being a constitutional majority of two-thirds; 13 churches voting for, and 7 churches against it. In the same year Missionaries were allowed a seat in the house. In 1824, (Journal, p. 19,) the Constitution was amended so as to allow the vote by orders. Thus giving a death-blow to long-existing prejudices and jealousies.

The extent to which this jealousy was formerly carried in this State was to reject altogether the office of Bishop (see the author's work on Presbytery and Prelacy, p. 528 and 538) on account of its hierarchical despotism. Now the laity are crushed beneath the idol car of this dominant hierarch, so that a Rector is forced to express rejoicing in the prostration of the laity and in his own permission to be even one of the "inferior clergy." As it is now it is idle to talk of the rights or power of the laity in the Episcopal church, since in a vote by orders of all the laity are opposed by a majority of the clergy they are overruled, and THE BISHOP can vote both. *Heresy of Human Priesthood, p. ii. and xii.

such an arrangement. Hence, they are endeavoring to circulate opinions favorable to a large increase of clerical power; which, if it should be successful, would place them in a higher position with regard to the laity, than even the Presbyterian clergymen; for the Presbyterian must submit to the decisions of his clerical brethren in general assembly and to his lay brethren in the session; but in the Congregational system, each church is independent, and therefore the Congregational clergymen would govern, unchecked by an appeal, in the convenient arrangement of an independent monarchy."

Such also is the view taken of the system in England, by the Rev. Mr. Cumming of London.† "Where the minister," he says, "is popular and able to fill his pews with plenty of seat-holders, he can, as he does generally, play the absolute despot. His deacons are his servants, and his members are his subjects. But where the minister is a man of moderate talents, as most men are, neither attractive nor popular, the case is wholly altered. Mr. Angel James's LORD DEACONS then start into power; church-meetings record their convictions of a "dying interest;" and the poor man is cashiered by the same democracy that called him into prominence. Such a man is not an independent minister; he is rather the minister of an independent congregation. This system is opposed alike to the word of God, the first principles of all social existence, and the interests of ministers and of people."

On the other hand the Plymouth brethren have set up the government of the brethren to the exclusion of any government by a pastorate or ministry. So that with them the laity are every thing and the ministry nothing. Here we have ecclesiastical anarchy.

In pure Congregationalism, therefore we have unbounded equality, but not perfect freedom, since there are no intermediate bodies or powers to protect the people from the dominion of the pastor, or of any leader in the congregation; or on the other hand to protect the pastor from the anarchical ebullition of popular disaffection. The system of pure Congregationalism is therefore wholly unlike our republican or representative system. Whatever analogy may be found to it in any single congregation, there can be none discovered in the system as a whole. There is in it no principle of union, or confederation, no delegation of powers, no balance of responsibilities, and no mutual recognition of responsibility and co-operation; and AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT therefore, Congregationalism can have no resemblance whatever to a confederated government, which out of many bodies constitutes one; nor even to a state +Apology for the Church of Scotland, p. 12. Dr. Vaughan's Congreg. pp. 176, 177.

government, which implies the union of many townships and districts. It is in short NO SYSTEM of ecclesiastical government at all, but a number of ecclesiastical families living under one civil government, and by it held together, but having no ecclesiastical existence as a body, except so far as it adopts practically the essential principles of a presbyterial or confederated government.