Congregationalism the most Scriptural system.

that Congregationalism is exactly conformed to the polity of the apostolic churches,-but we do assert, that in our opinion, the order and discipline of our churches, is more nearly in accordance with the scriptural model, than that of any other denomination; and perhaps, as much so, as the difference in our circumstances will admit.

This consideration may be addressed equally to those who deny that the Scriptures furnish any model of church government, and to those who admit that the great outlines, if not the minute particulars of church polity are given in the Scriptures.

Those who deny that the word of God furnishes any pattern for church building, will not object to the admission, that the church which has most of scriptural architecture about it, best deserves their regard.

Now, if it has been shown in the preceding pages, that all the fundamental principles, and essential doctrines of Congregationalism, have the sanction of scriptural precept or apostolic usage; and that the authorized practice, of this denomination is in nowise inconsistent with the same precepts and example:-then certainly, Congregationalism is scriptural; the word of God allows, but does not require the adoption of it. And, if Congregationalism is scriptural, then it is more scriptural than any other system, in just so much as any other system differs from this in its fundamental principles and doctrines; unless it can be proved that the Scriptures equally countenance different systems.

But, in what particulars do other systems of church government differ from this? All governments may, I conceive, be classed under three heads: Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical. The distinctive peculiarities

Episcopacy-Romish-English.

of these three forms may be intermixed in any given system; but all governments, ecclesiastical as well as civil, may be resolved into three constitutent parts.

The Episcopal form of church government may be regarded as monarchical, the Presbyterian as aristocratical, and the Congregational as democratical. The predominating characteristics of these three forms of church government, are sufficiently expressed by the titles given them.

Episcopacy, strictly speaking, places the government of the church in the hands of one man. His power may be that of a despot, or of a limited monarch; according as the people are allowed more or less influence in the government. Romish Episcopacy may be considered a despotism. The pope, is the supreme, uncontrollable head of the church. The mere fact that he is an elected despot, does not alter the nature of his government when once established especially as the people have no voice in his election. His government is absolute, uncontrollable by any authority in the people. The pope's will is sovereign. His word is law.

Congregationalism differs heaven-wide from Romish Episcopacy. And if Congregationalism is scriptural, it is as much more scriptural than Romanism, as the difference between the two.

But, suppose we take the Episcopacy of the Church of England: Is not that monarchical? Not so despotic as Romanism; but, as really monarchical. The English church is but a modification of the Romish. At the refor

mation she merely changed heads; taking Henry VIII, instead of Clement VII, for her supreme head. The king of England became as truly pope of the English church,

English Episcopacy-its form-its expense.

as his holiness of Rome had been before. Henry claimed the right to regulate the Church of England as seemed good in his own eyes, and parliament sanctioned that claim. The successors of Henry, with the crown, inherited also, the Church of England. From Henry, the headship of the church has come down with the crown to the present monarch; and the church of England now has for her "supreme head"—a young, and gay girl, of two and twenty years of age. She " convenes, prorogues, restrains, regulates and dissolves all synods and ecclesiastical convocations;" and all archbishops and bishops are appointed by her. For, although there is the formality of an election of these functionaries by the clergy, yet this, is authorized only by what is called a congé d'elire, or leave to elect, which is accompanied by a nomination of the person to be elected.

The archbishops rank in ecclesiastical dignity next to the sovereign; and are supreme in their respective provinces. The archbishopric of Canterbury, comprehending twenty-one bishoprics, and that of York, four. Next to archbishops, come the bishops. Each bishop is sole judge in his own court of all ecclesiastical offences. The archdeacons, and priests, and deacons, and all the minor orders, are amenable to their respective metropolitans. This whole establishment the kingdom is taxed to sustain. And it is sustained at the enormous expense of nearly NINE MILLIONS OF POUNDS ANNUALLY: a sum greater, by nearly fifty thousand pounds, than the income of all the clergy in the world beside.* But, in the government of this church, the people at large, have no voice whatever. How far this system differs from Congregationalism, it is

* American Encyclopedia, Art.—Church.

American Episcopacy.

easy to see. The difference is so great, that if one be scriptural the other must be, in many important particulars, unscriptural. I speak simply of the polity of this church. The doctrinal articles are, for the most part sound and scriptural.

If we turn from English Episcopacy to American, what will be the result of the comparison? The Episcopacy of this country is a scion from the mother land; a continuation of the Church of England, under a new name. The early clergy of this denomination were conformists to the English hierarchy-the very hierarchy, from the persecutions of which the Congregational fathers of New England fled-or, received ordination from the English and Scotch bishops. All their parishes were included in the diocese of London, previously to the revolution. The first Episcopal bishops of America, were consecrated by the archbishops of Canterbury and York ;* but not until these functionaries were assured, that no material deviation from the English hierarchy, in doctrine and practice, would be admitted into the American Episcopal church.

.*

The nature of our government does not admit of a supreme head" of the church; but if, by any revolution in politics, the republican, should be changed for the monarchical form of government, would it not be consistent with American Episcopacy to make the monarch of America the head of the church? Indeed, is not Episcopacy incomplete while destitute of a supreme head? Will it not be found indispensable to the perfect working of the system that this present deficiency should ere long be sup

* One American bishop had been previously consecrated by the non-juring bishops of Scotland.

Modifications of Episcopacy in the United States.

plied, by the consecration of an archbishop at least, to be "Primate of all America?" I make these suggestions from no unfriendliness to this denomination of Christians, I question not their patriotism, or affection for our civil institutions. It is not of Episcopalians that I speak; but, of the Episcopal form of church government. Respecting this, I ask: Is it not substantially the same as that of the mother land? and would it not more closely resemble that, if it were possible under a republican government, which tolerates all denominations, and patronizes none? I am not ignorant that modifications of diocesan Episcopacy have been introduced into the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States," which render it, to a certain extent, a representative government; but the clergy still govern the church; the bishop is still the limited monarch of his diocese, which embraces all the churches of one or more states. In his diocese he possesses a controlling and directing authority. No church can be formed; no person admitted to "holy orders,' or confirmed," i. e. received to the Lord's Supper,† but by his authority; no congregation can receive a pastor, but by his consent ; no pastor can remove but by his permission:§-in a word—he is the head of the church in his diocese. To aid the several bishops, there is a yearly convention of the clergy and laymen of each diocese, and a sort of triennial parliament, of lords and commons from the several dioceses, which frame canons, and make regulations for the government of the church. Notwithstanding this general convention of the clergy and