literature of the times can be cited in favour ❘ tive lessons in history anent the infirmity of of their union. This singular concurrence of human virtue, and the instability of human opinion in those from whose opinions on purposes,-forgetting, too, that through the matters of doctrine so little deviation has been made should recommend the necessity of candid inquiry. The matter in dispute in the first place is, whether Congregationalism or a Statesupported Church is the most effectual mode of promulgating the gospel, supposing both for the present equally scriptural. This is a subject on which, at a hasty glance, an unsound conclusion is likely to be adopted. It will at once occur to the mind of the reader that the doctrines and government of any Church under State patronage stand in great danger of being tampered with to suit political purposes,-that the Church must be dependent on and subordinate to the State, and doubtless sundry historical illustrations will suggest themselves to the memory in proof. While such is the case as regards Church establishments the reverse conclusions in favour of Separatism will find acceptance. It is natural enough to suppose that a church depending solely for its support on the spontaneous liberality and zeal of its adherents -altogether independent of State aid, and owning only our Lord and Saviour as its Supreme Head, is more likely to be pure in doctrine and zealous in advocacy than the other. We say these are the conclusions which, on a first glance of the subject, are likely to be entertained. We beg our readers to suspend judgment a little, and give heed to the arguments in favour of the position we have assumed, as we feel assured that it only requires a careful examination of the evidence on this side of the question to reverse the decisions of a hasty judgment. Jeremy Taylor pithily says, "If religion be governed by any hands with which the civil power hath nothing to do, it may come to pass that the civil power shall have no hands at all, or they shall be in bands." There is a deal of foresight in this remark, and we think it well that Congregationalists should be made aware of the results to which their favourite principles when carried out would lead, for they are over fond of indulging the charitable assumption that the clergy left to themselves will always remain humble, earnest, devout men, whose foremost thoughts are for the cure of souls and for the welfare of Messiah's kingdom, forgetful of the instruc lapse of time, institutions are sometimes thwarted from their original design, and that the more liberal their contributions are they may be fostering a worldly and ambitious policy in the very class they formerly looked up to with reverence. The history of our own country has furnished an example of this in the corruptions of the Romish Church (in selecting this illustration, we would not have it supposed that we wish to place any sect of dissenting Protestants in an invidious light, we respect them too highly to do so); this church never received any endowment by law; gradually defections crept in, and gradually her clergy practised on the ignorance, the credulity, and the superstition of the laity, till, by means of private bounties, legacies, "oblations from the faithful," and peace-offerings from the timid, an almost boundless amount of wealth had been amassed -wealth accumulated only to be misapplied by luxurious and corrupt churchmen. Our sovereigns, although attached to the Church, saw with uneasiness the formidable proportions and power it was acquiring, and not unwillingly would have put forth an effort to restrain the system of priestly fraud, but were afraid. Herein we have an example of the voluntary system when possessing unlimited play-the domination, the avarice, the abuse of influence, was more willingly borne by the subjects of all this extortion than by those placed over them in authority. Many efforts were made, both in our own country and on the continent (where the same experience urged the same remedy), to repress the practice by enactments, and sometimes by force, but, as we all know, for ages without effect. It may be said in reply, that society in Britain is happily so far advanced now, and the civil power so well consolidated, that the case adduced can never occur again, and that, moreover, it is inapplicable to the voluntary principle as seen operating in congregations at the present day. We may merely point to Ireland. If the priests there were to have their own way, we should in a very few years, in that country, have a complete verification of Jeremy Taylor's statement. Although we do not in the meantime fear results of the like kind from any or all of the dissenting Protestant bodies; -their antecedents, their tendencies, their doctrines forbid the idea;-yet we think we are justified in rejecting what is with them a necessary principle, when we find it to be one so liable to be abused. We can have no guarantee against fanaticism taking possession of the human mind, and therefore no guarantee against the recurrence of the evil, unless we recognise the right of superintendence in the civil magistrate. We know the evil deprecated as a result of the voluntary principle is not one prevalent in Protestant dissenting churches-very far from it. False systems and creeds that fall in with the passions and weaknesses of man, may thrive by it, may be richly supported, but the true religion which goes against these, which aims to correct these, to humble, to refine, to christianize man, receives of his substance more grudgingly. How much is Congregationalism hampered in its movements, and the pastors straitened in their circumstances, for the lack of means? How much does the pastor feel his dependent position, feel constrained to adapt his admonitions to the leanings of his hearers, to "cook" his reproofs and qualify his rebukes lest he should give offence to some of the magnates in the congregation? How very submissive does he feel it necessary to be in the regulation of church business, suiting his wishes to their parsimony, and practising the most exemplary self-denial, nay, even sacrificing the interests of the church rather than have his calls upon their pockets too heavy or too frequent? This of itself materially damages the cause of Congregationalism—the clergyman dare not twit their consciences else they draw the purse-strings, for it is not every one that can bear to have unpalatable truths told them, or their secret sins exposed; hence, the discipline of the church becomes relaxed, or if enforced dissension is the result. There is evidently in the constitution of congregations a temptation to the members to become arrogant, and a like temptation to the minister to become unfaithful. Again, Congregationalism makes no provision for introducing religion to the whole body of the people, and this from the very nature of its organization, or rather from its want of organization;-this is a grave objection, for what provision is to be made for the vast numbers in every large town who are utterly regardless of the Church, and who require to be induced to come out from their habitations by a houseto-house mission? People of this stamp there are unhappily in too great abundance, and as congregations are not chargeable for the spiritual well-being of any, save those in their own communion, to whom are we to look in expectation of the wants of such being attended to, unless to an Establishment, entrusted with a territorial charge? Is it possible then to over-estimate the responsibility of those Congregationalists who, to their own inability to benefit those, superadd a hostility to establishments, and thereby deprive thousands upon thousands of gospel ministrations, augmenting the moral depravation of the country, or at least not permitting the means and agencies to be employed that would be calculated to diminish the evil, and that for no other reason than that the churches willing to do so acknowledge the right and the duty of the State to go hand in hand with them in the work? We look on this as a serious stain on Congregationalism. It must be very obvious that Government, in patronising State Churches, makes no unwarrantable appropriation of the public funds. The Church as a moral institute is the foremost instrumentality for good; our reformatory and penal machinery would necessarily be of a greatly more expensive character were it not for its agency: so that whatever is given by way of endowment is saved from the expenditure on account of civil and judicial establishments. Even placing the question upon these low grounds of expediency, it seems to us a most natural thing that the State, deriving so much assistance from the Church, should in turn render it assistance, that the co-operation may be more complete, and the welfare of the nation more certainly secured. Besides, the Church being spiritual in its nature, and having no means of defending itself from external violence, requires the protecting shield of the State; the bond of union is only strengthened, and the means of usefulness increased by a pecuniary recognition of its services. At the same time, the services being mutual, the independence of the Church is not necessarily compromised. It is worse than useless for the various sectaries who have separated themselves from the State Church to cavil at the endowment. The differences in the Scottish Church, at least, are non-essential, and we hold that it is better, for the sake of simplicity, that the State should give its support to the predominant body. Baptists cannot be grouped together to one parish, Cameronians into another, and so on with the multiform sects into which Protestantism has divided itself; and even though this were practicable, which obviously is not, each would be prosecuting their various charges in ignorance of what their neighbours were about, and the result would inevitably be unspeakable confusion and heart-burnings; the scheme would have ultimately to be abandoned as unworkable, and the native irreligion of the community permitted to develop itself. short of special pleading to object in this manner, founded as it is on a most contracted view of scripture principles. The principle of a Church Establishment has had its counterpart in the institutions of nearly all the ancient dynasties, showing that even the "world's grey fathers" knew that to be the best way of securing the dissemination of a belief; and if they found this, how much more ought we, who have the blessed light and glorious truths of the gospel to diffuse, to employ every means to secure for our religion universal acceptance. It would extend our remarks too much to present the theories after which the respective State Churches are constituted. It may be Having said this much, we think it un- necessary, however, to say that their establishnecessary, in an introductory paper, to ment proceeded from entirely different sources, enlarge further on the impolicy of Congre--the one sprung from the people, and it acgationalism, or on the advantages of a State cordingly partakes largely of the democratic Church; we would merely, were it not for or republican element in its constitution; the occupying too much space, desire to adduce other was shaped to the will of the king, and confirmatory Scriptural authority. Our as unmistakeably bears the impress of its readers will gather an unequivocal sanction monarchical origin. of union between Church and State, by referring to Ezra vii. 21-27, 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. The fact is instructive too, that Moses, Joshua, and the judges of Israel united in their individual persons the offices of spiritual superintendents and civil rulers; the examples of David, Hezekiah and Josiah give additional weight. Even with heathen kings and rulers the Lord dealt according to their dealings with his "peculiar people," prospering or punishing them as they deserved, Pharoah, Cyrus, and Nebuchadnezzar will suffice as examples. Keeping these in view we think the conclusion is irresistible that the scriptures sanction the civil ruler in succouring, maintaining, and countenancing the Church in his official capacity; indeed, we cannot see that an inference could be more plain, strengthened as it is by the injunctions repeatedly given to nations as nations,-injunctions which suppose the presence of some one having sufficient authority to give effect to the commands, all of which is clearly at variance with the theory of Congregationalism. It is common to endeavour to parry the force of these instances, by asserting that they all Occur under a different dispensation, forgetting that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," but it were really nothing The almost entire subordination of the Church of England to the State is fatal to its independence; the right of appointment to all bishoprics resides with the Crown; the deaneries also are in the gift of the Government, as well as the nomination to a large proportion of the parochial benefices, and more than one-half of the canonries. Now, that the State in which all this power is reposed may be at variance with the Church in point of opinion, since the removal of religious disabilities, this immense power over the episcopate must exercise a very dangerous influence upon the Church, seeing, especially, that it possesses no control over the selection of its dignitaries. There is no safety for it in the appointments of a latitudinarian Government;-its livings may be made the reward of political services to a party, and conferred upon the secret enemies of its doctrines, as has already been done. The bishops, being indebted to Government for their appointments, are, as it were, committed to forward its views-indeed, there is a danger that men likely to do so will have a preference; then these lords spiritual take part in the political movements of the day, cultivate the acquaintance of the leaders and cabinet ministers, appear at court, &c., all of which must secularize their minds, and prepare them for concurring with the views of the Legislature. A hierarchy could | This intrusion of unwelcome pastors is calnot have been devised more fortunate for culated to rob the services of half their the ends of Government than that of the influence, and create a feeling of unconChurch of England. The deans, being geniality between pastor and people. How nominees of Government, naturally reflect else can it be, when there is such a complete its views, and as a reward for an advocacy indifference as to who the patrons are, and of them it holds preferment in store. The when the bishops are compelled to induct archdeacons too-the nominees of the bishops the presentee, irrespective of his suitableness, -in great measure hold the sentiments of if his qualifications happen to be sustained their patrons. The university senates are, in civil court? We observe in the papers of likewise, very prone to study prospective the day, that the Duke of Beaufort advertises advantages, and as bishoprics and deaneries for sale by auction the right of patronage to occasionally reward a pliant course, they are benefices in his gift! How can the interests loath to mar expectations by opposition. The of the Church be secured when the rights fact is, the system presents the strongest patronage are so grossly abused. By those temptations to the higher ecclesiastics to who retain in the family the rights of patroncurry favour with the Legislature, or at age, the Church is too often made use of as least to do and say nothing to detract from a provision for the younger members, without their eligibility for advancement. It is a regard to their capabilities and dispositions. system eminently calculated to encourage an It is perhaps fortunate for the peopleaggressive spirit in Parliament, and a corre- although it is certainly an anomalous arrangespondingly servile spirit in the clergy. Were ment-that these rarely officiate, that they the State a Church of England State, the principally enjoy the dignities; for what a evil would not be so bad, for then the indi- mockery is it that those who by profession vidual members of the State would feel a are ecclesiastics should be found booted and personal interest in the maintenance of the spurred, the jolliest in the chase. purity and efficiency of the Church. It may be said that this is an accidental evil-the unforeseen operation of a law-an evil that may be easily remedied, and that, no doubt, ere long, sufficient securities against innovation will be exacted from the State. All we have to say is, that such need not be hoped for from Parliament spontaneously, and that there does not exist in the organization of the Episcopal Church any principle which can be proceeded on for the resumption of privileges. If such a movement be made it must proceed from the inferior clergy and laity,men who are wholly independent of Government, and have intelligence and spirit to assist them. There is a radical evil in the constitution of the Church at present; we mean the scheme of preferments. This opens up the way for worldliness and ambition-passions which should have small place in the bosoms of ministers of the gospel. From the poor curate to the primate of all England, there is not a Churchman who does not covet preferment. Another feature in the Anglican Church, which must disgust and alienate the laity, is that they have not a voice in the choice of their own pastors, but are compelled to tolerate the one appointed, however dronish he may be. We must now turn to the Scottish Church, by way of contrast. We there find an ecclesiastical constitution which in its operations interblends in the happiest manner the interests of the laity and clergy in the spiritual welfare of the Church. The framers of it studied that the ministry should be efficient to the great end of edifying the people in the things of God, and made all minor considerations of assumed personal privileges and rights of patronage subordinate to this paramount object; they did not reject patronage or repudiate privileges - this would have been unwisely arbitrary, but they did what neutralized the possibility of abuse. It was provided, as a security for the appointment of proper persons to the ministerial charge, that nominees should produce a certificate of the parishioners' approval, and that previous to this, even the person so nominated to a charge must be a licenciate, that is, must have obtained a licence to preach from the presbytery. It further provided that the courts of the Church of Scotland should have final jurisdiction of ecclesiastical affairs. These provisions and securities have been repeatedly ratified by Acts of Parliament, both Scottish and British, so that although in England no reclamation ing in good words and works. In making these statements, we do so with a view of showing that the church polity of Presbyterianism securing so distinctly its freedom of action in spiritual matters, it is certain to be more thoroughly evangelical than Episcopacy, which is so liable to be diverted from the fulfilment of its proper functions for party purposes and the attainment of political ends. of the parishioners can set aside, nor any liturgy used in the Scottish Church, bishop refuse to induct, a presentee whose greater weight of responsibility rests upon manner of life, whose literature, whose doc- its ministers for the effective and acceptable trine may in a court of civil law be judged discharge of their duties, than if less had fitting, the same does not obtain in Scotland been left to their individual judgments-the -there the civil court possesses no power to one is required to extemporize the prayers overrule the decisions of a presbytery; it is and thanksgivings of public worship, while even competent for the presbytery to reject the other has simply to enunciate these with a presentee upon any consideration which becoming gravity and suitable modulation they may judge to interfere with his efficiency of voice. So that to our Scottish clergy it or his suitableness for a particular charge. is most essential that they be devout men, Unlike Episcopacy, it is an unaristocratic-men earnest in their calling, and aboundestablishment,- -an establishment which is scarcely ever made use of by the gentry as a provision for members of the family; there is too much work and too little pay for this to be the case, there are not any livings where the dignities and temporalities can be enjoyed while the work is made over to some ill-paid curate, and the holder is playing the prince of indolence, learned in all the dances of the season and all the mysteries of the turf. Every minister is placed in such a station as to cornmand respect; but there are no overgrown livings for idlers and sportsmen. All the clergymen of the Church of Scotland require to be working members, no inequalities of rank exist to abstract their minds from their avocation, or create a morbid desire for advancement; the influence of this on the clergy themselves is most wholeAll the ministers are working members, and hence the need of a proper check upon the possible ignorance or corruption of patrons, a check rendered the more imperative from the fact, that there being no some. We have not space left to enter upon the comparative scripturalness of the systems, but our readers, even from the very cursory view we have been able to present of the mere outworks of the different systems of church polity, can have no hesitation in pronouncing which of them possesses that unity and independence, combined with purity and vigour, calculated to carry out effectively the great purposes of a church-calculated to bring the influence of the gospel to bear upon every soul with "demonstration and with power." CONGREGATIONALISM.-ARTICLE I. "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us; and we forbude him because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, FORBID HIM NOT: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."-MARK IX. 38-40. ARISTIDES. CONGREGATIONALISM is both a policy and a principle. As a principle " in accordance with the scriptures," and therefore with truth, reason, and justice, we hold it unspeakably dear to ourselves, and rejoice in the present opportunity of explaining and urging it upon others. As a policy, to be pursued in the external regulation of the relations of Christian communities, we believe "Under these fantastic terrors of sect and schism, we wrong the earnest and zealous thirst after knowledge and understanding which God hath stirred up. What some lament of, we should rather rejoice at, should praise this pious forwardness among men to reassume the ill-deputed care it to be the most suited to the age in which of religion into their own hands again. A little we live, and "productive of the best results"; generous prudence, a little forbearance of one-the only one, indeed, which renders the another, and some grain of charity, might win all these diligencies to join and unite in one general growing activity and freedom of the human and brotherly search after truth; could we but mind in religious speculation compatible forego this prelatical (and Presbyterian ?) tradi- with peace and order-which (by subordination of crowding free conscience and Christian ting the intellect to the heart and Thought liberties into canons and precepts of men." MILTON. to Love) enables us to preserve our Indi |