399,§§ Chalcedon, A. D. 451,*† Arles, A. D. 452,*** Auvergne or Clermont, A. D. 535,* 3d of Orleans, A. D. 538,† 5th of Ŏrleans, A. D. 549, 3d of Paris, A. D. 559,§ Barcelona, A. D. 599,** 4th of Toledo, A. D. 633,†† 2d of Cabilone, A. D. 649,‡‡

§§ Con. Car. 4, c, 1. "Cum consensu Clericorum et Laicorum et conventu totius provinciæ Episcoporum, maximeque Metropolitani vel auctoritate vel præsentia ordinetur Episcopus." A Bishop may be consecrated by the consent of the Clergy and Laity, and the agreement of the Bishops of the whole Province, and, especially by either the authority or presence of the Metropolitan.

Can. 22. "Ut Episcopus sine consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet; ita ut civium assensum et conniventiam et testimonium quærat." A Bishop may not ordain Clergymen without the consent of his Clergy; and he shall also obtain the assent, approbation and testimony of the citizens.

Con. Car. 4, c. 3. "Presbyter cum ordinatur, Episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant." When

a Presbyter is ordained, the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head, let all the Presbyters also, who are present, hold their hands upon his head near the hand of the Bishop.

*Act. vi. This Council declares for the Ephesians having a Bishop chosen by all the flock whom he was to feed—“παρα πάντων τῶν μελ λοντῶν ποιμανεισθαι ψηφισόμενος.”

Act xii. declares that a Bishop shall be settled by the election of all the flock to be fed“ἐξ επίλογης παντῶν τῶν μελλοντῶν ποιμανεισθαι ψηφισομενον.”

***Con. Arelat. 2, c. 54. "Placuit in ordinatione Episcopi hunc ordinem custodiri, ut tres ab Episcopis nominentur, de quibus Clerici vel Cives erga unum habeant eligendi potestatem." This order must be observed in the ordination of a Bishop. Three shall be nominated by the Bishops; one of whom the Clergy and citizens shall have the power of choosing.

*This Council determined "that a Bishop should be raised omnium electione et non paucorum favore-by the election of all, and not by the favor of a few." Cur. Jus. pop. p. 310, 1733.

† Canon 3d determined "that the Bishops of the Province should be chosen by the Clergy and People" assigning the reason, "Qui præfuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur." He who is to preside over all, should be chosen by all.

Canon xi. "Sicut antiqui Canones decrevarunt, nullus invitis Episcopus, sed nec per oppressionem potentium personarum ad consensum faciendum Cives aut Clerici, quod dici nefas est, inclinentur." As the ancient Canons have decreed, let no Bishop be given to those unwilling to receive him. Neither let the citizens or Clergy be influenced, which it is unlawful to say of any, to give their consent, by the oppression of great men.

Con. Par. 3. "Et quia in aliquibus rebus, &c.' "Because in some things the ancient custom is neglected, and the decrees of the Canons violated; it is thought good, according to the ancient custom, that the decrees of the Canons be observed, and that no Bishop be ordained [Civibus invitis] if the citizens be unwilling, nor unless he be heartily invited by the election of the people and Clergy, and by the command of the Prince, &c., &c." Cur. Jus. pop. p. 311, 1733.

**Con. Barcinon. Can. 3. By the Canon it was decreed that the Clergy and Laity should nominate three, and that the Metropolitan and Provincial Bishops should cast lots which one of the three was to be ordained. Bingham. lib. iv. c. 2. § 17.

This Council decreed "that none should be esteemed a Bishop, but he that was chosen by the Clergy and people of the city." Cur. Jus. pop. p. 311, 1733.

"Si quis Episcopus de quacunque civitate defunctus &c." "If a Bishop in any city be removed by death, the election of another shall not be but by the neighboring Bishops, the Clergy and his own citizens; if otherwise, let his ordination be esteemed void." Cur. Jus. pop. p. 312.

3d Constantinople, A. D. 680,†† all testify the same; so that we may fearlessly lay down, as maxims of antiquity, the rules already quoted-"Quid ad omnes pertinet, omnium consensu fieri debet," "Qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur.” I will not allow myself to supose, even for a moment, that any here present will reject the sentiment expressed by the "judicious Hooker." "For of this thing," he says, "no man doubteth, namely, that in all Societies, Companies, and Corporations, what severally each shall be bound unto, it must be with all their assents ratified. Against all equity it were, that a man should suffer detriment at the hands of men, for not observing that which he never did, either by himself or others, mediately or immediately agree unto. * In this case therefore especially, that vulgar axiom is of force: 'Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet. "‡‡ I cannot also but hope that our brethren of the Laity will agree to take the converse of the proposition laid down by Innocent, A. D. 402, quoted by the same Hooker-"Sicut Laici jurisdictionem Clericorum perturbare, ita Clerici jurisdictionem Laicorum non debent minuere"-and grant that as the Clergy ought not to abridge the jurisdiction of the Laity, so the Laity ought not to take away the rights of the Clergy.§§

*

ttOf this Council, Calvin says, “Adeo autem caverunt sancti Patres, ne ullo pacto imminueretur hæc populi libertas, ut quum Synodus Universalis Constantinopoli congregata Nectorium ordinaret, id noluerit sine totius Cleri et populi approbatione, ut sua ad Synodum Romanum epistola testatum es." The holy Fathers were so careful that this privilege of the people should in no degree be diminished, that when the universal Council assembled at Constantinople wished to ordain Nectorius, it could not be done without the consent of all the Clergy and people; as is testified by their own Epistle to the Roman Synod.

#Ecc. Pol. bb. viii. p. 447, Dobson's Edit. 1825.

§§It is interesting to trace the gradual decline of the fear of clerical influence in this Diocese.

In the Convention of 1804, it was determined that "on the business which should come before them, the Convention should vote by Parishes;" (Dalcho, p. 488;) consequently the Clerical vote was merged in the votes of the Laity; and if there were more than one Lay-Delegate from a Parish, the Clerical vote was worth nothing.

In 1806, the "Rules and Regulations, &c." which form the basis of our present Constitution, were adopted. By Rule III. (Dalcho, p. 496,) "The officiating Clergy of the Prot. Ep. Churches of this State shall be deemed. ex-officio, members of this Convention."

In 1807, it having been ascertained that under that Rule no Clergyman had a right to vote in Convention, (Dalcho, p. 500,) it was amended by adding "with a right to vote with the Lay Delegates, provided that such right shall not appertain to the officiating Clergyman of any particular Church, in cases where Lay-Delegates have not been appointed." Here the Clerical vote was still merged in the Lay-vote; and where no Lay-Delegates were appointed the Clergyman had no vote.

In 1808, (Dalcho, p. 503,) the Vestry of St. Philip's Church addressed a letter to the Convention declaring that they disagreed to the article giving the Clergy a right to vote. They instructed their Delegates to propose an amendment by adding the words "or shall not attend." After considerable debate, the proposed amendment was rejected.

In 1809, (Dalcho, p. 507,) a further amendment was made giving the Clergy a right to vote, no Lay-Delegate attending, upon his producing a

11-VOL IV.

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 adopt 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.