ting the propriety of a full license, and yet not enough to exclude the applicant entirely, Associations sometimes give a permit to preach for a limited time; at the expiration of which, the permission is withdrawn, or, on further examination, renewed. Some Associations, ordinarily, give licenses for a term of years only, at the end of which, the license may be rescinded or renewed, at the pleasure of the Association.

I have dwelt somewhat minutely on the usages of Congregational churches; but I could not otherwise exhibit the practical operation of the principles and doctrines of the system which I am attempting to develope, nor make my little book a faithful guide to such as would walk in conformity with this system. But little use has been made of arguments to prove the correctness of the practices which have been detailed; for most of these practices are deductions and inferences from principles and doctrines presumed to have been established by previous testimony and arguments; and must, consequently, stand or fall with the foundations on which they rest. And, so far as our practice is merely prudential, it is sufficient for our purpose, that it is not unscriptural nor unlawful, and that the wisdom and experience of ages have sanctioned it.

And now, what shall we say of Congregationalism in practice? Is it not as fair in practice as in theory? Does it allow of any disorder or irregularity in the churches? Is there in it any lack of energy and efficiency? Can any churches show a purer or more blameless practice? or one better adapted to effect the great purposes of church organization? If not, what more can we ask or expect of any system of church government?

PART V.

ADVANTAGES OF CONGREGATIONALISM.

HAVING, in the preceding pages, discussed the principles and doctrines of the Congregational system, and described, with some minuteness, the ecclesiastical usages of the denomination; I know not that I can more suitably conclude my labors, than by summing up, and placing distinctly before the reader, in a connected view, a few of the more prominent advantages which Congregationalism is supposed to possess over all other systems of church government. And this I shall do, not that I may rail at other systems; but, that I may more fully and faithfully exhibit my own.

Every man who has fixed principles or settled opinions on any controverted subject, arrived at them by a process of comparison as well as investigation. And there is no way in which we can more effectually aid an inquirer in settling a disputed question, than by placing fairly before him the contending theories or systems between which he must judge. This is emphatically true in respect to the question now before us. It is only by seeing the system, advocated in these pages, in contrast with opposing systems, that we shall be made fully sensible of its superior advantages.

And why may not this comparison be made without subjecting the author to the imputation of invidious feelings or unworthy motives? All systems and published opinions of church order and discipline are fairly open to examination, and comparison with other systems and opinions, and to animadversion, if occasion is discovered. And, if this be done with fairness and Christian courtesy,

no one has any right to complain. We may number among our personal and cherished friends-as the author is happy to do-persons who embrace almost every form of church government; and yet we may, and ought, as conscientious men, to claim for ourselves what we cheerfully yield to others, the right of private judgment, and the liberty to express, with entire freedom, our convictions; without being charged with unworthy or unchristian motives and feelings.

We may even go further, and say with a controversialist of some distinction: "We are not to be afraid to contend firmly against what we conceive to be error, even at the hazard of deeply offending those by whom it is embraced.*

In what may now be said of other ecclesiastical systems, I will not, knowingly, deviate, in the smallest particular, from the truth. But the best intentions will not

always preserve a man from error. And I beg, that my mistakes-if any I make-may be attributed to misapprehension, not to design.

With these prefatory remarks-which the language of some who have noticed my humble labors seemed to demand let us proceed to the inquiry:

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MORE PROMINENT ADVANTAGES WHICH CONGREGATIONALISM IS SUPPOSED TO POS

SESS OVER OTHER SYSTEMS OF CHURCH ORDER AND GOVERNMENT?

1. We regard Congregationalism as the most scriptural system of church government.†

We do not assert that all other systems are totally destitute of scriptural authority; nor, that this is exactly conformed to the polity of the apostolic churches; but

* Dr. How's Vindication of the Prot. Episcopal Chh. quoted by Smyth, in his Lecs, on Ap. Succ.

t. When I speak of the Scriptures furnishing a model of church polity for us, I would be understood to refer exclusively to the Nero Testament.

we do assert, that the order and discipline of our churches is more nearly in accordance with the model furnished by the New Testament than that of any other denomination.

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 minor particulars of church polity, are given therein.

Those who deny that the word of God furnishes any pattern for church building, will, it is presumed, admit, that the church which has most of scriptural architecture about it, best deserves their regard.

Dr. Stillingfleet, though he considered "the form of church government a mere matter of prudence, regulated by the word of God;" yet admits: "That form of government [to be] the best, according to principles of Christian prudence, which comes the nearest to Apostolic practice, and tends most to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God.”* And Dr. Campbell, though he could “ see no reason why a church may not subsist under different forms, as well as a state;" yet owns, "that one form may be more favorable than, another to the spirit and design of the constitution."+

I beg leave to put it to any such person: If that form of church government may not be reasonably regarded as most agreeable to the principles of Christian prudence, and most favorable to the constitution of Christianity, which most nearly resembles the one selected and established by the founder of Christianity?

If, now, it has been shown in the preceding pagesas I trust it has-that all the fundamental principles and the important doctrines of Congregationalism have the sanction of scriptural precept or apostolic usage; and that the authorized practice of this denomination is no

*Irenicum, pp. 414, 415. 2d Ed.

t Lecs. Ece. Hist. L. 4. p. 50, and L. 8. p. 128.

wise inconsistent with the same precepts and example: -then certainly, Congregationalism is scriptural; the word of God allows, if it 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-which it cannot be that the Scriptures equally countenance different systems.

But, in what particulars do other systems of church government differ from this?

All governments may be classed under three general heads: Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical. The distinctive peculiarities of these three forms may be, to some extent, intermixed in any given system; but all governments, ecclesiastical as well as civil, may be resolved into these constituent 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 government are sufficiently, if not exactly, expressed by the titles given them.

EPISCOPACY is the government of the church by bishops. Each bishop is the sovereign of his diocese. 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, infallible head of the Church on earth. 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. Each archbishop and bishop is essentially an absolute monarch over his own dominions. The features of Romanism, so