BRITISH MAGAZINE. SEPT. 1, 1833. ORIGINAL PAPERS. ON THE GENERAL CONGREGATIONAL UNION. THAT the general aspect of events at present should be viewed with satisfaction by many of the dissenters, is very natural. They recognise in the spirit of revolution, with which they identify their own, an agent that may tend most effectually to the injury and overthrow of that system from which they dissent. "Voluntary association of congenial character, which, in one word, is the congregational system, is the only thing," they say, "which now has vigour. It is at this moment ruling kings, reforming legislatures, commanding the world. And it is also to renovate the world." (Essay on Congregational System, p. 190.) But there are among them men of more wisdom and reflection who have not failed to remark, that the disposition to overthrow all existing institutions was likely to extend itself to dissent, as well as to every other thing-that the principles of independency, the whole system of congregational polity, was itself about to undergo a scrutiny as severe, and a change as great, as that which impended over any establishment. For some years past there have been many symptoms of a coming change. No longer did the antiquated notions of Owen, or of Towgood, exert their former influence over the dissenting mind. Men grew ashamed of the minute and frivolous objections of the seventeenth century, when the difference between a white and a black gown was thought sufficient cause for separation from the church. They discovered that the scriptural proofs of independency were not of that extreme clearness which their forefathers had supposed. They imbibed the notion, that no form of church government is of divine right; and boldly maintained, that the union of Christians in visible societies called churches, was merely voluntary on the part of their members. They hence deduced the conclusions, that every member of a church has equal authority— VOL. IV.-Sept. 1833. 21 that the minister in each congregation is an officer only, appointed by his hearers, subject to their continual control, and dismissible at their pleasure. Believing of course that their ministers were merely invested with authority by man, and very properly denying the interference of any merely human authority in matters of religion, they felt it their duty to assert, individually, the most perfect liberty of thought and action under the sole authority of their own view of scripture. Dissent was now no longer justified on the ground of superstition or error in the doctrine or discipline of the church. It was no longer the maintenance of error, but the imposition of truth, which was regarded as her crying sin. It was deemed an infringement of private liberty to require a belief in any doctrine of Christianity; and so, though the articles and formularies of the church were orthodox and blameless, yet the mere fact, that members of the church were required not to teach the contrary doctrines, was esteemed an ample justification for dissent. Such was the state of mind amongst the great body of dissenters; and the results which flowed from it are too well known. Turbulence, division, insubordination, want of social feeling, impoverishment and degradation of ministers, spread of heresy, popery, and infidelity, discontent of dissenters with their own principles, secession of numbers to the church, and apprehensions of utter discomfiture and extinction; these were the things that weighed heavily on the dissenting leaders, and prompted them to look anxiously for some method of relief. Various were the plans which were agitated. Some proposed to adopt the repudiated system of presbyterianism; some to draw nearer to episcopacy. The want of unity was certainly a glaring evil; but perhaps it was not the most galling. The dissenting ministers felt most keenly their own state. They knew that they were viewed merely as servants, and that they were subject to all the caprice of a hasty and impatient democracy. Each little voluntary community seemed to set itself apart from the rest of the world, only that it might exercise an uncontrollable and irresponsible power over its teachers. Such we may consider as the chief causes of that activity which many dissenting ministers have displayed in promoting what is called the Congregational Union, which consists of deputies from all the independent congregations in England and Wales. Far be it from me to impute selfish motives to these worthy men, who have, no doubt, been generally actuated by a belief that the condition in which they found themselves in relation to their flocks, was anything but scriptural. It is singular, however, that among all the various objects of this union which have been publicly stated, there should not be the slightest allusion to the present condition of dissenting ministers. It is true that the "Congregational Magazine" informs us, that there are subjects connected with this Congregational Union which it would at present be "premature" to state. It is not difficult, however, to conjecture what is designed when we observe what is most imperatively needed. But it is time to disclose the origin and progress of the scheme on which I am commenting. In 1829, the idea of a general union of the independent churches was suggested by some dissenting ministers in Dorsetshire, and alluded to by the "Congregational Magazine." The slightest hint on such a subject was sure to interest those who felt so grievously their want of unity. In May, 1830, it was anxiously asked, whether "no method could be adopted by which a real and ostensible union may exist, and prove to our adversaries, that our unity in faith and practice is more than a name?" (p. 254, Congregational Magazine.) In June, the editor of that magazine urged the necessity of some such union, admitting, at the same time, that the independents were then quite devoid of it." Members we have, and such as by their harmony are prepared for union; but the ligaments which shall unite them into a body, need yet to be supplied," (p. 309.) Shortly after it was announced that, as the subject began to attract the highest interest, a provisional committee was appointed to forward it. In October, several ministers and gentlemen again expressed their wish "that a denomination so large and important might be combined into one body," (p. 554.) In December, a writer, in alluding to the recent formation of county and district associations of dissenting churches, observed, that it "must be hailed as propitious in no ordinary degree. It is not too much to affirm, that, independently of their other advantages, which are not few nor small, they have been, secretly at least, preparing the way for the establishment of that general and tangible union amongst us, which is so fondly anticipated by many, and the want of which is too justly regarded as a reflection upon our principles, a stain upon our character, and a reproach to our supineness." This writer (a dissenting minister) recommends that individual dissenting churches should consult these associations of ministers and deputies, and abide by their decisions, thus putting an end to independency! In February, 1831, a powerful opposition made itself distinctly heard. The editor of the "Congregational Magazine" said, "there is a body of our brethren throughout the kingdom, respectable for their character, talent, and station, who are not yet prepared to send in their acts of adherence to this proposed measure." And in illustration of this fact, a very able writer at the same time gave his reasons for suspecting that the union would prove prejudicial to the independence of churches, or else that it would be useless and cumbrous-nay, that it would tend to |