+==================+=========+==========+========+=========+
Y YCongreg- YMinisters YCommun- YPopul- Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
Y Yations Y Yicants Yation Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YBaptists Y 6,319Y 4,239Y452,000}Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YFreewillers Y 753Y 612Y38,876} Y4,300,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YSeventh Day Y 42Y 46Y4,503} Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YSix Principle Y 16Y 16Y2,117} Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YRoman Catholics Y 433Y 389Y Y 800,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YChristians Y 1,000Y 800Y 150,000Y 300,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YCongregationalistsY 1,300Y 1,150Y 160,000Y1,400,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YDutch Reformed Y 197Y 192Y 22,215Y 450,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YEpiscopalians Y 850Y 899Y Y 600,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YFriends Y 500Y Y Y 100,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YGerman Reformed Y 600Y 180Y 30,000Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YJews Y Y Y Y 15,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YLutherans Y 750Y 257Y 62,226Y 540,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YMennonites Y 200Y Y 30,000Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YWesleyans Y Y 2,764Y650,103}Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YProtestants Y Y 400Y50,000} Y2,000,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YMoravians Y 24Y 33Y 5,745Y 12,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YMormonites Y Y Y 12,000Y 12,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YN Jerusalem ChurchY 27Y 33Y Y 5,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YPresbyterians Y 2,807Y 2,225Y274,084}Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YCumberland Y 500Y 450Y50,000} Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YAssociate Y 183Y 87Y16,000} Y2,175,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YReformed Y 40Y 20Y3,000} Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YAssociate ReformedY 214Y 116Y12,000} Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YShakers Y 15Y 45Y 6,000Y Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YTunkers Y 40Y 40Y 3,000Y 30,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YUnitarians Y 200Y 174Y Y 180,000Y
+------------------+---------+----------+--------+---------+
YUniversalists Y 653Y 317Y Y 600,000Y
+==================+=========+==========+========+=========+
In this list many varieties of sects are blended into one. For
instance, the Baptists, who are divided; also the Friends, who have been
separated into Orthodox and Hicksite, the Camelites, etcetera, etcetera.
But it is not worth while to enter into a detail of the numerous minor
sects, or we might add Deists, Atheists, etcetera.--for even _no_
religion is a species of _creed_. It must be observed, that, according
to this table, out of the whole population of the United States, there
are only 1,983,905, (with the exception of the Catholics, who are
Communicants,) that is, who have openly professed any creed; the numbers
put down as the population of the different creeds are wholly
suppositions. How can it be otherwise, when people have not professed?
It is computed, that in the census of 1840 the population of the States
will have increased to 18,000,000, so that it may be said that only one
ninth portion have professed and openly avowed themselves Christians.
Religion may, as to its consequences, be considered under two heads: as
it affects the future welfare of the individual when he is summoned to
the presence of the Deity, and as it affects society in general, by
acting upon the moral character of the community. Now, admitting the
right of every individual to decide whether he will follow the usual
beaten track, or select for himself a by-path for his journey upward, it
must be acknowledged that the results of this free-will are, in a moral
point of view, as far as society is concerned, any thing but
satisfactory.
It would appear as if the majority were much too frail and weak to go
alone upon their heavenly journey; as if they required the support, the
assistance, the encouragement, the leaning upon others who are
journeying with them, to enable them successfully to gain the goal. The
effects of an established church are to cement the mass, cement society
and communities, and increase the force of those natural ties by which
families and relations are bound together. There is an attraction of
cohesion in an uniform religious worship, acting favourably upon the
morals of the mass, and binding still more closely those already united.
Now, the voluntary system in America has produced the very opposite
effects; it has broken one of the strongest links between man and man,
for each goeth his own way: as a nation, there is no national feeling to
be acted upon; in society, there is something wanting, and you ask
yourself what is it? and in families it often creates disunion: I know
one among many others, who, instead of going together to the same house
of prayer, disperse as soon as they are out of the door: one daughter to
an Unitarian chapel, another to a Baptist, the parents to the Episcopal,
the sons, any where, or no where. But worse effects are produced than
even these: where any one is allowed to have his own peculiar way of
thinking, his own peculiar creed, there neither is a watch, nor a right
to watch over each other; there is no mutual communication, no
encouragement, no parental control; and the consequence is, that by the
majority, especially the young, religion becomes wholly and utterly
disregarded.
Another great evil, arising from the peculiarity of the voluntary system
is, that in any of the principal sects the power has been wrested from
the clergy and assumed by the laity, who exercise an inquisition most
injurious to the cause of religion: and to such an excess of tyranny is
this power exercised, that it depends upon the _laity_, and not upon the
_clergy_, whether any individual shall or shall not be admitted as a
_communicant_ at the table of our Lord.
Miss Martineau may well inquire, "How does the existing state of
religion accord with the promise of its birth? In a country which
professes to every man the pursuit of happiness in his own way, what is
the state of his liberty in the most private and individual of all
concerns?"
Referring to religious instruction, Mr Carey in his work attempts to
prove the great superiority of religious instruction and church
accommodation in America, as compared with those matters in this
country. He draws his conclusions from the number of churches built and
provided for the population in each. Like most others of his
conclusions, they are drawn from false premises: he might just as well
argue upon the number of horses in each country, from the number of
horse-ponds he might happen to count in each. In the first place, the
size of the churches must be considered, and their ability to
accommodate the population; and on this point, the question is greatly
in favour of England; for, with the exception of the cities and large
towns, the churches scattered about the hamlets and large towns are
small even to ridicule, built of clap-boards, and so light that, if on
wheels, two pair of English post-horses would trot them away, to meet
the minister.
Mr Carey also finds fault with the sites of our churches as being
unfortunate in consequence of the change of population. There is some
truth in this remark: but our churches being built of brick and stone
cannot be so easily removed; and it happens that the sites of the
majority of the American churches are equally unfortunate, not as in our
case, from the population having _left_ them, but from the population
not having _come_ to them. You may pass in one day a dozen towns having
not above twenty or thirty private houses, although you will invariably
find in each an hotel, a bank, and churches of two or three
denominations, built as a speculation, either by those who hold the
ground lots or by those who have settled there, and as an inducement to
others to come and settle. The churches, as Mr Carey states, exist,
but the congregations have not arrived; while you may, at other times,
pass over many miles without finding a place of worship for the spare
population. I have no hesitation in asserting, not only that our 12,000
churches and cathedrals will hold a larger number of people than the
20,000 stated by Mr Carey to be erected in America, but that as many
people, (taking into consideration the difference of the population,) go
to our 12,000, as to the 20,000 in the United States.
Neither is Mr Carey correct when he would insinuate that the attention
given by the people in America to religious accommodation is greater
than with us. It is true, that more churches, such as they are, are
built in America; but paying an average of 12,000 pounds for a church
built of brick or stone in England, is a very different thing from
paying 12,000 dollars for a clap-board and shingle affair in America,
and which, compared with those of brick and mortar, are there in the
proportion of ten to one. And further, the comparative value of church
building in America is very much lowered by the circumstance that they
are compelled to multiply them, to provide for the immense variety of
creeds which exist under the _voluntary_ system. When people in a
community are all of one creed, one church is sufficient; but if they
are of different persuasions, they must, as they do in America, divide
the one large church into four little ones. It is not fair, therefore,
for Mr Carey to count _churches_.
[Note. "We know also that large sums are expended annually for the
building of churches or places of worship, which in cities cost from
10,000 to 100,000 dollars each; and in the country from 500 to 5,000
dollars."--_Voice from America, by an American Gentleman_. [What must
be the size of a church which costs 500 dollars?]]
But, although I will not admit the conclusions drawn from Mr Carey's
premises, nor that, as he would attempt to prove, the Americans are a
more religious people than the English, I am not only ready, but anxious
to do justice to the really religious portion of its inhabitants. I
believe that in no other country is there more zeal shown by its various
ministers, zeal even to the sacrifice of life; that no country sends out
more zealous missionaries; that no country has more societies for the
diffusion of the gospel and that in no other country in the world are
larger sums subscribed for the furtherance of those praise-worthy
objects as in the Eastern States of America. I admit all this, and
admit it with pleasure; for I know it to be a fact: I only regret to add
that in no other country are such strenuous exertions so incessantly
required to stem the torrent of atheism and infidelity, which so
universally exists in this. Indeed this very zeal, so ardent on the
part of the ministers, and so aided by the well-disposed of the laity,
proves that what I have just now asserted is, unfortunately, but too
true.
It is not my intention to comment upon the numerous sects, and the
varieties of worship practised in the United States. The Episcopal
church is small in proportion to the others, and as far as I can
ascertain, although it may increase its members with the increase of
population, it is not likely to make any vigorous or successful stand
against the other sects. The two churches most congenial to the
American feelings and institutions are the Presbyterian and
Congregationalist.
"The Congregationalists answer to the Independents of England and are
sympathetically, and to a great extent, lineally descendants of the
Puritans."--_Voice from America_, p. 62.
They may, indeed, in opposition to the hierarchy of the Episcopal, be
considered as Republican churches; and admitting that many errors have
crept into the established church from its too intimate union with the
State, I think it will be proved that, in rejecting its errors and the
domination of the mitre, the seceders have fallen into still greater
evils; and have, for the latter, substituted a despotism to which every
thing, even religion itself, must in America succumb.
In a republic, or democracy, the people will rule in every thing: in the
Congregational church they rule as deacons; in the Presbyterian as
elders. Affairs are litigated and decided in committees and councils,
and thus is the pastoral office deprived of its primitive and legitimate
influence, and the ministers are tyrannised over by the laity, in the
most absurd and most unjustifiable manner. If the minister does not
submit to their decisions, if he asserts his right as a minister to
preach the word according to his reading of it, he is arraigned and
dismissed. In short, although sent for to instruct the people, he must
consent to be instructed by them, or surrender up his trust. Thus do
the ministers lose all their dignity and become the slaves of the
congregation, who give them their choice, either to read the Scriptures
according to _their_ reading, or to go and starve. I was once
canvassing this question with an American, who pronounced that the laity
were quite right, and that it was the duty of the minister to preach as
his congregation wished. His argument was this:--"If I send to
Manchester for any article to be manufactured, I expect it to be made
exactly after the pattern given; if not, I will not take it: so it is
with the minister: he must find goods exactly suited to his customers,
or expect them to be left on his hands!"
And it really would appear as if such were the general opinion in the
United States. Mr Colton, an American minister, who turned from the
Presbyterian to the Episcopal church, in his "Reasons for Episcopacy,"
makes the following remarks:--
[I must request the reader's forbearance at the extreme length of the
quotations, but I cannot well avoid making them. Whatever weight my
opinion, as the opinion of an observant traveller may have, it must
naturally be much increased if supported, as it always is when
opportunity offers, by _American_ authority.]
Speaking of the deacons and elders of their churches, he says--"They may
be honest and good men, and very pious: but in most churches they are
men of little intellectual culture; and the less they have, the more
confident and unbending are they in their opinions. If a minister
travels an inch beyond the circle of their vision in theology, or
startles them with a new idea in his interpretation of Scripture, it is
not unlikely that their suspicions of his orthodoxy will be awakened.
If he does any thing out of the common course, he is an innovator. If,
from the multiplicity of his cares and engagements, he is now and then
obliged to preach an old sermon, or does not visit so much as might be
expected, he is lazy. For these and for other delinquencies, as
adjudged by these associates, it becomes their conscientious duty to
admonish him. He who is appointed to supervise the flock, is himself
supervised. `I have a charge to give you,' said a deacon to me once,
the first time and the moment I was introduced to him, after I had
preached one or two Sabbaths in the place, and, as it happened, it was
the first word he said after we shook hands, adding, `I often give
charges to ministers.' I knew him to be an important man, and the first
in the church; but as I had nothing at stake there that depended on his
favour, I could not resist the temptation of replying to him in view of
his consequential airs, `You may use your discretion, sir, in this
particular instance; but I can tell you that ministers are sometimes
overcharged.' However, I did not escape.
"The American clergy are the most backward and timid class in the
society in which they live; self-exiled from the great moral question of
the time; the least informed with true knowledge--the least efficient in
virtuous action--the least conscious of that Christian and republican
freedom which, as the native atmosphere of piety and holiness, it is
their prime duty to cherish and diffuse,"--_Miss Martineau._ I quote
this paragraph to _contradict it_. The American clergy are, in the
mass, equal, if not superior, to any in the world: they have to struggle
with difficulties almost insurmountable, (as I shall substantiate) and
worthily do they perform their tasks.
"It seems to be a principle in Presbyterian and Congregational churches,
that the minister must be overlooked by the elders and deacons; and if
he does not quietly submit to their rule, his condition will be
uncomfortable. He may also expect visitations from _women_ to instruct
him in his duty; at least, they will contrive to convey to him their
opinions. It is said of Dr Bellamy, of Bethlehem, Connecticut, who was
eminently a peace-maker, and was always sent for by all the churches in
the country around, or a great distance, to settle their difficulties,
that having just returned from one of these errands, and put up his
horse, another message of the same kind came from another quarter--`And
what is the matter?' said the Doctor to the messenger. `Why,' said he,
`Deacon has--' `Has--that's enough--There never is a difficulty in a
church, but some old deacon is at the bottom of it.'
"Unquestionably, it is proper, wise, and prudent, for every minister to
watch and consult the popular opinion around him, in relation to
himself, his preaching, and his conduct. But, if a minister is worthy
to be the pastor of a people, he is also worthy of some confidence, and
ought to receive deference. In his own proper work he may be helped, he
may be sustained, but he cannot be instructed by his people; he cannot
in general be instructed by the wisest of them. Respectful and kind
hints from competent persons he may receive, and should court--he may
profit by them. But, if he is a man fit for his place, he should retain
that honour that will leave him scope, and inspire him with courage to
act a manly part. A Christian pastor can never fulfil his office, and
attain its highest ends, without being free to act among his people
according to the light of his conscience and his best discretion. To
have elders and deacons to rule over him, is to be a slave--is not to be
a man. The responsibilities, cares, burdens, and labours of the
pastoral office are enough, without being impeded and oppressed by such
anxieties as these. In the early history of New England, a
non-conformist minister, from the old country, is represented to have
said, after a little experience on this side of the water, `I left
England to get rid of my lords the bishops; but here I find in their
place my lords, the brethren and sisters; save me from the latter, and
let me have the former.'
"It has actually happened--within a few years--in New England, and I
believe in other parts of the country, that there has been a system of
lay visitation of the clergy for the purpose of counselling,
admonishing, and urging them up to their duty; and that these
self-commissioned apostles, two and two, have gone from town to town,
and from district to district of the country, making inquisition at the
mouth of common rumour, and by such methods as might be convenient, into
the conduct and fidelity of clergymen whom they never saw; and, having
exhausted their means of information, have made their way into the
closets of their adopted proteges; to advise, admonish, pray with, and
for them; according as they might need. Having fulfilled their office,
they have renewed their march, `staff and script,' in a straightforward
way, to the next parish, in the assigned round of their visitations, to
enact the same scene, and so on till their work was done.
"Of course, they were variously received; though, for the most part, I
believe they have been treated civilly, and their title to this
enterprise not openly disputed. There has been an unaccountable
submission to things of this kind, proving indeed that the ministers
thus visited were not quite manly enough; or that a public opinion,
authorising these transactions, had obtained too extensive a sway in
their own connexion, and among their people, to be resisted. By many,
doubtless, it was regarded as one of the hopeful symptoms of this age of
religious experiment.
"I have heard of one reception of these lay apostles, which may not be
unworthy of record. One pair of them--for they went forth `two and
two,' and thus far were conformed to scripture--both of them mechanics,
and one a shoemaker, having abandoned their calling to engage in this
enterprise, came upon a subject who was not well disposed to recognise
their commission. They began to talk with him: `We have come to stir
you up.'--`How is the shoe business in your city?' said the clergyman to
the shoemaker, who was the speaker: for it was a city from which they
came. The shoemaker looked vacant, and stared at the question, as if he
thought it not very pertinent to his errand; and, after a little pause,
proceeded in the discharge of his office: `We have come to give your
church a shaking.'--`Is the market for shoes good?' said the clergyman.
Abashed at this apparent obliquity, the shoemaker paused again; and
again went on in like manner. To which the clergyman: `Your business is
at a stand, sir, I presume; I suppose you have nothing to do.' And so
the dialogue went on; the shoemaker confining himself to his duty, and
the clergyman talking only of shoes: in varied and constantly-shifting
colloquy, till the perverse and wicked pertinacity of the latter
discouraged the former; and the shoemaker and his brother took up their
hats, `to shake off the dust of their feet,' and turn away to a more
hopeful subject. The clergyman bowed them very civilly out of doors,
expressing his wish, as they departed, that the shoe business might soon
revive. Of course, these lay apostles, in this instance, were
horror-struck; and it cannot be supposed they were much inclined to
leave their blessing behind them.
"I believe I do not mistake in expressing the conviction that there are
hundreds, not to say thousands, of the Presbyterian and Congregational
clergy, who will sympathise with me thoroughly in these strictures on
the encroachments of the laity upon pastoral prerogative; who groan
under it; who feel that it ought to be rebuked and corrected, but
despair of it; and who know that their usefulness is abridged by it to
an account that cannot be estimated."
[The Reverend Mr Reid mentions a very whimsical instance of the
interference of the laity in every possible way. He says, that being at
church one Sabbath, there was one reverend old man, certainly a leader
among them, who literally, as the preacher went on with his sermon, kept
up a sort of recitation with him as, for instance, the preacher
continuing his sermon--