Please define what you mean by “congregationalism”.
Anglican polity, or Church organization, is the opposite of congregational. Following (very) ancient Church practice of having bishops, with certain supervisory control over individual churches, is essential to Anglicanism.
Congregationalism, is as you defined it, namely “each congregation was freed to make completely autonomous decisions” which to most people’s reading of the New Testament is NOT what was present then. In the NT times, the Apostles had clear authority over individual churches, and, if we are to believe Irenaus (AD 120s) St. John at least appointed pastors of pastors...namely bishops. Bishops too seemed to be important in fighting heresy—which very nearly overcame the church in the first 4 centuries (a majority of a congregation is not necessarily biblically or morally right).
Specifically, the NT speaks of Church elders running things, called “presbyters” (where we get the word presbyterian, and priest too, actually), not straight democracy, as in congregational churches.
In any event, the NT church can be found having elements of congregational, presbyterian (elder run), and episcopal (bishop run) church government systems. From the 2nd Century on to the 16th Century though, and, the majority of churches world-wide today, are run using an episcopal (bishop run) style of governance however. Congregationalism, where congregations are independent from each other, and have a majority rules governance, seem to too-often have little-dictator pastors—and characteristically have constant splitting... (as a friend of mine joked, he wanted to start a church called “The Last B_ptist Church”...).
Christian living in scripture seems more about inter-dependence than independence, in my opinion, anyway. Asking Anglican/Episcopal types to become congregational, is like trying to elect a Baptist pope.
It ain’t gonna happen.