of a sect, it seems suitable to say something of its general nature; it being remembered, however, that our work is essentially Historical, and that it is the intention of the writer, even if he should sometimes have the appearance of speaking in his own name, to act merely as the scribe and interpreter of his fathers and brethren, the Congregationalists. When, therefore, we look at the general nature of a Church, without inquiring particularly into its interior and specific organization, it is perhaps sufficient to say of it, that a Church, (that is, a particular Church,) is a company of professed believers, associated together for the worship of God, for the observance of Christian ordinances, and for mutual help and edification in religious things. The minute and precise inquiries, which are hereafter to be entered into, in unfolding the Constitution of Congregationalism, will help to explain and define these more general expressions on this subject.

§. 2. Reasons tending to the introduction of the church state.

It is natural when we see a number of persons united together with particular objects in view, to inquire into the grounds or reasons of their union. And if it be not only natural, but oftentimes important in other cases, we may well conclude, it is not less so in the present. The acts, which are performed in a Church state, such as the worship of God, the celebration of Christian ordinances, mutual instruction and watchfulness and intercessions, are certainly of no small consequence. We say, then, in answer to the inquiry, relative to the union of men for these desirable and precious purposes, that the grounds or reasons of a Church state, are of a two-fold nature; being deducible in part, in the first place, from the light of nature, and, in the second, more fully from the revealed will of God or the Scriptures.

§. 3. The light of nature in reference to this subject. Although we are greatly favored in the enjoyment of biblical instruction, yet there are undoubtedly many things, in which we are left to the dictates of common sense and experience; and we are to understand by the light of nature itself, no other than the indications of the common reason, the common sense of mankind. Congregationalists strenuously contend, that we ought to be scrupulous in our adherence to the Scriptures, so far as any information can be obtained from that source, in respect to ecclesiastical concerns; but it has, nevertheless, been a prevailing opinion among them, even from the days of their founders, that in some cases we may safely rest on the decisions of our natural understandings. Accordingly in the Cambridge Platform, which was first adopted in 1648, and is one of the most authentic, if not the earliest document recourse can be had to, we find reference expressly made to equity, the law of nature, and common reason. (See chap xi. on the Maintenance of Church Officers.)

On the 10th of September 1679, the Platform was unanimously, for the substance of it, re-approved and accepted by a Synod of the Churches in the Colony of Massachusetts, held at Boston. And again, at a period not long subsequent to that Synod, we find in certain PROPOSITIONS, published by an assembly of ministers at Cambridge, and growing out of the Platform, the following expressions, having relation to the subject of this section.

"Particular churches, having the same original ends and interests, and being mutually concerned in the good and evil of each other, there is the LIGHT OF NATURE as well as of Scripture, to direct the meeting of Churches by their delegates, to consult and conclude things of common concernment unto them."

That there may be a correct and satisfactory under

standing on this important point, we quote also some passages from the approved and learned work of Mr. Samuel Mather, entitled An Apology for the Liberties of the Churches in New-England. The extracts are from the prefatory Discourse concerning Congregational Churches." We think indeed, (says Mather,) that there are some circumstances, relating to the worship of God and the government in these churches, which, agreeable to what is practised in other societies, may be regulated by NATURAL LIGHT and CHRISTIAN PRUDENCE, according to the general rules of God's word, which ought forever to have a particular regard paid unto them.”—And again in a subsequent part of the same Discourse, "I have observed already concerning some circumstances in the worship of God and the government of particular churches, that natural light and christian prudence, according to the general rules of God's word, may regulate them.

And, therefore, it seems to arise from a captious and quarrelsome humor, when any cry out upon us, Where are your positive commands, produce your express institution for this practice and the other custom in your churches, for in such things the LIGHT OF NATURE is sufficient to direct and guide us."*

In sentiments of this kind, Congregationalists agree with many distinguished and worthy writers of other denominations of Christians. Says Richard Hooker, the

* The work of Mr. Mather, (son of Cotton Mather,) was printed in 1738. It exhibits a great acquaintance with the subject of Congregationalism, and we shall have frequent occasion to refer to it. In the work of Mr. John Wise, pastor of a Church in Ipswich, printed in 1772, we have a confirmation of the statements of this section in the very title page, which reads thus; A Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, drawn from Antiquity, the Light of nature, Holy Scripture, and from the Dignity divine Providence has put upon it, &c. See Wise's Work, Chapters I. and II. of his Second Demonstration.

learned author of Ecclesiastical Polity, (Book I. sect. 8,) "The general and perpetual voice of men, [that is, the general and prevailing sentiment of mankind,] is as the sentence of God himself; for that, which all men have at times learned, nature herself must needs have taught, and God being the author of nature, her voice is but his instrument. By her, from Him, we receive whatsoever in such sort we learn. Infinite duties there are, the goodness whereof is by this rule sufficiently manifested, although we had no other warrant besides to approve them."

But there is still higher authority, that of the Apostle Paul, who evidently defends the doctrine of natural judgments of right and wrong in that remarkable passage, (Rom. chap. ii. 14, 15,)" For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing one another.”

And in addition to this passage, we find the Apostle frequently referring to the light of nature in proof of what he himself delivers, as in the 9th chapter of 1st Corinthians, where he refers, in support of the doctrine, that the labors of the minister ought to be compensated, to the common judgments and practice of mankind; to the shepherd, whom all men consider entitled to a share in the milk of the flock, and to the vine dresser, who rightly participates in the fruits of the vineyard. There is also a similar course of reasoning on the subjects introduced at chap. XI. 3—16, and chap. xiv. 33-40; that is to say, an appeal is evidently made to the common sentiments of mankind as correct interpreters, to some extent, of what is decent, orderly, and proper.

§. 4. Of an objection sometimes made.

It should be remarked, however, that objections have, from time to time, been made to these views.

Of these, the one most insisted on, and the only one perhaps necessary to be specified here, is involved in the following passage of Scripture';

Rom. xiv. 23, "And he that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." The objection, founded on this passage, is particularly mentioned in the work of Richard Hooker above named, (Book II. sect. 4 ;) and in such a way as to lead us to suppose, that it was much insisted on in his time by certain Dissenters from the Church of England, and probably by some Congregationalists.-The argument seems to be this; Whatsoever is not of faith is sin; but faith, as the term is more commonly used, has reference to the declarations of the Word of God; therefore, whatsoever is not done according to the express precepts of the Scriptures, is sin; and the inference, drawn from these positions, was, that in all matters of a Church or ecclesiastical nature, we are not at liberty to act without an express Scripture warrant.

But let us now briefly consider the nature and applicability of this objection. The principle, involved in the passage, when taken in connection with the related passages and properly interpreted, seems to be this; that, in doubtful cases, if our faith or belief, founded on the declarations of Scripture, lead us to a particular course of conduct, we are in duty bound to pursue that course, rather than the opposite or a different course. If, for instance, taking the very case which the Apostle is particularly remarking upon, a person deems it a scriptural injunction. to refrain from the eating of meats under certain circumstances, it is incumbent on him so to do, although his