We notice, also, that the framers of the Cambridge Platform subscribe for sum and substance to the Westminster Confession; not that they may bar out from themselves heretics in their own land, but that they may manifest their real union in faith with their brethren in foreign lands. Even the Saybrook fathers offer their Confession of Faith as their "firm persuasion, well and fully grounded upon the Holy Scripture ;" and, not assuming that any thing should be taken upon trust from them, they exhort the people, in several heads of exhortation, to search the Scriptures, and to remember that the Word of God must be the foundation of their faith, and the authority of the Word the reason of it.2 Manifold other illustrations of the negative force of this formal principle of Congregationalism might be given. No formulas of doctrine, however composed by men of learning and authority, can be received as giving authoritatively the rule of faith and discipline. From this general statement of what the Scripture is, and what, therefore, the creeds are not, we may derive the following three particulars:

The creed is in no sense a source of doctrine, or an instrument of authority. The creed is to be used for the expression and explication of doctrine, not primarily for its establishment. The right historical and philosophical use of symbols and confessions of faith in the formation of doctrinal systems is one of the most important acquisitions of theology. These all exhibit to the student of this science the growing development of Christian consciousness in its understanding of the Word of God. They are, so far as they are true, from

1 Note the words of the Preface, beginning, "The more we discern," etc.; "For this end," etc.; and "Now by this our professed consent." 2 See the Preface, "This Confession of Faith we offer," etc.

the same fountain, in the self-revelation of God, from which the Scriptures themselves are. The Scriptures are a source of doctrine such as the creeds cannot become; but the latter are channels for the distribution and manifestation of this doctrine.

The formulated rules of faith which the Church uses are never, therefore, completed expressions or final tests of the divine rule of faith. Changes in creeds, and improvements in statement of doctrine, are to be sought and expected. Changes are to be adopted whenever they are made clear to the Christian consciousness as real and helpful improvements coming out of the divine Word. The younger Edwards, in accordance with this application of the principle, could claim, that, “on the great subject of necessity and liberty, his father made very important improvements."

Every believer has, therefore, the right, and is under the obligation, to study, discern, promulgate, and defend the truths of the gospel. For these ends he may go himself to the Scriptures, and from them form, in humble and prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit, his views of divine truth. "Every man," says Prince, "has a right of judging for himself, of trying doctrines by them." Both minister and congregation have freedom of inquiry into the truth of God as taught in his Word, untrammelled by creeds, unterrified by suspicions of heresy, or threats of disfellowship from their brethren. This attitude toward Scripture and creed puts pre-eminent honor on the Scripture, but does not dishonor the creed. And this attitude is safest. "He who attempts to read the Bible through a creed," says Dr. Thompson, "is like Galileo attempting to read the heavens through the catechism, instead of a telescope." What twisted

1 New-England Chronology, p. 177.

exegesis results from the attempt to interpret the heavens of revelation through a formula, we may judge from the Presbyterian Book of Discipline.1

The more honest and thorough application of the principle that the Word of God in the Scriptures furnishes the sole objective authority for the churches of Christ, both in the positive and in the negative form of that principle, is distinctive of Congregationalism. But the extent to which the principle is applied constitutes another distinguishing feature of our church order. This sole objective authority extends to the constitution, discipline, and worship of the Christian Church. The formal principle asserts, then, that the Word of God is designed to furnish, and does actually furnish, a guide for the leading of Christ's people in a church way. The constitution and government of churches is ordered by the Spirit, speaking through the principles of the New Testament germane to this subject, and also speaking by the example of the churches of the New Testament as they were founded by the apostles: the constitution and government of churches is ordered by the Spirit of God to be after a certain type. This may seem a very High-Church tenet, may seem somewhat too much like various misapplications of the doctrine of divine right: it is, however, both in fact and in logic, an element of the formal principle of our church order. Our fathers in the faith never formed their Congregational churches as a matter merely of convenience or temporary expediency. Convenience does not force men in conscience to separate from the State Church: expediency is no guide to persecution. Principle must lay hold of men when they are to face angry bishops and kings for the

1 See, e.g. book I., chap. viii. sect. 2, note, and chap. ix. sect 6, note. Compare the remarks in Dr. Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 53, f.

sake of associating themselves together as Christians in a certain form of the Church state. It has been fashionable among Congregationalists, for more than a halfcentury, to look upon the constitution and discipline and worship of churches as matters which believers may rightly undertake very nearly as seems right in their own sight. It has been considered the only true liberality to be indifferent on grounds of principle to one's form of church government: to be facile in making changes from one form to another has been counted a mark of freedom from bigotry. It has even been made a matter of conscience to depart, and to aid others. to depart, from the New-Testament way of organizing and managing Christian churches. Now, whether this view which converts adherence to our principles of church order into a shallow and barren expediency be true in theory or not, it is certainly far from being true to the facts of our history. The true church polity never could have raised its head above the surface, if its original seed had been sown in such a field as this; and it will never show, and ought never to show, any thrift in self-propagation, if its growth is expected from such a seed-thought as this.

The argument from Scripture to prove that the Christian churches of the New Testament were Congregational churches, and that the very principles and method and form of their foundation show them to be designed as models, for substance of that doctrine of the Church which they present, to all churches of Christ to the end of time, has been frequently and minutely and convincingly made. The early writers elaborated it very fully, because they were working wholly along

1 Among more recent writers, especially in Dr. Dexter's Congregationalism, etc.

the line of its idea. Their entire purpose was to discover and promulgate the New-Testament doctrine of a "As to ecclesiastical matters," says Christian Church. Prince, "they held the following articles to be agreeable to Scripture and reason." The "following articles" are ten heads of doctrine concerning the constitution, discipline, and worship of the churches of Christ.1 And the author pertinently adds, "These were the main principles of that scriptural and religious liberty for which this people suffered in England, fled to Holland, traversed the ocean, and sought a dangerous retreat in these remote and savage deserts of North America, that here they might fully enjoy them, and leave them to their last posterity."

Upon this view of the formal principle of Congregationalism, the view which was, without doubt, held by our fathers, let us weigh the following remarks.

This view makes Congregationalism a matter of principles to which the believer is, by the law of the authority of Scripture, bound to adhere. He may not accept at his pleasure these principles, and then at his pleasure lay them one side. Is, then, do you ask?— every Christian bound to become a Congregationalist? In reply I may, first of all, say, Every Congregationalist is bound to be such as a matter of principle. The placidity of expediency has no more place with us than the irritation of sectarianism. We hold our church order, if at all, from the New Testament. Whatever habits we may ourselves have contracted which are contrary to these principles, we are, by the principles, bound as rapidly as possible to change: whatever improvements we can make in the manifestation of these principles, we are at liberty to make. And as to others I may say, in

1 See New-England Chronology, p. 177, f.