be erroneous.

views of the meaning of the Scriptures may On the other hand, if a person seriously considers the Scriptures as authorizing him to eat meats, he is at liberty to eat; the conduct of the individuals in either case being regulated by their faith or belief. This is the doctrine in the case particularly had in view by the Apostle ; and we may suppose also in certain other cases of an analogous nature. And accordingly supposing ourselves to be at liberty to extend the principle to the subject under consideration, the result will be, if a person believe, or be persuaded, that certain obligatory principles and practices relative to Church Government, be declared in the Scriptures, it is his duty to adopt and follow them, although others may have different views of the Scriptural declarations. The statement, therefore, that WHATEVER IS NOT of faith, is sin, does not necessarily imply, that we can do nothing but what is expressly laid down in the Scriptures. It merely expresses this; That whatever we conceive to be laid down in the Scriptures, according to our careful and conscientious interpretation of them, ought to be binding upon us. But we are still left at liberty in those cases, which we do not consider to be decided upon by the Scriptures, to govern ourselves by the best dictates. of our unassisted judgment or reason; and also where the Scriptures are very express, we may rightfully aim to confirm and illustrate its precepts by an appeal to the natural understanding; making it a serious study, as it is an interesting and important one, to examine into the nature of man as a religious and social being, and thence deducing rules of duty and of government.*

*Although we have thus laid it down, as an established principle of Congregationalists, that we may consult the light of nature in some cases even in ecclesiastical matters, still it should be noted, that various remarks are to be found in the documents, rel

§. 5. Of man as a religious being.

The alleged views, relative to the authority of the dictates of the light of nature on ecclesiastical subjects, would be less creditable perhaps to the worthy fathers of the Congregational system, if man were not, in a certain sense, a religious being; that is to say, endowed with capacities for the worship and service of the Deity, and placed in a situation, rendering such service and worship a duty. The history of the world, and the sentiments of the most esteemed writers in all ages of mankind, show, that he is such. Heathen nations, who have never been favored with the Old Testament and with Christian instructions, have, nevertheless, evinced, by their worship of the heavenly luminaries, and of woods, fountains, and animals, ative to our Church polity, which taken by themselves, would not seem to sustain this view. The Cambridge Platform itself is exceedingly strict, in binding the Churches to a consultation of the Divine Word and in limiting mere human discretion. But the doctrine above laid down, is not founded on an insulated passage merely, which perhaps some other insulated passage might perplex and render doubtful; on the contrary it is gathered from the whole history of the Congregational fraternity, and is given as the sense of the Churches in general, although different notions may have prevailed in the minds of some individuals, and even have enjoyed a temporary ascendancy at some particular periods. In a few words the doctrine is this; that in many things of an ecclesiastical nature, especially such as are of leading concernment, we are encouraged to look to the Scriptures for express directions, but in some other cases, where God has not seen fit to give such express directions, he has left us to the guidance of our natural judgments. This is believed to be truly and emphatically the sentiment of the Churches at the present day.-See, in addition to Mather already quoted, the work of an earlier and very able writer, Dr. John Owen, entitled, An Enquiry into the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion of Evangelical Churches, Chap. i. Sec. 6, Chap. ii. Sec. 1.

ers.

that man, although he may have erred as to the proper object of worship, still was designed to worship something; that worship, that the reverence of some higher existence, that religion is essential to his nature. Many uninspired writers of great note in civilized and Christian lands, as Des Cartes and Locke,* looking at the question independently of the Scriptures, have agreed in considering the idea of God, either as innate in the human mind and connatural with it, or as certainly and clearly discoverable by the legitimate exercise of its powThe very first lines of the Congregational CONFESSION OF FAITH of 1680, fully authorized no doubt in the opinion of the writers by the Scriptures themselves, expressly declare, that "the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable." And this is warranted by the Bible. "The invisible things of Him," says the Apostle, Rom. 1. 20, “from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Now if it be true, that man is naturally, in a certain sense, a religious being, and that such is his character as made known to us by the light of nature independently of the Scriptures, then the same natural reason or natural light would lead us to expect, that he would put forth all the acts befitting, and corresponding to, such a character. And accordingly we see him attempting, under the influence of his primitive instincts, to fulfil the sacred offices of worship in the solitary place, such as may suit his convenience or the present temper of his mind; perhaps in

*Des Cartes' Principia, Pt. I. §§. 13, 14; Locke's Essay, Bk. I. Ch. iv. Bk. II. Chap xxiii.

the desert, perhaps in the hidden cavern, or in the retirement and shades of the forest. But it was a saying of one of the wise Ancients; "Man is not born for himself alone."

§. 6. Of man as a social being.

And hence we are to consider man, not only as a religious, but as a social being. Man is not created in solitude, but in society. When he first opens his eyes on the wonderful things of the world, he beholds those, who bear the same image with himself. From the beginning he is borne in the arms; is cradled on the bosom; and hears the sweet accents of his fellow creatures. As he grows up from the period of infancy, he clearly discovers the social propensity of his nature. When children are old enough to go out into the woods, to range the pastures, and to plunge into the waters, we find them happy and rejoicing, when together, but in general, discontented and sullen when alone. And when again we behold men in the maturity of life, gathering themselves in cities; when as in some periods of history, we see them leaving in vast hordes their native land, seeking out more auspicious settlements; when we witness them congregated in great empires and acting for the most part in vast united bodies both in peace and in war, is there any longer room to doubt, that men are made for society, that the love of society is natural to them, that it is an ultimate propensity of their constitution?

§. 7. Of social religious worship as deduced from the light of nature.

Now if man be a social being, this law of sociability will show itself in religious feeling and action, as well as in multitudes of other things. If men, obeying the tendencies of their nature, meet together in legislative halls for civil and political deliberations, is it not equally agree

able to their nature and to common sense and reason, that they should assemble, in like manner, in as deep and solicitous consideration on their religious concerns? If there be in men certain principles, which ensure the union of their persons and the concentration of their efforts in the pursuit of wealth, power, and empire, then certainly the most unfavorable views of human nature will not deny, that there are in men principles, which will induce them, in some degree at least, to bring together their purposes and feelings in the worship of the Most High. If man be naturally in some sense a religious being, looking upward to some Supreme Intelligence to support his weakness and to guide his ignorance; and if he be also a social being, then sociability and religious feeling must come together; and while we are permitted to worship, under the solitary tree of the forest or alone beneath the open canopy of heaven or wherever we may choose, we shall also worship with our neighbor, calling together our kindred, assembling in one conjoined and beautiful act of homage those of different ages and sexes, the cheerful simplicity of youth, and the severe wisdom of age.

"Without the worship of God in SOCIETIES," says the venerable Owen," there would be an absolute failure of one principal end of the creation of man; nor would any glory arise unto God from the constitution of his nature, so fitted for society, as that it cannot act its own powers without it." Owen's Enquiry into the Original, &c. of Churches, chap. i. sect. 6.—Congregationalists, therefore, regard it as a dictate of our nature, of our intellectual and moral constitution, and as such fully discovered by the feelings and practice of the great body of mankind in all ages, that it is suitable and incumbent on men to perform at times acts of worship in company. And accordingly it follows, that we may in part look for the foundation of