point material to "the system of doctrine” contained in the Confession; why not prove at once, that the point denied is material to the "system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." If the error of a religious opinion cannot be demonstrated by reasoning out of the Scriptures, can it be satisfactorily demonstrated to Protestants in any other way?

4. Another use of confessions, is to declare to the public what views of some particular points, or of the whole scheme of christian doctrine, are in fact held by a church, or a community of churches, or by an individual, or an association of individuals. Thus Luther and Melancthon, on behalf of themselves and their associates, drew up and presented to the emperor Charles V. at the diet of Augsburg, in 1550, the celeb rated Augustan or Augsburg Confession, designed to represent to the emperor and to that assembly, the real opinions of the reformers, as distinguished on the one hand from the doctrines of the Papists, and on the other hand from the doctrines ascribed to them by their adversaries. Thus the Congregational churches of England, in 1658, having been misrepresented and traduced in respect to their religious principles and order, met by their messengers, at the Savoy in London, and published to the world the Savoy Confession, or "a declaration of the faith and order, owned and practiced in the Congrega

tional churches in England." Thus the elders and messengers of the churches in the colony of Massachusetts, being assembled in Boston, in 1680, expressed publicly their approval of the Savoy Confession, as exhibiting the doctrines of their churches. "There have been some,' "" they say, "who have reflected upon our New English churches, for our defect in this matter, as if our principles were unknown; whereas it is well-known that as to matters of doctrine, we agree with other reformed churches. Nor was it that, but what concerns worship and discipline, that caused our fathers to come into this wilderness, while it was a land not sown, that so they might have liberty to practice accordingly. And it is a ground of holy rejoicing before the Lord, that now there is no advantage left for those that may be disaffected towards us, to object any thing of that nature against us." The same Confession was afterwards acknowledged by the Synod at Saybrook in 1708, as exhibiting the faith of the churches of the colony of Connecticut.

This brings us to the name of that gorgon so terrible to some of our brethren of other denominations, the Saybrook Platform. Well, what is the Saybrook Platform? It is not that confession of faith just referred to, which was owned and approved by the Synod at Saybrook, as it had been by the previous Synod at Boston.

It is not the "Heads of Agreement" between Congregational and Presbyterian ministers, which were drawn up and consented to at London, about the year 1690, and which the Saybrook Synod approved and recommended. It is simply those fifteen articles of discipline which were drawn up by that Synod, and recommended to the churches by the legislature, as supplying certain supposed deficiences of the Cambridge Platform, and providing for the more perfect communion of the churches. The Saybrook Platform is, or was, the constitution of the associations and consociations of Connecticut.

But after all, what is the actual relation of this Savoy Confession to the Congregational churches? I answer, as a test or standard of truth, as a scheme of faith prescribed for the belief of our ministers or church-members, as a condition of communion, as a piece of legislation, it has no authority at all. By the Synod of Saybrook, which consisted of twelve pastors and four messengers, it was agreed that the confession referred to, "be recommended to the honorable general assembly of this Colony at the next session, for their public testimony thereunto, as the faith of the churches of this Colony." But neither the platform, nor the subsequent proceedings of the legislature, approving and establishing the doings of the Synod, contained any provision for the adoption of

this confession by ministers, or by church-members. The whole transaction, then, as we understand it, was in fact only a public testimony that such was at that time, the faith of the churches of Connecticut, just as the Synod at Boston had previously testified to the same formulary as expressing the common faith of the churches of Massachusetts. The authority of that confession then, is the authority of a historical document. The votes of the Synods concerning it, as the faith of the New England churches, are testimony to a matter of fact, by competent and unquestionable witnesses.

Do you ask what is now the faith of these churches? I answer, they still hold the faith of their fathers. They do not indeed regard themselves as responsible for the particular phraseology, the arrangement, the illustrations, of that Confession assented to by the Synods at Boston and Saybrook, or for every individual principle which it involves; but still they regard it as containing "for the substance," "the system of doctrines taught in the holy scripture.' This is evident from the formularies used in individual churches, and from the repeated and frequent acts of associations, councils, and other ecclesiastical bodies. This is evident from the course of inquiry whenever a candidate is examined, concerning his fitness to preach the gospel, or to be introduced into the pastoral of

fice. This is evident from the preaching in our pulpits, from our psalmody, and from the tenor of our public and domestic prayers. It is no less evident from the writings of our divines, as they are daily given to the world, whether in the form of controversy with opposers, or of discussion with each other. It is evident from the books which are most read and valued among our ministers and church-members, and which are commonly regarded as our standard authors.* The cry sometimes raised, that there is no way of determining what we do believe, if it be not a mere pretense, must proceed from great ignorance and blindness.

Note B, p. 44.

The idea of the gradual formation and organization of the apostolic churches, while it seems to lie upon the very surface of the New Testament, is the key to many difficulties in the controversy which has been agitated for two centuries and a half, about church officers. For a more extended illustration of that idea, the learned reader is referred to Plank's Geschichte der christlichen Gesellschafts-Verfassung. vol,i. pp. 1–50.

*

Among these books, DWIGHT'S THEOLOGY has probably the best title to be considered as a complete exhibition of the faith of our churches.