1846.] Present State of Things. 443 close of their Report the Committee say, "It has appeared to us in every point of view expedient that the whole of the Platform and Confession of Faith, adopted by the Puritan Fathers, should be annexed to the preceding publication, so that ministers and churches may see in one view what Congregationalism was, and what we hope it will, for substance, continue to be." The documents are therefore published with the Report, and complete the vol ume. What has been the action of the Pastoral Association, or of individual ministers and churches upon this Report, we do not know; but the appointment of the Committee and this result of their labors afford a significant index of the state of things among a large portion of the Congregational body. While they show the ecclesiastical affairs of Congregationalists to be much "at loose ends," with a great want of order and regularity, and established principles and uniform action in their ecclesiastical proceedings, they clearly indicate that on the part of many there is manifest dissatisfaction with this state of things, and a strong desire and determination to remedy the evil, and introduce more of union and organization, a stricter adherence to established principles in ecclesiastical action. There are evidences of a similar state of feeling among the Unitarian portion of the Congregationalists. While among these there are some who would do away with the little ecclesiastical organization and action that we now have, who would discontinue Councils, local or district associations, and apparently all recognition and sympathy between churches as distinct. ecclesiastical bodies, there are others who would adhere to "ancient usages," who would re-affirm and maintain the principles and spirit of Congregationalism. We confess ourselves to be among this latter number. We have never supposed that Congregationalism, or that Unitarian Congregationalism had nothing to recommend it but its liberty, or that that liberty was an unbounded license of opinion, in which all religious boundaries and platforms were removed, and the bark of the human soul left to float wide and free upon the billows of thought, drift where the winds and waves of inquiry might carry it, rest where they should permit it to rest, or rest no where, giving account of itself to none, claiming ever and always to bear the Christian flag and sail on the sea of Christian truth. We have never supposed that the only watch-word and rallying point of Congregationalists was liberty, or that they were so free that they could not rally even around that, but must each be not only independent but separate, each pursue a path of his own, and none venture to intimate or assume to have an opinion whether the path of another is right or wrong, Christian or anti-Christian, leading into or out of the Christian fold. Yet this seems to be the idea which some have of Congregationalism. If they are right, then the days of Congregationalism are numbered. In religion we need a rock to stand upon, something firm and stable. The human mind needs, and ever seeks till it finds, a point of repose, something upon which it can rest securely in the fulness and satisfaction of faith. No religious system that does not afford and present this, no system that is on every and all points vague and shadowy, determining no great principles, outlines or boundaries of faith, leaving an utter uncertainty as to what it is in itself, or how far it extends, or who belong to it, or are embraced by it, such a system can never gain power or permanence in the world. Any body of men, call them a denomination, a sect or antisectarian sect, let them assume or eschew any or all names, as they please, any body of men attempting in a Christian community to uphold and carry out such a system, must fail. They cannot succeed. They and their adherents will soon find themselves absorbed, according to their affinities, in one or another of the denominations around them, that does offer and maintain something definite, permanent and stable, something upon which faith can rest, around which affections can cluster, to which the soul can cleave and find peace. We undervalue not the importance of religious liberty. We hold it in devout reverence as a holy and divine thing, man's noblest prerogative, which we would neither disown nor abuse. A calm assertion of it, a manly defence and unshrinking vindication of it against all the malice of intolerance and all the hosts of spiritual power, is a grand and noble work; we honor those who achieve it. But we hold that Christian liberty, like Christianity itself, has its limits and boundaries; and every individual in his own mind places some boundary to it. Even the most ultra rationalist 1846.] Christian Liberty. 445 probably does this. Claiming to be a Christian himself, he must have some Christian standard or platform, the measure of faith that in his judgment places one on Christian ground, gives one claim to the Christian name, apart from which even he would not apply that name. With him that measure is the reality and excellence of Christ's life and character and instructions. He denies everything supernatural, but he believes that such a person as Jesus Christ really existed, that he lived a life of consummate purity and benevolence, and uttered instructions of divine wisdom and truth; and on this account he claims to be recognised as a Christian, and considers his liberty infringed and himself persecuted if the supernaturalist does not, because he cannot consistently, so recognise him. But suppose a person to say to the Rationalist, I deny not only the supernatural portions of the New Testament record, but I deny the whole as a reality; I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever lived and taught; I believe in the great religious truths and moral principles presented in the New Testament, as delivered by Jesus Christ; I hold them to be the truths and principles by which I ought to govern my life, and I endeavor to govern it by them; I reverence the character described in the New Testament as the character of Jesus Christ; I hold it to be the model and standard by which I ought to form my own character, and I endeavor so to do; I claim therefore, though I deny the reality of the whole New Testament record, to be a Christian;'-suppose a person to say this to the Rationalist, must not the Rationalist, if consistent and true to his measure of faith, refuse to recognise him as on Christian ground. Would he not reply to him, 'The reality of Christ's character is the very substance of Christianity; it is a conviction of its reality, that gives efficacy and power to that character; if you deny that, there is no Christianity, properly speaking, for you - you are not on Christian ground?' We stop not to show that he who denies the reality of the whole of the New Testament record, while he professes to believe and obey its truths, has in fact as good a claim to the Christian name as he who with the same profession denies all its supernatural portions; we have introduced this illustration merely to show, that every inVOL. XLI. -4TH. S. VOL. VI. NO. III. 38 dividual has in his own mind some boundaries to Christianity, and consequently some limits to Christian liberty; and it is a part of his liberty to say what in his judgment those limits are, and to act upon that judgment. So every society or congregation, organized and meeting together for public worship and the administration of Christian ordinances, must have some platform upon which they stand, and beyond which their Christian fellowship and sympathies do not, because they cannot, extend. Meeting expressly as Christians, for Christian purposes, they must have some sort of common idea of who or what a Christian is, of the kind and measure of faith that makes a man a Christian and not a Hindoo, or a Jew or Mohammedan; and their administration of the Gospel must realize this idea, must proceed upon it and virtually declare it. And where a number of societies or congregations hold the same common idea, and act upon and declare it by a general similarity of worshp and administration, it may be well for them, - at times a duty, as well as a right and privilege, — collectively to affirm this idea and the general principles and regulations of ecclesiastical polity which grow out of it, and which they endeavor to maintain and apply; and thus for their own benefit, and the progress of Christ's kingdom and cause, define their positions and strengthen the ties of sympathy and fellowship by which they are united. This, we believe, is one of the great duties of Congregationalists at the present day" to re-affirm and maintain the principles and spirit of Congregationalism." In the Report to which we have already alluded, in speaking of a Convention or Synod for this purpose, and the good, "not overtasking itself with reforms," it might do for "the credit, order, strength, comfort and usefulness of the church," the Committee say in a note, "It has often been suggested that with proper attention, the way might be prepared for such a convention to meet in 1848, the second centennial from the time when the Cambridge Platform was adopted. The idea of a convention or Synod of Congregational ministers and churches at that time has struck the minds of all, so far as we know, with peculiar satisfaction." This suggestion strikes us favorably, as both important and practicable. We should like to see it carried into effect. The call for such a Convention or Synod would 1846.] Proposed Synod. 447 come with propriety from the Massachusetts Convention of Congregational Ministers. Let that body at their annual meeting in May next, call such a Synod, to be composed of the pastor and one lay delegate, (or two lay delegates, where the pulpit is vacant) from every Congregational church in Massachusetts, to meet at such time and place in the year 1848, as the Convention may designate. The strong objection that will at once arise in most minds to the adoption of this course, is the antecedent probability of such a want of harmony and congruity in this Synod as would prevent the possibility of any great good resulting from it. We admit the force of this objection, but do not think that it ought to have so much weight as to discourage or prevent the enterprise. It would be difficult to predict the result of an assembly thus called and constituted. The spirit of Christianity, eminently the spirit of Congregational Christianity, is that of the Apostle, when he said "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are without law, as without law, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you." That is, it is a spirit which seeks first union and sympathy and cooperation with others, and not contrast and separation. It is a spirit which disposes us to go along with all men as far as we can, and to separate and oppose only when it becomes absolutely necessary. It is a spirit of liberty, but not a liberty swelling with large ideas of individual independence, bristling all over with points of contrast and opposition to others, a liberty which says 'I can stand alone, and mean to stand alone; I hold the truth and the truth alone—the truth more purely than others hold it; and I can recognise it only as I hold it, and as it affects the relations between my conscience and my God.' It is a liberty compatible with "the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace"; which, while it preserves the integrity of the conscience, looks first at the things in which it agrees with others, seeks for points of union and contact, a common bond of sympathy and interest, that shall unite the hearts of others with itself in a fellowship of faith, duty and benevolence. It may be that could the proposed Synod |