the genuine seal of Jehovah. Let, then, the friends of the Bible repose in it a more unwavering faith. Let them not treat it "superficially and on principles of partial and one-sided deduction just as if it were the word of man." Let them explore those

"Depths where from the one root of sensus simplex the richest fulness of references spring up and ramify in such a manner, that what, upon the ground and territory of its immediate historical connection, presents one definitely apprehended truth as the kernel of its meaning, does nevertheless exhaust itself into an inexhaustible variety of senses for the teaching of the world in all ages, and especially in the church, where the Holy Spirit himself continues to unfold his germinal word even to the end of the days.”—Stier, Wds. of Jesus.

Then shall they experience the truth so felicitously expressed by the learned Bengel, "Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata, est, non solum dum scripta est, Deo spirante per scriptores; sed etiam dum legitur, Deo spirante per scripturam, et scriptura ipsum spirant."

All Scripture is divinely inspired, not only while it is being written, God breathed through the writers, but, also, while it is being read, God breathing through the Scriptures, and the Scriptures breathing out, exhaling, being full of God himself. By no means let the friends of the Bible be understood, as some of them are in danger of being understood, to deprecate the most thorough and searching examination of its claims. Let them, not by pouring forth Jeremiads over the influence of recent productions of the rationalistic and infidel schools, give the impression that the Bible cannot abide the severest tests. Let them rather by comprehensive and impartial study make themselves acquainted with the proofs of its inspiration. Then will they not fear all that the enemies of the Bible can do. But, on the other hand, in calm and dignified address they can say to the Baurs, the Colensos, the Reviewers, the Renans, et id omne genus:

"Permit us to tell you in all friendship, there are those who have given patient and industrious attention to every thing that has sprung from the lofty wisdom of your unbelief, but whose faith in the testimony of God's Spirit in holy writ has not seldom found its most effectual invigoration and its most convincing argument in

the self-contradictory folly of your books, the darkness of which has only served to make their own light the brighter and more precious."

Then would their response to all the boasts of infidelity be, If this counsel or this work were of men it might come to nought. But it is of God; therefore ye cannot overthrow it.

ARTICLE II.

CONGREGATIONALISM

AS RELATED TO CIVIL LIBERTY, CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
CHURCH EXTENSION.

THE Cambridge Platform is a much more important and interesting document than many, even of those who hold the doctrines of the Puritans, suppose it to be. It was framed and adopted in 1648, or twenty eight years after the landing of the forefathers at Plymouth. There were already a large number of churches established in the Plymouth and Massachusetts Colonies, and their ministers were generally among the most learned and pious clergymen that had been educated in England. Prelacy had driven a large proportion of this class of ministers out of the English church, while it had retained those who were ready to conform to its requirements, though they lacked both learning and piety, and even though they were Papists at heart. Those who came into exile with their people would naturally be among the ablest and best of the NonConformists. Such was the class of men by whom the Platform was framed. The controversies of that period made them especially learned in all matters relating to church polity. The Platform adopted nothing that was novel, but its object was to put into definite form a system that already existed among them in all its principal features. They were perfectly agreed

in one general idea, namely, that the word of God ought to be their exclusive authority in matters of polity as well as doctrine, and that human traditions ought to be rejected so far as they varied from that word or made essential additions to it. In every thing except some minor matters they were agreed as to what the word of God taught.

In their preface, they express a desire "to hold forth the same doctrine in religion, especially in fundamentals" that was held by their brethren in England. They adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith, taking care however to say that they received it "for substance of doctrine," and excepting also some sections relating to church discipline. In a kind and Christian manner they answered the objections that were urged against them by their "presbyterial brethren," and expressed their intention to take the word of God for their guide in constructing the framework of their polity. Their objections to the "presbyterial" system were that they thought it went beyond the word of God, and made large additions to the apostolic system; merely by virtue of what they regarded as human authority, and that its basis, as an elective monarchy, was in direct opposition to the democratic basis, which the apostles had, in their opinion, established.

The Platform consists of seventeen brief chapters, which form a complete system of organization and government, that was compact, simple, and not encumbered by any unnecessary machinery. Its definition of a church is as follows: "A Congregational church is by the institution of Christ a part of the militant visible church, consisting of a company of saints, by calling, united into one body by a holy covenant, for the public worship of God, and the mutual edification of one another in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus." Its members should be those who so live and walk "as that in charitable discretion they may be accounted saints by calling," or in other words, those who profess faith in Christ, and live agreeably to such a profession. The number of persons to be gathered into a church should not be greater than could conveniently worship together, and there might be as many churches in one city or town as the convenience of the city might require. Some general suggestions are made as to what the substance of a church covenant

should be, but no form is prescribed. Each church was left at liberty to adopt such a form as it might think proper.

After declaring what constitutes a church, the Platform designates its officers. The highest of these were pastors and teachers. By later practice these two offices have been united in one person, but it may be doubted whether any thing has been gained by the change. We have not space, however, to discuss the question here.

The other officers were ruling elders and deacons. The office of ruling elder was radically different from what it is in the Presbyterian church; and it is now discontinued, its duties being entrusted to the deacons, who are in many instances, aided by a committee of the church which is elected annually. All these officers are elected by vote of the brethren. Ministers are ordained by the laying on of hands, but this is regarded merely as a fitting ceremony. Election by the brethren must precede it, and the election is the act which exclusively confers the right of office. The minister holds his office on such terms as have been agreed on between him and the people, except so far as his rights and duties are prescribed by the word of God. The right of admitting and excluding members, the duty of administering discipline and of managing the ordinary business of the church also belongs to the people.

It

But though the brethren of each church were invested with supreme authority as to the management of its concerns, yet the Platform did not adopt the system of Independency. uses the phrase "neighbor churches," and the system which it adopts recognizes the duties of good neighborhood, and makes provision for the exercise of such duties. Among these duties is that of consultation in all important matters, such as the formation of a new church, the settlement and discipline of a minister, the settlement of an important dispute, or a difficult case of discipline. Other duties are those of watchfulness, admonition, encouragement and aid, and the proper regulation of the transfer of membership from one church to another. For the discharge of some of these duties, councils are provided for. Others are left to the voluntary action of individual churches, to be performed by means of visits and otherwise.

The Platform also provides for synods to debate and decide

important matters. But neither councils or synods have any ecclesiastical authority over the churches. Their decisions are merely advisory, and the only power which "neighbor churches" have over each other is to withdraw their fellowship when it becomes proper to do so. In practice it sometimes happens that the parties calling a council, by agreement, confer upon it the power of arbitration, and in many cases this is very con

venient.

No synod has been called for many years; but the system of general conferences which has recently been adopted, will probably answer all the valuable purposes of a synod.

Associations of ministers are not mentioned; for they constitute no part of the system of church government. They are voluntary bodies, and their only relation to the churches is that they license men to preach, and in this way the churches have come to confide in them for the disciplination of ministers. One whom they recommend is accepted without further examination, and when they withdraw from a man their license, no church would employ him. They thus have in their own hands the keeping of the honor and integrity of their own profession.

Our sketch of the outlines of the Platform is brief. We advise those who desire to know more of it, to study it. It is itself brief; but it comprehends much. We have had occasion to read and consult it repeatedly, and always with increasing admiration for the ministers who adopted such a system. They were disinterested Christians, desiring nothing but to know and maintain Christianity in its purity.

They understood the system of church government as set forth in the New Testament to be a democracy, and they did not hesitate to adopt it though it deprived them of the ecclesias tical power which the human heart so naturally desires, and which the clergy of Europe had been accustomed to enjoy. But they well knew how the acquisition of authority had corrupted the clergy, abused the people, and blighted Christianity. In the Papal system it had become a despotism; and it had been the most corrupt, cruel and unprincipled despotism that the world had ever seen. In the church of England they saw the operation of prelacy, which is a combination of monarchy and aristocracy, and its features were all repulsive. With