Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

same hours on the next Sabbath morning and deliver it at nine o'clock on that very morning. His tenacious memory grasped and held a large part of what he had written, but his sentences as they were uttered received a new wealth of beauty from his rich imagination."*

Although a man of varied learning, Tholuck's sermons, like other German sermons, are simple without show of erudition, and though not without interesting thought, are mainly addressed to the heart rather than the head. As most of his sermons were preached to University students, they are stamped with that free, fresh style adapted to impress young men. There is nothing dryly scholastic in their method or substance. They are living forms of thought. They are shot through with feeling as if caught from the light of that Cross which he loved to hold up before the eyes of men, and especially of those who were accounted wise.

He also exhibited a sagaciousness, a hard, shrewd knowledge of human nature, which is wonderful in a man devoted so exclusively to scholarly pursuits. The main traits of his preaching, we should say, were individuality, boldness mixed with kindness, dramatic power of the imagination, a pointed and homely style of thought, and a truly evangelic feeling that interfused all, and entered into the core and inmost meaning of the gospel. There are now and then sentences in his sermons which take us into the heart of spiritual truth, and we find ourselves making a stand upon them, revolving them and incorporating them into our own thinking, and almost unconsciously adopting them as principles to regulate our modes of belief. Were it not indeed well for us to infuse something of the spiritual life, and of the heart-glow of Schleiermacher, Tholuck, and the best German preachers from Tauler and Luther down to Palmer of Tübingen, Dorner of Berlin, Kahnis and Luthardt of Leipsic, and a hundred others, where, at the same time, there is no want of vigorous thinking-into our more cold, formal, and rationalistic methods of preaching? Yet we are of the opinion that we should not wholly adopt the German style of sermonizing, and lose sight of the best distinctive traits of the New England pulpit-its nobly thoughtful method and its profound grasp of principles.

*Bib. Sac., vol. xxix., p. 377.

ARTICLE VII.-ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF CONGREGATIONAL PLATFORMS.

WE propose to show the origin and authority of Congregational Platforms of Church Government, in order to answer the question: What force has the Boston Platform in our churches and in the civil courts? Does it stand, in its details, solely on the endorsement of the few honored men whose names are affixed to its Preface? or has it the force and authority of the National Council of our churches? The point is an important one in both its ecclesiastical and legal aspects.

I. THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM.

1. Origin. It was early felt that "the churches of New England should have a system of their discipline, extracted from the word of God and exhibited unto them with a more effectual, acknowledged, and established recommendation" than the works of private authors, such as Cotton's Keys, and Rutherford's Survey.* To reach this end "a bill was preferred unto the General Court [of Massachusetts], in the year 1646, for the calling of a synod whereby a 'Platform of Church Discipline,' according to the direction of our Lord Jesus Christ in his blessed word, might most advantageously be composed and published. The magistrates in the General Court passed the bill, but the deputies had their little scruples how far the civil authority might interpose in matters of such religious and ecclesiastical cognizance; and whether scaffolds might not now be raised, by the means whereof the civil authority should pretend hereafter to impose an uniformity, in such instances, which had better be left at liberty and variety." These "little scruples" had the effect of changing "the order for the calling of the intended assembly" to "the form of a motion, and not of a command, unto the churches."+

A Synod, thus convened by a motion of the General Court of Massachusetts, met at Cambridge, in 1646; "sat but four+Magnalia, ii. 209.

* Mather's Magnalia, ii. 209.

teen days, and then adjourned unto the eighth of June, in the year ensuing;" reässembled in 1647, but adjourned again in consequence of an epidemic; re-convened in 1648; and, in October, presented its completed work to the General Court. "The General Court most thankfully accepted and approved of it."*

2. Authority.—When the Cambridge Platform was framed, approved, and adopted, the custom prevailed in New England, as in the rest of Christendom, of admitting to civil privileges only church members. All voters and officers in the State belonged to the established church. Hence, the Synod was the churches acting in their ecclesiastical capacity exclusively; and the General Court was the churches acting in both civil and ecclesiastical matters. The command of the latter had the same force in ecclesiastical as in civil affairs. Yet, because of scruples, the General Court forbore "to make use of that power" in calling the Synod, which it lawfully claimed over the churches.

The General Court observed the same caution in approving the platform framed by the Synod. "Several persons from several churches gave unto the Court some objections against sundry passages and paragraphs of this Platform. The secretary did, by order, lay these written objections before the chief, and most of the ministers in the COLONY, who appointed Mr. Richard Mather to draw up an answer to them; the answer by him composed, and by the rest approved, was given in; and the result of all was, that the ecclesiastical model thus fortified obtained a more abundant recommendation unto and among this people of God."+

Yet, in 1649, the General Court of Massachusetts, after the consideration of the first set of objections, commended the Platform to the churches for "their judicious and pious consideration," desiring them to return answers to the Court "how far it is suitable to their judgments and approbation."‡ Objections having been returned to the General Court, it referred them, in 1651, to Rev. John Cotton for answer. And, in October of the same year, the General Court gave "their * Magnalia, 211. + Ib., ii. 237.

Mass. Records, iii. 177, 178.

testimony to the said Book of Discipline, that for the substance thereof it is that we have practiced and do believe.”*

Thus the General Court, though exercising the dual functions of the Israelitish Theocracy, considered objections an swered by Rev. Richard Mather before their approval of the Platform. Then the Court commended the Platform to the churches for examination, approval, or objection; sent the returned objections to Rev. John Cotton for answer; after which it gave the Platform "their testimony ""for the substance thereof." This is the highest authority the Cambridge Platform received at the time of its adoption. Since then our churches have reäffirmed said Platform only "substantially," or for substance of doctrine."

Yet as "testimony" respecting the principles and usages of our polity, the Platform held the first place of authority both in our churches and in our civil courts. But, in the sense of binding the churches to the exact theories and practices set forth therein, the Platform never had any authority whatever. Its authority was that of testimony, not of command; for the substance thereof, not for every form of expression; in virtue of its conformity to the teachings of the New Testament, not in virtue of its adoption by the Synod and commendation by the General Court.

II. THE BOSTON PLATFORM.

1. Origin. After a lapse of two hundred and seventeen years, another General Council of our churches met at Boston, in 1865. The defects of the Cambridge Platform were not the cause of its convening, but, instead, the problems arising from the civil war and the emancipation of the slaves. A committee, however, which had been previously appointed to report on "the expediency of issuing a statement of Congregational Polity," presented a report and two draughts of Platforms,a longer one prepared and read by Rev. Leonard Bacon, D.D., and an "epitome," prepared and read by Rev. A. H. Quint, D.D. The report was accepted, and the draughts referred to a large committee. This committee, after long deliberation,

*Mass. Records, iii. 235, 236, 240.

made their report, recommending "the following action on the part of the Council:"

"Resolved, That this Council, having received and duly examined the two statements of church polity presented to them, hereby express their approval of the general principles and scope of the same.

"Resolved, That these documents be referred to the committee reporting them, which committee shall be enlarged by the addition of twenty-four members. . . . who shall receive and publish the same under the following instructions:

"1. All members and ministers of Congregational churches. . . . shall be invited by the committee . . . . to indicate such additions, emendations, and omissions as they may judge proper.

"2. The committee shall take into special and careful consideration the points to which attention is now called in this report, and in general shall be empowered to make such changes and additions to the documents in their charge as they may deem advisable, and as may not be inconsistent with he general principles now approved."

There were three more instructions: the third respecting the method of indicating differences in usage; the fourth, the setting forth of the origin and history of the documents in a preface; and the fifth, relating to an appendix of added documents.*

The motion to adopt this report, after an amendment defining three things "as distinctive of the Congregational Polity" had been unanimously adopted, was carried, thus making the resolutions and recommendations the order of the Council.

2. Authority. In adopting the report of the committee to which the Platforms were first referred, the Council declared: "We have a right to issue as complete and comprehensive a statement as we are able to secure, for the consideration of the churches whose representatives we are, so long as, in the language of Richard Mather, we claim no more authority for such statement than there is force in the reason of it.'"+ The right being undisputed, how did the Council exercise it? We have seen that, on the recommendation of the committee, the Council expressed "their approval of the general principles and scope" of the draughts presented and read; that they then referred the draughts to a new and large committee, "who shall revise and publish the same under instructions." The adoption of this made the revision and publication mandatory + Ib., 463, 464. Minutes, 427.

*Minutes, 427-430.

« AnteriorContinuar »