indirect proof and does not make the reasoning more easily understood. Take the following proposition: "If two parallel lines are cut by a third straight line, A the alternate interior angles are equal." AB and CD be cut by the straight line EF in the points G E G K B and H; then the alternate interior angles HGB and GHC are equal." "For, through I, the middle point of GH, suppose the indefinite line, KIL, to be drawn perpendicular to AB, it will also be perpendicular to CD." (At this point I should like to remark that a perpendicular to a given line or through a given. point ought not to be called an indefinite line.) "Conceive the portion IGB of the figure" (AG and GE left out?) "including the perpendicular IK to be revolved in its own plane about I (as upon a pivot), until IG comes into coincidence with its equal IH. The angle GIK being equal to its vertical angle HIL, the 4 indefinite (?) line IK will fall upon IL and form with it but one line." (Why so? because the sum of the H G K B two adjacent angles is equal to two right angles; but the application of this principle to prove the last statement and even the reference to it are omitted.) "Moreover, the point G, being then at H, the line GB which is perpendicular to IK will then coincide with HC, which is perpendicular to IL" (the indirect proof, that, if these lines did not coincide then from the same point there. would be two perpendiculars from the same point to the same straight line-which is contrary to what has been before proved-being omitted) "and consequently the angles IGB" (in its new imaginary position) "and IHC will coincide." "Therefore the angles HGB and GHC are equal." It is not intended to assert that the reasoning of the foregoing demonstration is inconclusive, yet it is not too much to say that to a beginner it would not convey clear ideas, nor discipline him in logical thinking, nor fix in his mind the certainty of geometric truth. Without going further, enough has been presented to show that writers who wish to improve upon Euclid have not avoided all mistakes themselves. However much his treatise fails of being a complete text-book of Elementary Geometry, yet with all its faults it is to be preferred, as far as it goes, to any modern work for teaching clear ideas of elementary space relations and careful methods of thought and expression. ARTICLE III. SOME NEGLECTED FACTORS IN CON GREGATIONAL FELLOWSHIP. * THE Congregational Polity was not completed in the plat forms of 1648 and 1872. If they accurately marked the bounds of development at the time of their appearance, they do not do SO now. "As a testimony respecting our principles and usages," we have shown, in another Article, that the later Platform has now for our churches the same authority and legal force that the earlier one possessed before it was superseded. Neither one is self-consistent; but the later Platform is less consistent than the earlier one. Two factors which rendered the Cambridge Platform almost complete in certain directions, were in consequence of foreign elements suffered to fall into neglect in our system of church government; but lately they have claimed the right to their normal place. It may conduce to peace and uniformity, if we call the attention of the churches to them, and show that our polity requires their reinstatement in order to completeness and purity. We refer to ministerial discipline and ministerial standing; the former of which has been already practically restored, but the latter of which still awaits full recognition and restoration by the communion of churches. We treat each in order. I. MINISTERIAL DISCIPLINE. It is well known that the Cambridge Platform, so far as it related to the ministry, was founded on the theory, that the ministerial function is confined to the pastoral relation. The pastoral relation ceasing, the ministerial function ceases; and the pastor becomes a layman again, to be restored to the ministry only by a second ordination called installation. This is declared to be "the necessary verdict of the principles of Congregationalism." Whether we accept this view of it or not, we * New Englander, vol. iii., 368 seq. New Series. shall find that the rules laid down in that platform for ministerial discipline are consistent with the theory. By it none are ministers but church officers, who are called thereto by the churches whereunto they minister. "And if the church have power to choose their officers and ministers, then in case of manifest unworthiness and delinquency they have power also to depose them." A pastor removed from office is by the theory deposed from the ministry. And "in case he add contumacy to his sin, the church that had power to receive him into their fellowship, hath also the same power to cast him out, that they have concerning any other member."* Thus the church of which the minister was both member and pastor, had power to depose him from the ministry by removal from office, and then to excommunicate him. It is true that a council of churches is provided for, where it may be had; but as the council could only give advice, the church had the discipline of its pastor in its own hands, as the theory logically required. The process was simple, easy, direct, and adequate, provided each church was faithful to its trust; but, in case a church should not deal with its delinquent pastor as thus required, provision was made for dealing with it in the way of disfellowship. This, however, was the discipline of a church, instead of its minister. Still, the Cambridge Platform might have proved itself adequate for ministerial discipline, had it been founded on the true theory of the Christian ministry. But this pastoral theory of the ministry proved so inadequate that it was scarcely held for a generation. It was rejected by the Congregational churches of England ten years after it was formulated in New England. It could not evangelize the world except through the labors of laymen. It could not explain the anomaly of long ministerial service in towns where no church existed, of which there were numerous cases reaching back to the time of the Cambridge Synod. The pastoral theory of the ministry broke down completely; yet its process of ministerial discipline was the only one our churches had for * Cambridge Plat., ch. viii. 5, 7 ; x. 6. Ch. xv. 2 (3). Mather's Magnalia, ii. 239. S Savoy Declaration of Church Order, xv. two hundred and twenty-four years, so conservative are they. True, the Connecticut churches, in 1708, took refuge from ecclesiastical disorders in the Saybrook Platform of Consociations. But the larger Colony, Massachusetts, refused to seek relief in the "Proposals" of 1705, or in any subsequent remedy. Even the report of the learned committee of the General Association of Massachusetts, made in 1846, fell still-born. And the Boston Council which met in 1865, was not called to amend our discipline so much as to conserve other interests. When we remember that the Cambridge Platform was radically inadequate for ministerial discipline through the rejection of its theory, we can account for the general good order only by the high character of our ministry. The Boston Council approved of another platform, and "empowered" a committee to make such alterations and additions as they should deem advisable and not inconsistent with the general principles which the council had approved, and to issue it to the churches.* This committee issued the Platform in 1872. This platform widens the theory of the ministry to conform to the facts. It makes pastors ministers, and all others duly set apart by ordination to the preaching of the word. "The ministry, therefore, includes all who are called of God to preach the gospel and are set apart to that work by ordination." And yet, the Boston Platform is not self-consistent. Two theories strive within it, like Esau and Jacob in the womb. of Rebekah. This appears in its mode of ministerial discipline. For, while it gives the true theory of the ministry, as above stated, it founds its process of ministerial discipline on the rejected pastoral theory. It makes the process to begin in the church and by the church of which the minister is a member,‡ though he may not be pastor of it, but, instead, the minister of another church a thousand miles away. He is approached as if he were a lay member, after the fashion of the Cambridge Platform. This constitutes an inconsistency in principle and a grave defect in practice. The defects were clearly exhibited in a report made by a Pt. III., ch. ii. 7 (7). * Minutes, 430. Pt. IV., ch. i., sec. 1. |