which embraced them all. But, as the authority of the old confessions gradually declined, and more especially when the churches began to be threatened with Unitarianism, they quickly resorted to the more consistent practice of a creed for each individual church-a practice which it is hoped. never be laid aside.

may

In more recent times, the necessity of creeds has been asserted by Unitarians themselves, at least, by the better part of them. Their denomination became infested with a class of radicals whom no one bearing the Christian name could consent to tolerate; and in order to be rid of them, they were as earnest in favor of creeds as they had formerly been in denouncing them.

But, granting that our churches should have creeds, how shall their creeds be formed? How much shall they embrace?

Some tell us that a church creed should embrace no doctrine which a truly pious person can, by any possibility, reject; since, if it do, we may be under the necessity of excluding some child of God from his church and his table. But in a creed formed on this principle, it will be difficult to determine what to exclude, and what to retain, or whether we shall retain anything. There are two kinds of essential doctrines those which are essential to a consistent scheme of evangelical religion, and those a belief of which is essential to piety. The first class of essential doctrines may be pretty accurately ascertained. But who shall tell us precisely what doctrines must be received in order to be a pious person? Who will say that there can be no pious Unitarians, or Universalists? Shall we, then, omit from our creeds the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and eternal punishment? Yea, who will pretend that there never was, and never can be, a pious heathen? Some of the Germans tell us that piety attaches only to the feelings, and has no connection whatever with dogma. It is obvious that, on the principle we are considering, a church creed must be a very short one, if indeed any creed at all is possible.

It is not for us to decide into what minds and hearts the grace of God may possibly enter and form a renovated character. We may judge a system of doctrine, and condemn it; but we are not called upon to pass sentence upon the characters of individuals, but must leave them to the just judgment of God.

The question returns, then: What shall the creed of a church contain? What doctrines shall it embrace? Perhaps not the same in all cases. Some regard must be had to circumstances, and to the opinions of those immediately concerned. In cases where the members of a church, or those proposing to become members, are agreed in our Congregational theology and polity, a creed may be more full and explicit than in other cases would be desirable. But in cases where there is some diversity of opinion on minor points, and where a union is intended, as is the case in many of our new settlements, a creed may be formed on the union principle, omitting or modifying particular parts, so as to make it acceptable to all.

But in no case should a church creed omit or disguise aught of what may be regarded as the essential doctrines of the gospel-essential, I mean, to a full and consistent scheme of evangelical theology. Such doctrines as the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, the Trinity, the Divinity and atonement of Christ, regeneration by the special influences of the Holy Spirit, justification by faith, and eternal punishment these and the like doctrines must never be omitted. And if any seemingly pious persons cannot accept such a creed, they have no reason to complain. The church has rights to be respected, as well as they; and if they cannot come into a church formed on the above principles, they may find another where they shall be more at home. In this country, where sects are so numerous, no hardship on this ground is likely to occur.

Some think that the church creeds in common use, which have come down to us from our fathers, are too long, and insist on their being curtailed. In cases of admission to

the church, too much time is taken up in the reading of them. I do not advocate a tediously long creed; it is not necessary. Neither would I advocate a meagrely short one. It should be long enough to set forth explicitly the great doctrines of the gospel; and it will be no detriment to a congregation to hear such a creed read occasionally in public, even if the reading of it should occupy several minutes.

Some persons have thought to obviate the difficulty here suggested by having two creeds. Let the old one stand unaltered, unrenounced; but have a shorter one adapted to be read in public. But there are objections to this expedient. The short one will ultimately supersede the longer. The latter, being laid up on file and never read, will soon be forgotten. Besides, the new members, having never seen, heard, or accepted the old creed, may not consent to be bound by it. If brought forth, at any time, for their reproof or conviction, they have only to say: "This is no creed for us."

It has been made a question, whether a church can properly change its creed, substituting a new one, or one essentially modified, in place of the old. This can be done, undoubtedly, and without embarrassment, in case the church are all united in it. But suppose they are not united—there is a respectable minority opposed to the change. Under these circumstances the case is one of much difficulty, and should, if possible, be avoided. I have known more than one minister dismissed, and the church divided, from this very cause. It is certain that a majority cannot bind a minority, in a case like this. No man can be holden to a creed which he has not freely accepted. A minority may withdraw from a church, on a change of creed, or may be tolerated in it, that is, if they walk orderly in other respects; but on the mere ground of their dissent from the new creed they cannot be excluded. They may still remain in the church, and participate in all its privileges and responsibilities, amenable only to the creed they have adopted.

On the whole, the difficulties are so great of changing a

church creed in opposition to a respectable minority, that it should never be attempted but for the gravest reasons. If the existing creed is radically defective, or positively heretical, a change, with all its hazards, may be necessary. But no change, on the mere ground of taste or of personal preference, should ordinarily be attempted, until it can be done without rending the church.

Of the importance, and even necessity, of church creeds I have sufficiently spoken; and the impression of this fact, I hope, may not be lost. It was a stale artifice of those who prepared the way for another gospel among us in the early part of the present century, to reject and denounce confessions of faith. Creeds were represented as useless and of bad influence; as inconsistent with Christian liberty and with the first principle of Protestantism-the sufficiency of scripture. But these charges, we all now understand, were utterly without foundation. Our creeds were never regarded as the ultimate standard of our faith, but only the expression of it. We have never substituted them in the place of scripture, but have merely used them, as a matter of convenience, to set forth what we regarded as the true sense of scripture. And what absurdity to pretend that Christians may not study the scriptures for themselves, gather their opinions from them, express them one to another, reduce them to writing, and thus form a creed, and a church on the basis of it, without incurring the reproach of undervaluing and superseding the use of scripture, and encroaching upon the liberty of others.

That indifference to religious truth and dislike of creeds, which has once brought so much mischief upon us, I have feared was beginning to show itself again. Hence the desire of short and imperfect creeds, and a renewal of the old and oft-refuted objections against them. Now against this spirit, wherever it shows itself, we cannot be too cautiously on our guard. Is it not enough that we have once been caught in this way? Shall we consent to fall into the same snare again? "In vain," says the wise man, "is the net spread in the sight of any bird."

ARTICLE IX.

HEBREW GRAMMAR AND LEXICOGRAPHY.'

BY REV. GEORGE H. WHITTEMORE, A.M., ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

UNDER the title of this paper it is proposed to notice some features of the publications below which establish their claims to be regarded as real services to the English student of the Hebrew scriptures, and to offer some remarks suggested by the general subject.

It may seem superfluous to commend a Grammar which has been so long before the public, and has so well earned the following encomium of the "British Quarterly Review," in welcoming this new edition: "Its simple and intelligible arrangement of materials, its generally sound conclusions, and its highly convenient form will always make it the favorite text-book in all our schools and colleges, and the companion of every student of the Old Testament scriptures." In America this verdict has been emphasized by the authority of Professor Stuart, who, after six editions of his own Grammar had been published, devoted himself to the translation of Gesenius, whose principles he had always followed, and by that of Dr. Conant, who a little earlier had undertaken the same task, executing it with a fidelity which has so long made it the standard representative of the original work among us. But Dr. Roediger still lives to devote his accumulated experience and unceasing attention to the perfection of the tasks which were his legacy from the great master Gesenius. Twenty editions of the Grammar have appeared in Germany, and the volume before us is declared to be virtually from the twenty-first, and, by his special arrangement and attention, even in English Roediger's own work as much as in German. Dr. Davies brings to his part of this joint undertaking the experience of long service in Hebrew instruction, as well as the ability resulting from foreign study. It will not, then, be amiss to

1 Gesenius's Student's Hebrew Grammar, from the Twentieth German Edition, as revised by E. Roediger, D.D., Professor of Oriental Languages at the University of Berlin. Translated by B. Davies, LL.D. With special Additions and Improvements by Dr. Roediger; and with Reading-Book and Exercises by the Translator. Student's Hebrew Lexicon. A compendious Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, chiefly founded on the works of Gesenius and Fürst, with improvements from Roediger, Dietrich, Ewald, and others. Edited by Benjamin Davies, Ph.D., LL.D., Translator of Roediger's Gesenius, or Student's Hebrew Grammar. London: Asher and Company.