"If he will not hear the church," says the Saviour, "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." But what is the church to which the offending one should listen? Is it the Scriptures? A new interpretation! One more step this way, would make the Bible exactly identical with the reader of it. But go back again to the range of reason, and let the reader of the Scriptures interpret them; give the church the right of a conclusion as to the meaning of the sacred oracles; leave her the "keys" which the Lord gave her, and then she is prepared to arise and do the work which is so vital to her purity.

Let us look at an example. Mr. O. H, (now dead,) once a member of a church in Berkshire, Mass., was charged with holding the doctrine of universal salvation; the complaint was prosecuted unto conviction, and final condemnation. He was heard in defence; and what had he to say? He admitted the charge, but denied the heresy. He took his stand on the broad basis of the Scriptures. But fortunately for that church and its members, and fortunately for its character, influence, and very existence, it had a creed. By that creed this man was a "covenant breaker." It was impossible for him to "wrest" the creed, as he so lamentably wrested the Scriptures. And thus, "after the first and second admonition," the church "rejected" him.

After this manner, a thousand particular cases might be brought, to show how utterly futile would be every attempt of a church to enforce that command, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject," if churches were associated without definite agreement on the most important, and especially on the most controverted, points of doctrine. Who is this "heretic," whom the church is to reject? What constitute the "heresies" of which Paul and Peter, apostles of the Lord, and planters of many of the churches of primitive times, speak, once and again? Without an exposition of Scripture, an adopted sense of it; without a formula, or confession of faith, expressed, or definitely understood; in other words, without a creed, there is no possible answer.

4. When men associate in the capacity of a church, the adoption of some special tenets of belief, commonly expressed among themselves in phraseology not found in the Scriptures, is almost literally unavoidable.

Men, so long as they remain men, will adopt something as their belief. This belief, whether written or unwritten, is their creed (credo). And this creed, in disregard of all attempts and shifts to the contrary, will, ever and anon, or constantly, show itself. Hence it comes to pass, that even those churches which professedly discard all creeds, not only hold to special and distinguishing views of Scripture truth, but those special views are openly and widely recognized as theirs. All the world knows, that such as properly pass by the name of Socinians or Unitarians, though with no avowed creed, hold common sentiments concerning certain contents of the Scriptures, which imply the free use of exposition, comments, and private interpretation, or opinion, upon those Scriptures. So, also, various branches of the great Baptist brotherhood, both at the North and at the South, notwithstanding their loud and reiterated assertions of a deep-rooted " aversion to all creeds but the Bible," and their careful avoidance of written or printed formulas, yet are plainly seen, by all men, to possess as definite and actual a creed, as any other cluster of believers whatever, or wherever. Do they admit any to their number or fellowship who refuse the rite of immersion? No. Here then, is their private interpretation of Scripture. The word immersion, by which they expound or explain baptism, contains their gloss of the sacred oracles. This is their formula of faith, their symbol of belief, their sine qua non of membership, their creed. And if, of their possession of a bona fide creed they themselves are ignorant, they are ignorant of something of which the whole world around them is well aware.

To produce in the minds of men some definite views of scriptural meaning, is the evident design, as well as tendency, of the whole functions of the ministry. It is to be the aim of the preacher, says Paul, to make men believe. That aim is commonly reached. Men do receive "the form of doctrine"

which is "delivered to them." Upon such a fact rests the existence of every sect. And this, indeed, incidentally furnishes us with the true origin of the diverse sects of Christians, viz. the diverse views, or beliefs, among the preachers or ministers of the word. "So we preach, and so ye have believed."

But how do men preach? By reciting memoriter, or exactly verbatim, the inspired word, and nothing more? Is a reader a preacher? Nay, "Understandest thou what thou readest?" said Philip to the eunuch. "How can I, except some man should guide me?" it was replied. This guide is the preacher. And unless some man had "guided" our fellow men of certain names, we doubt whether they would ever, as distinct societies, have identified baptism with immersion, or have denied that the Lord Jesus Christ was that Messiah who "brought in the atonement."

In short, how apparent it is, that so long as men preach, so long as men hear, they will believe; and that while there pertains to them a right, that each be persuaded in his own mind, these beliefs, or views, will more or less differ; and that these doctrinal differences among Christians, well known to each other, whether written or unwritten, whether ordained as permanent canons, or not, if sufficient to separate them into distinct clusters, are verily the undeniable creeds of their different churches.

5. To this subject, in all its simplicity, and in whatever apparent insignificance, the exigencies of the times seem to summon the careful attention of all who cherish the established order of most of the evangelical churches. As before suggested, the land swarms with those who impugn the common custom of the churches, under guise of appeal to the Scriptures, and with professions of great love for apostolic simplicity and purity. These calumniators, whenever and wherever found, either singly or associated, should, for the sake of the truth, the church, and the world, be boldly met. Their fallacies should be broadly unveiled; an exposition of the great absurdity of their position, the utter groundlessness of many of their

charges, and the absolutely untenable nature of their projects, should be repeatedly given to the world. The bandied phrases, also, of some circles, and so favorite with some prints, of the "bars and bolts" of churches, "human dogmas," "man-made creeds," etc., should be carefully analyzed, and answered, as occasions may offer. The young, and the misguided of every age, should be informed, and often reminded of it, that the appellations, so invidious and frightful when applied to ordinary confessions of faith, can be as properly applied to any speech, opinion, or preaching of men, whatever, that varies one jot or tittle from the precise phraseology of the Bible. Let them, for instruction's sake, hear the repeated retort, “human preaching," "man-made sermons," etc. For so says the preacher, who moreover was wise:" "Answer a fool according to his own folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Let them be prompted to throw off the shackles of sound, or a name; for the great "decree" of the apostles at Jerusalem was a dogma (8óypa, Acts 16: 4); and so all the commands of the "lively oracles ;" and so all the wise sayings of pious men of every age, though not tending, as some think a dogma must, to "reject the commandments of God."

ARTICLE II.

CRITICISM OF RHETORIC.

By Prof. H. N. DAY, of Western Reserve College, Ohio,

We are thoroughly conscious in our own minds, that it is with no vain conceit of effecting, in the humbler department of rhetorical science and art, what Kant, by his Critic of the Pure Reason, effected in that most noble province of mental science, that we have borrowed a hint from that celebrated work, for the plan and title of the present article. Yet convinced, as we are, that as a sense of want is the condition of

all efficient activity for man, so a clear perception and determination of the precise nature and source of the want, is the prerequisite for the successful regulation of that activity to procure the supply, we have been unavoidably driven upon this track in an endeavor to contribute something to the advancement of this important and interesting art. Not that we, by any means, expect or intend to establish, in these few pages, the principles on which an art of rhetoric must be constructed, in all their fullness and completeness. Our design is simply to suggest some particulars in which our present systems of rhetoric, indeed the prevailing views of this art, appear to us to be defective. Our eyes will, accordingly, be directed mainly to the present condition of rhetoric; and the suggestions we shall offer, while we shall abstain from all extended criticism upon individual writers, will yet be taken from the historical point of view.

We conceive that it is time to look for a reconstruction of this art on a more firm and unquestionable philosophical basis. The want is felt extensively in our schools and seminaries of learning, indicating that the human mind has made that advancement in the kindred sciences and arts, which is needful for such a more perfect reconstruction. The present condition, too, of those kindred sciences, seems to call for the effort. Human intelligence, in all the various departments of its development, whether in science or in art, is, so to speak, subject to the laws of concrete growth. Philosophy and art, as the product of an organic mind, does not perfect first one branch, and then begin at another; and so on, successively, in all its ramifications, into a full-branched tree. Root, branch, and twig, wait, to a certain extent, for each other; rather develope themselves together, and mutually derive aid and nourishment, the one from the other. Rhetoric, indeed, presupposes logic and grammar; as the branch presupposes the root, and the leaf the branch. It is extremely doubtful, nevertheless, whether logic or grammar can arrive at full maturity, without some culture of rhetoric. We shall not, in these preliminary remarks, stop to show this necessary dependence, in