which we live. We understand that creeds are binding and valid as a rule of law on parties who believe and subscribe them, until it be found that they are not complete in themselves, and also that a slight revision is requisite to render them satisfactory. There can be nothing unreasonable in all this. Creeds are not infallible, and therefore there is nothing in them that on grave consideration precludes a revision. We are therefore inclined to go in for a renovation of the standard of religious faith, as we are convinced that the present generation holds quite different ideas on religious subjects from those of former ages,-not that the faith has changed, but that people now are capable of perceiving these things in different aspects.

It may be well to mention that the faith which was once delivered to the saints, and for which they were exhorted to contend, was the faith that was to illumine the world with all its blessed influences in all time coming. But we nowhere find that that faith was to be changed at certain intervals, to suit the ideas that might exist at respective epochs. The same faith was to reign supreme among those who believed its various principles down the entire steep of time. As intelligence and knowledge rose by speculation, it was impossible for people to perceive objects through the same medium. And, in our opinion, nothing can be written which is of any length that cannot be perceived from various standpoints. What we mean by this is, that nothing can be so definitely and distinctly expressed that one meaning alone can be attached thereto, but that various opinions may be formed on the same principle. The constitution of the mind is different in many individuals; hence they perceive ideas arising out of a subject quite diversely, that is, one forms ideas on the same subject quite opposed to those of another. Then come the doctrines of predestination, sanctification, justification, the influence of the Holy Spirit, original sin, baptism, &c. These are all based upon Scripture, but different minds will never view them in the same light. There will be always a slight deviation or difference manifested, to which the constitutions of their minds make them subservient. Over this they have no control. There were no standards of religious faith in the days of the apostles. But as we descend along the ages, we find that religion, which tends to reflection, came into contact with the then existing schools, so that investigation and speculation arose from the presence of the gospel. As various interpretations were taken out of the same portions of Scripture by different minds, the various sections of the church thought it desirable to prevent all heresy and dissension by compiling from Sacred Writ, or other sources, religious standards which would maintain the faith, prevent error, bring parties to a proper understanding, and tend to produce uniformity of belief. Such was the origin of creeds, and a great deal of learning and time were expended by learned and good men in their construction. We admit that this is partly irrelevant, as we have nothing whatever to do with the origin of standards of

religious faith; but is it desirable that the present standards of religious faith should be revised? We expect, however, to show that a revision is necessary.

We understand that a standard of religious faith is not only a declaration of the chief principles of the gospel, selected by learned and wise men from Holy Writ for the belief and guidance of those who may profess their faith in them; but also binding upon the whole machinery of religious establishments in their ecclesiastical relations upon the people who hold the principles expounded by such standards. Of course, portions of all standards of religious faith must be based upon Scripture, but we do not say that that faith, so founded, is liable to change. Standards also embrace the whole constitution of a church. It is quite evident, however, that the faith which alone saves cannot be altered. But one generation may be unable to conceive faith in the same light with another generation. That comes to be that they both may conceive the same faith, but do so through different mediums. Or it may be that portions of religious faith held genuine by our ancestors two hundred years ago, in quite diversified terms, may be conceived by the present age in quite different light from those that went before. Hence, with safety to the freedom of the mind, it is impossible and absurd to trammel the ideas of the present generation by those that preceded them. It is alike dangerous to individuals as to communities.

Time has shown that civilization, the development of the mind, &c., are progressive. That the greatness of Greece and Rome had vanished, that the dimness of the Middle Ages followed, and that as the sixteenth century began to dawn, gleams of knowledge, liberty, and independence began to flourish, as the great cause of Christendom arose from the darkness of its long night. Year succeeded year, and age followed age. Knowledge of every kind increased correspondingly. The minds of men became learned and free accordingly. At somewhat early stages the various churches which then existed were compelled by the force of circumstances to invent things for their own protection, as they did, in a religious point of view at different periods, to prevent heresy and schisms, and to conduce to the uniformity of faith in principle and practice, the Nicene Creed, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Confession of Faith, the Books of Mormon, &c. Now is it reasonable to suppose that the present generation, which have advanced, and become so much superior to their forefathers in knowledge, should be fettered to see things as they did, and to have the same convictions as they had? And surely it is quite rational to suppose that the present standards should be amended to suit the ideas of various sects that now exist; or must the views which were formed centuries ago on religious subjects be binding on people to the end of the world? We would think that the light of knowledge and reason would revolt against this absurd claim of infallibility.

But standards of religious faith are not infallible, as they are the

productions of mere men. Standards, though orthodox in themselves, are only orthodox in the estimation of people when they are believed by them. No creed can lay claim to infallibility, as they were never inspired. By what authority, then, seeing that they are uninspired, can it be urged that they should suffer no revision? Is an uninspired thing the was, the is, and the ever will be, alike," similarly binding upon those who once lived, are living, and will live? Is there to be no advance in knowledge or thought? or, should we have discovered important truths, or received new and orthodox views of Scripture, are we to pay no heed to them, but to go on in the profession of our former belief, although our principles may be quite different? Now it must be evident to every intelligent person that circumstances might compel people to form creeds under necessities which were never intended to be permanent. On the contrary, it may be maintained that if you are not pleased with a creed, why choose another one? But then the one which you are now under might, by a very little amendment, be made suitable to the whole sect, seeing it never was inspired.

As we have said before, creeds might have been framed under peculiar circumstances, as there is no law for necessity. Well, the framers of all creeds were unable to perceive the train of things which were to come, and consequently unable to provide for all coming exigencies and contingencies. As they were incapable of performing this, it naturally follows that their works ought to be subject to the revision of those who with slight amendments might afterwards profess their faith in them. Would it not have been wise for the Church of Rome, and consistent with the wisdom of her policy, that she had changed part of the Nicene Creed to suit the people that now live? Then we have episcopacy with its Thirty-nine Articles and Prayer-book. We think that a revision is highly necessary, simply as all standards of religious faith are for producing uniformity in belief, whereas the fact is now evident that they are so vague that thought can exist within thought, like a wheel within a wheel, upon the very same subject. There can be no different shades of Calvinism, but where is the distinct line that can be drawn by the Confession of Faith? Then you have the Thirty-nine Articles; but some may be Puseyites, and others may be bishops in the Anglican establishment; and although they should deny the authenticity of several portions of Scripture, yet the Articles are so limited, so vague and loose, that they can neither hurt nor injure, as in the case of Bishop Colenso. Where such a state of matters exists, we infer that nothing is more essential than a revision. Heresy and error may flourish within our creeds, yet, because our forefathers did not foresee and provide for them, we have no authority to amend our standards, to remedy the mischief, or to sanction any provision for anything dishonourable in regard to. our faith at the present day. We may adduce one example. Suppose now a new creed was formed by a number of people in the present day, would it ever enter into their heads that that creed

would descend to all succeeding generations without revision or amendment in any circumstances that might arise dangerous to the faith? It is against the very spirit of progress, and most tyrannical in its bearings, that all the convictions and conclusions of one generation must be forced on and accepted by those who will follow them. The Scriptures are the standards of religious faith, but we are now simply discussing the standards of religious faith composed by men. But it appears quite ridiculous to suppose that the traditions which existed as authoritative a few years ago must be accepted by enlightened people at the present day with all the force of truth and conviction. Such a system is highly derogatory to our age. We have stated that this system is most tyrannical, and, if obeyed, would be subversive of all intelligence and knowledge. Is a dogma which might have been carried by a casting vote at the time a creed was being formed to be binding on all successive ages? Yet this is the position taken up by those who argue the irrevisability of creeds. This would be going out of a glimmer of light into real darkness; this would be making the works of man infallible; this would be constituting what was once held good to be necessarily so in all future generations. A dead-level stagnation of religious belief would therefore be produced, liberty of conscience and progress would be impossible under such a system. Although an individual would attempt to interpret Scripture according to the manner in which his own mind was constituted to receive truth; still he was obliged to accept the dictum of his creed, and not the testimony of Scripture. If a dispute arises, the standards are resorted to to procure reparation. If there be no positive law in them applicable to the case,-which happens very often,-the delinquent can then go and do as he did before. And when are measures to be so adjusted as to prevent all such occurrences? Oh, the standards of our religious faith are infallible, and cannot be revised! Yet they are proved to be imperfect for the purpose for which they are intended. They are not complete; they are not comprehensive; in short, they want all the armour of infallibility. Yet they cannot be revised; their errors cannot be corrected; their imperfections cannot be made perfect. They are unable to do what they should do. They were formed by our ancestors, who were wise, but not infallible; shrewd, but not prophetic, and are therefore binding on us, who are advanced in every kind of knowledge. Experience is the result of practice in a particular line of action; it gives a person wisdom-wisdom sobered by reflection; and the events which have preceded those immediately before us, produce by their combined power a great amount of sagacity and learning. Experience then places us in a very enviable position; and we would think, on the ground of experience alone, that we should have the power of revising our standards of religious faith. Yet against experience and belief we are compelled to accept the compilations of men whose convictions we must embrace to the very letter, and whose tenets we must maintain and defend. Our

own belief, for which we alone are responsible, seems to be of mere secondary importance. Even the truth contained in Scriptures must be viewed through the medium of standards. Truth can never be eliminated at once; and if we study the progress of Christianity we will find that the gospel was never understood in a

short time, but by a very slow process. The germ of the gospel

did not bud and flourish over all the earth at once.

It took a great

time in its root, still greater in its germination, and we cannot imagine or know how long it will take in its full development. When such is the case, is it not most unwise to form a creed at a certain stage of its first gloamings to be binding on all succeeding generations? Suppose the gospel were to be taught to and embraced by some people who never knew or heard of it before, would it be natural to imagine that the devotees in their enthusiasm, when their knowledge was limited, should form a creed binding on their successors for ever and ever? We would believe not, because their judgments could not have been matured by experience. Such a principle would be assumptive and presumptive, as it would declare that in their own estimation they were wiser and more learned than every one to come after them, and that therefore their laws and confessions were final and complete accordingly. The attainment of truth should be coveted, yet such an accomplishment must be limited by the standards of religious faith. Can any good be derived from such ignorant and dead stand-stillism? Can good result from the limitation and garbling of truth? All opinions are changing, and the idea of holding the same by so many generations for future ages is quite preposterous. It seems therefore very plain that fixed and irrevisable standards of religious faith are highly obnoxious and dangerous to the true spirit of Christianity.

Again, every one has a right to alter or amend the laws which relate to themselves either directly or indirectly. This should be done in standards of religious faith as well as in others. Those who embrace principles are the best judges of their own capabilities, and of knowing whether they will or will not be consistent with the ideas of their own mind. In such questions which so seriously affect the liberty of the conscience, those who once lived had certainly no right whatever to form eternal rules for those who would afterwards live in quite different circumstances-socially, mentally, and morally. They had no power or right to forge such fetters. They only formed that which was suitable to themselves, and not for their descendants. In all the circumstances of the case it appears quite evident that a revision of the translation of the Scriptures, and of the creeds and articles of faith deduced from them, are highly necessary. An amendment to render the standards more complete and comprehensive seems to be reasonable; and also to provide for anything that the time did not require, at which a standard might have been formed. It must be admitted that all standards are fallible; and when this admission is made, it