trying to break down and destroy this cherished and valued feature of the society? By wilfully neglecting the class meeting, he not only causes one Methodist publicly to repudiate the institution, but as far as his influence goes, he causes others to do so; he, as far as he goes, brings the class meeting into disrepute; causes it to be unpopular; causes, by his example and influence, men's children and families to forsake it; lays heavier burdens than they would otherwise have to bear upon ministers and class leaders; and, if his influence chances. to be sufficient, he might utterly break down the class meeting in some particular church, and thus, almost, if not wholly, deprive others of the benefit of it. Has a man a moral right to do this? Is it moral, or is it "immoral," for a man of the world to work his way into the church and do it damage, much or little? Has a man a moral right, in the church any more than out of it, to injure other persons, and deprive them, in much or in little, of enjoyments and advantages which they possess? These questions are transparent.

Upon what ground then, is it said, in the discipline, that a man may come into the church, promising to sustain the institution of class meetings, but falsifying his promise, and instead of patronising, injuring and damaging the institution, and thus inflicting injury upon his fellow members; upon what ground is it said that such a man is guilty of no "immoral conduct?"

The question of the right of the church to enforce attendance upon class meetings, turns also upon its right to establish them. This cannot be denied. Well, these having been established, the question applies to the man out of the church, and now having got into it, has he a right to demolish it? If he has, then it is not immoral for him to do so; if he has not, then it is. The terms of the question, then, are not whether the church has a right to expel a member for non-attendance at class, such non-attendance being a moral act. For if the foregoing reasoning be correct, that description of the moral character of the act violates the fact. The question is, whether the church has the right to expel a member for such conduct,

it being an immoral act. Or, if you please, in other words, has the church a right to expel a member for immorality?

It is confidently believed that this is the proper, true and legal reasoning in reference to this question. Surely the church has no right to expel a member until he first withdraws himself from Christ, and until Christ withdraws from him; or until immorality walks in between the man and his Saviour, and severs the connection; or in still other words, until the man commits immorality. And, moreover, what sort of certificate of excommunication is that which is also a certificate from under the hand of the church of good moral character? Would a man need a better certificate than this to join another branch of the church with? It certifies him to have been a member of the church up to that time, with no impeachment of his morals. It is true that it states that he did not attend class; but it also states that such non-attendance does not imply the least immorality.

And, furthermore, it is gravely suggested to those whose business it may be to entertain the suggestion, whether our difficulties in regard to class meetings have not originated mainly in the strange posture of our laws on this subject? We not only undertake to do that which we have no right to do; not only undertake to enforce a law which it declares, upon its own face, to be, in substance, unconstitutional, and therefore either void, or at least very oppressive in its operation, but we at the same time make, officially and judicially, an excuse in favor of the accused, which fully exculpates him from all blame or wrong doing in the premises! We tell him he is indeed expelled, or rather, hardly expelled either, but denied the farther privileges of the church; but it is very hard he should be, for he has done no wrong. This is saying and not saying, doing and not doing, in a very singular way for judicial proceedings. And what is the consequence? Look over the church and see! The neglector of the class-room; the demolisher of one of the most valued and favorite features of Methodism; the man who injures the church greatly, materially, almost vitally, has a ready-made answer for every one

who would accuse him of these wrongs and injuries; an answer, too, which is conclusive, and which he pleads in bar; and which is drawn, not from his own reasonings, and which is put forth upon his own responsibility, but which he draws from the very law of the church on this very subject, he pleads, I have done no wrong! the church itself says so! And does he not plead an undeniable, unanswerable truth? And is not 'this the way men excuse themselves for non-attendance upon this great and heaven-honored means of grace?

But is not the neglector of the class-room a wrong doer? If he is not, then he is a right doer. To neglect, and bring into disrepute, to overthrow and demolish, to set at naught and drive out of the church, an institution which has been instrumental, in the hands of God, in the conversion and salvation of millions; and which is now cherished as dearly as the heart's blood by thousands; to do this, or to assist in doing it, is either right or wrong. If it is right, then let us all set about it; if it is wrong, then let the church compel men to withhold their hands.

Let the church say to the world and to itself, the class-room, as connected with our organization, is owned and honored of God; it is one of the brightest jewels we have; all men do know that it is greatly beneficial; and the man who lays violent hands upon it, lays, as we esteem it, violent hands upon us, and we hold him guilty and not innocent. And if he persist in his work of injury and wrong doing, and will not be reconciled to that which is right, we expel him from the church; not because he is innocent, but because he is guilty; guilty of wrong to Christ; guilty of wrong to his fellows, and guilty of wrong to himself.

It is not, of course, pretended that non-attendance upon class meetings is positively or absolutely wrong. It is wrong relatively, or because of certain circumstances which exist, and which might not exist. It is wrong, because the system of class meetings has been demonstrated to be greatly beneficial to the church, and to religion, in some circumstances; and be

cause no man has a right to abridge the benefits of the church, or lessen its religious influence or enjoyment.

Then it is suggested, that if we wish to see class meetings revive, and their influence extend, and the work of religion follow, let us begin at the proper place. Let us begin to mend up at the point where others began to pull down. If class meeting be an institution in the church, let it be really and truly such, and let the ægis of the law be extended over it.' Let it be authoritatively known that the church holds it to be wrong and not right for a man either to violate his solemn undertakings, or to do an injury to other men.

ART. VI.

HEBREW LITERATURE.

(From Kitto's Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 1853.)

While Gesenius was thus giving importance to Hebrew literature, and facilitating its acquisition, the study of the Indo-European languages had been making rapid advances. Buttmann, Matthiæ, Thiersch, Zumpt, Bopp, Humboldt, Rosen, Schlegel and Grimm, had been striving for higher aims and more sound results. Grammar was no longer a mere collection of phenomena, but a science demanding and deserving philosophical investigation and analysis. The advancement in classical philology necessarily brought with it a desire that Oriental literature might share in the benefits thus largely enjoyed and highly prized. This wish, as far as Hebrew was concerned, was strengthened by the improvements introduced into the study of Arabic by Rosen, Kosegarten, and especially De Sacy; and into that of Ethiopic by Hup

feld. The honor of having, to any considerable extent, satisfied these new demands, belongs undoubtedly to Ewald.

This distinguished scholar was, at the time when he published his "Kritische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache ausführlich bearbeitet," Professor in the University of Gottingen; the same University in which Gesenius had commenced his learned labors. Thirteen years after the latter scholar had published the first edition of his Grammar, Ewald's work was printed, "from the appearance of which," says Nordheimer, "dates the commencement of a new and important era in Shemitish philology." Such was the space of time, and no more, between the first and second epochs of Hebrew study. This great work of Ewald's was followed, in 1828, by his "Gram. der Heb. Sprache in vollst. Kürze;" and in 1835 by the "Gram. der Heb. Spr. des A. T. ;" and in 1814 by the "Ausführliches Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache." His smaller work, "Hebräische Sprachlehre für Anfänger," appeared in 1842. In all these Grammars the historico-genetic method of Grimm and Bopp has been followed with brilliant success. Basing his investigations on the philosophical views of language in general, he has elucidated some of the deepest obscurities of Hebrew grammar, and raised the study to an equality with that of the IndoEuropean tongues. "I myself," he says, "may only have the merit of the first impulse to improvement, if even that may be called a merit, since the idea of an improvement in this science is less owing to me than to the claims of our time; and this idea has perhaps only been awakened somewhat sooner and more vividly in me."

Applying the doctrine of sounds to the language, Ewald has eminently succeeded in giving a life-like character to this ancient tongue. In treating on the accents, his bold and keen spirit of research has led to most valuable results, and enabled him to show the beautiful harmony between the accentuation and the syntax.' His sections on nommal stems' and 'verbal flexion' are invaluable, while his treatment of the syntax is such as scarcely to leave a difficulty untouched. The

6