Still Waters Revival Books - Creeds,
Confessions and Covenants - Separation,
Unity, Uniformity, etc. - Puritan
Hard Drive
Samuel Miller
The character and situation of one who is preparing for the sacred office
are interesting beyond the power of language to express. Such a one, like the
Master whom he professes to love and serve, is "set for the fall and
rising again of many in Israel" (Luke 2:34). In all that he is, and in all
that he does, the temporal and eternal welfare not only of himself, but of
thousands, may be involved. On every side he is beset with perils. Whatever may
be his talents and learning, if he has not genuine piety, he will probably be a
curse instead of a blessing to the church. But this is not the only danger to
which he is exposed. He may have unfeigned piety, as well as talents and
learning; and yet, from habitual indiscretion; from a defect in that sobriety
of mind, which is so precious to all men, but especially to every one who
occupies a public station; from a fondness for novelty and innovation, or from
that love of distinction which is so natural to men; after all, instead of
edifying the "body of Christ," he may become a disturber of its
peace, and a corrupter of its purity; so that we might almost say, whatever may
be the result with respect to himself, "it had been good for the church if
he had never been born" (cf. Matt. 26:24).
Hence it is, that every part of the character of him who is coming forward
to the holy ministry his opinions, his temper, his attainments, his
infirmities, and above all, his character as a practical Christian are of
inestimable importance to the ecclesiastical community of which he is destined
to be a minister. Nothing that pertains to him is uninteresting. If it were
possible for him, strictly speaking, to "live to himself," or to
"die to himself" (cf. Rom. 14:7), the case would be different. But it
is not possible. His defects as well as his excellencies, his gifts and graces,
as well as the weak points of his character, must and will all have their
appropriate effect on everything that he touches.
Can you wonder, then, that employed to conduct the education of candidates
for this high and holy office, we see ourselves placed under a solemn, nay, an
awful responsibility? Can you wonder that, having advanced a little before you
in our experience in relation to this office, we cherish the deepest solicitude
at every step you take? Can you wonder, that we daily exhort you to "take
heed to yourselves and your doctrine" (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16), and that we cease
not to entreat you, and to pray for you that you give all diligence to approve
yourselves to God and his church able and faithful servants? Independently of
all official obligation, did we not feel and act thus, we should manifest an insensibility
to the interests of the church, as well as to your true welfare, equally
inexcusable and degrading.
It is in consequence of this deep solicitude for your improvement in every
kind of ministerial furniture, that we not only endeavor to conduct the regular
course of your instruction in such a manner as we think best adapted to promote
the great end of all your studies; but that we also seize the opportunity which
the general Lecture (introductory to each session) affords us, of calling your
attention to a series of subjects which do not fall within the ordinary course
of our instruction.
A subject of this nature will engage our attention on the present occasion:
namely, the importance of creeds and confessions for maintaining the unity and
purity of the visible church.
This is a subject which, though it properly belongs to the department of
Church Government, has always been, for want of time, omitted in the Lectures
usually delivered on that division of our studies. And I am induced now to call
your attention to it, because, as I said, it properly belongs to the department
committed to me; because it is in itself a subject highly interesting and
important; because it has been for a number of years past, and still is, the
object of much severe animadversion on the part of latitudinarians and
heretics; and because, though abundantly justified by reason, scripture, and
universal experience, the spontaneous feelings of many, especially under the
free government which it is our happiness to enjoy, rise up in arms against
what they deem, and are sometimes pleased to call, the excessive
"rigor" and even "tyranny" of exacting subscription to
articles of faith.
It is my design, first, to offer some remarks on the utility and importance
of written creeds; and secondly, to obviate some of the more common and
plausible objections which have been urged against them by their adversaries.
I. By a creed, or confession of faith, I mean an exhibition, in human
language, of those great doctrines which are believed by the framers of it to
be taught in the holy scriptures; and which are drawn out in regular order, for
the purpose of ascertaining how far those who wish to unite in church
fellowship are really agreed in the fundamental principles of Christianity.
Creeds and confessions do not claim to be in themselves laws of Christ's house,
or legislative enactments, by which any set of opinions are constituted truths,
and which require, on that account, to be received as truths among the members
of his family. They only profess to be summaries, extracted from the
scriptures, of a few of those great gospel doctrines which are taught by Christ
himself; and which those who make the summary in each particular case concur in
deeming important, and agree to make the test of their religious union. They
have no idea that, in forming this summary, they make anything truth that was
not truth before; or that they thereby contract an obligation to believe what
they were not bound by the authority of Christ to believe before. But they
simply consider it as a list of the leading truths which the Bible teaches,
which, of course, all men ought to believe, because the Bible does teach them;
and which a certain portion of the visible church catholic agree in considering
as a formula, by means of which they may know and understand one another.
Now, I affirm that the adoption of such a creed is not only lawful and
expedient, but also indispensably necessary to the harmony and purity of the
visible church. For the establishment of this position, let me request your
attention to the following considerations.
1. Without a creed explicitly adopted, it is not easy to see how the
ministers and members of any particular church, and more especially a large
denomination of Christians, can maintain unity among themselves.
If every Christian were a mere insulated individual, who inquired, felt, and
acted for himself alone, no creed of human formation would be necessary for his
advancement in knowledge, comfort, or holiness. With the Bible in his closet,
and with his eyes opened to see the "wondrous things" which it
contains (Ps. 199:18), he would have all that was needful for his edification.
But the case is far otherwise. The church is a society: a
society which, however extended, is "one body in Christ," and all who
compose it, "members one of another" (Rom. 12:5). Nor is this society
merely required to be one in name, or to recognize a mere theoretical union;
but also carefully to maintain "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace" (Eph. 4:3). They are exhorted to "stand fast in one spirit,
with one mind" (Phil. 1:27). They are commanded all to "speak the
same thing," and to be "of one accord, of one mind'' (1 Cor. 1:10;
Phil. 2:2). And this "unity of spirit" is as essential to the comfort
and edification of those who are joined together in church fellowship, as it is
to a compliance with the command of their Master. "How can two walk
together unless they be agreed? (cf. Amos 3:3).
Can a body of worshippers, composed of Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians,
Arians, and Socinians, all pray, and preach, and commune together profitably
and comfortably, each retaining the sentiments, feelings, and language
appropriate to his denomination? This would indeed make the house of God a miserable
Babel. What! can those who believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be God, equal with
the Father, and worship him accordingly, and those who consider all such
worship as abominable idolatry; those who cordially renounce all dependence on
their own works or merit for justification before God, relying entirely on his
rich grace, "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.
3:24), and those who pronounce all such reliance fanatical, and man's own
righteousness the sole ground of hope; can persons who cherish these
irreconcilably opposite sentiments and feelings on the most important of all
subjects, unite with edification in the same prayers, listen from sabbath to
sabbath to the same instructions, and sit together in comfort at the same
sacramental table? As well might Jews and Christians worship together in the
same temple. They must either be perfectly indifferent to the great subjects on
which they are thus divided, or all their intercourse must be productive of
jarring and distress. Such a discordant assembly might talk about church fellowship; but that they should really enjoy that fellowship which the Bible describes as so
precious, and which the pious so much delight to cultivate, is impossible
just as impossible as "that righteousness should have fellowship with
unrighteousness," or "light hold communion with darkness, or Christ
maintain concord with Belial" (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-14).
Holding these things to be self-evident, how, I ask, is any church to guard
itself from that baleful discord, that perpetual strife of feeling, if not of
words and conduct, which must ensue, when it is made up of such heterogeneous
materials? Nay, how is a church to avoid the guilt of harboring in its bosom,
and of countenancing by its fellowship, the worst heresies that ever disgraced
the Christian name? It is not enough, for attaining this object, that all who
are admitted profess to agree in receiving the Bible; for many who call
themselves Christians, and profess to take the Bible for their guide, hold
opinions, and speak a language as foreign, nay, as opposite, to the opinions
and language of many others, who equally claim to be Christians, and equally
profess to receive the Bible, as the east is to the west. Of those who agree in
this general profession, the greater part acknowledge as of divine authority
the whole sacred canon, as we receive it; while others would throw out whole
chapters, and some a number of entire books from the volume of God's revealed
will. The orthodox maintain the plenary inspiration of the scriptures; while
some who insist that they are Christians, deny their inspiration altogether. In
short, there are multitudes who, professing to believe the Bible, and to take
it for their guide, reject every fundamental doctrine which it contains. So it
was in the beginning as well as now.
An inspired apostle declares, that some in his day who not only professed
to believe the scriptures, but even to "preach Christ" (Phil.
1:15-16) did really preach "another gospel," the teachers of which
he charges those to whom he wrote to hold "accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9);
and he assures them that there are some "heresies" so deep and
radical that they are to be accounted "damnable" (2 Pet. 2:1). Surely
those who maintain the true gospel cannot "walk together" in "church
fellowship" with those who are "accursed" for preaching
"another gospel," and who espouse "damnable heresies," the
advocates of which the disciples of Christ are not permitted even to
"receive into their houses," or to "bid God speed!" (cf. 2
John 10).
How, then, I ask again, are the members of a church, to take care that they
be, according to the divine command, "of one mind," and "of one
way?" They may require all who enter their communion to profess a belief
in the Bible; nay, they may require this profession to be repeated every day,
and yet may be corrupted and divided by every form of the grossest error. Such
a profession, it is manifest, ascertains no agreement; is a bond of no real
union, a pledge of no spiritual fellowship. It leaves every thing within the
range of nominal Christianity, as perfectly undefined, and as much exposed to
total discord as before.
But perhaps it will be proposed as a more efficient remedy, that there be a private
understanding, vigilantly acted upon, that
no ministers or members be admitted, but those who are known, by private
conversation with them, substantially to agree with the original body, with regard both to doctrine
and order. In this way, some allege, discord may be banished, and a church kept
pure and peaceful, without an odious array of creeds and confessions. To this
proposal, I answer, in the first place,
it is, to all intents and purposes, exhibiting a creed, and requiring
subscription to it, while the contrary is insinuated and professed. It is
making use of a religious test, in the most rigorous manner, without having the
honesty or the manliness to avow it. For what matter is it, as to the real
spirit of the proceeding, whether the creed be reduced to writing, or be
registered only in the minds of the church members, and applied by them as a
body, if it equally excludes applicants who are not approved!
But to this proposed remedy, I answer, in the second place, the question, "What is soundness in the
faith?" however explicitly agreed upon by the members of the church among
themselves, cannot be safely left to the understanding and recollection of each
individual belonging to the body in question. As well might the civil
constitution of a state, instead of being committed to writing, be left to the
vague and ever varying impressions of the individual citizens who live under
it. In such a constitution, every one sees there could be neither certainty nor
stability. Scarcely any two retailers of its articles would perfectly agree;
and the same persons would expound it differently at different times, as their
interests or their passions might happen to bear sway. Quite as unreasonable
and unsafe, to say the least, would it be to leave the instrument of a church's
fellowship on a similar footing. Such a nuncupative creed, when most needed as
a means of quieting disturbances, or of excluding corruption, would be rendered
doubtful, and, of course, useless, by having its most important provisions
called in question on every side: a case in which, if it were made operative at
all, it would be far more likely to be perverted into an instrument of popular
oppression, than to be employed as a means of sober and wholesome government.
The inference, then, plainly is that no church can hope to maintain a
homogeneous character; no church can be secure either of purity or peace, for a
single year; nay, no church can effectually guard against the highest degrees
of corruption and strife, without some test of truth, explicitly agreed upon,
and adopted by her in her ecclesiastical capacity: something recorded,
something publicly known, something capable of being referred to when most
needed, which not merely this or that private member supposes to have been
received, but to which the church as such has agreed to adhere, as a bond of
union. In other words, a church, in order to maintain the "unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace and love" (cf. Eph. 4:2-3), must have a creed
a written creed to which she has formally given her assent, and to a
conformity to which her ministrations are pledged. As long as such a test is
faithfully applied, she cannot fail of being in some good degree united and
harmonious. And when nothing of the kind is employed, I see not how she can be
expected, without a miracle, to escape all the evils of discord and corruption.
2. The necessity and importance of creeds and confessions appear from the
consideration, that one great design of establishing a church in our world was that she might be, in all ages, a depository,
a guardian, and a witness of the truth.
Christians, collectively as well as individually, are represented in
scripture as witnesses for God. They are commanded to maintain his truth, and
to "hold forth the word of life" (cf. Phil. 2:16), in all its purity
and luster before a perverse generation, that others may be enlightened and
converted. They are exhorted to "buy the truth, and not to sell it"
(Prov. 23:23); to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the
saints" (cf. Jude 3); to "hold fast the form of sound words which
they have received" (cf. 2 Tim. 1:14); and to "strive together for
the faith of the gospel" (cf. Phil. 1:27). These, and many other commands
of similar import, plainly make it the duty of every Christian church to detect
and expose prevailing heresies; to exclude all such as embrace radical heresy
from their communion; and to "lift up a standard" for truth, whenever
"the enemy comes in like a flood" (cf. 59:19; 62:10).
But does not all this imply taking effectual measures to distinguish between
truth and error? Does not all this necessarily infer the duty of drawing, and
publicly manifesting, a line between those who, while they profess in general
to believe the Bible, really deny all its essential doctrines, and those who
simply and humbly receive "the truth as it is in Jesus?" (cf. Eph.
4:21). But how is this distinction to be made, seeing those who embrace the
essential doctrines of the gospel, equally profess to receive the Bible? It can
only be done by carefully ascertaining and explicitly declaring how the church
herself, and how those whom she suspects of being in error, understand and
interpret the Bible: that is, by extracting certain articles of faith from the
scriptures, according to her understanding of them, and comparing these
articles with the professed belief of those whom she supposes to be heretics.
And what is this but extracting from the scriptures a confession of faith a
creed and applying it as a test of sound principles? It does really appear to
me that those orthodox brethren who admit that the church is bound to raise her
voice against error, and to "contend earnestly" for the truth (cf.
Jude 3), and yet denounce creeds and confessions, are, in the highest degree,
inconsistent with themselves.
They acknowledge the obligation and importance of a great duty; and yet
reject the only means by which it can be performed. Quite as unreasonable, I am
constrained to say, as the "taskmasters of Egypt" (Ex. 5:6-19), they
require work to be done, without allowing the materials necessary to its
accomplishment. Before the church, as such, can detect heretics, and cast them
out from her bosom before she can raise her voice, in "a day of rebuke
and of blasphemy" (cf. Isa. 37:3; 2 Kings 19:3), against prevailing errors
her governors and members must be agreed what is truth. And, unless they
would give themselves up, in their official judgments, to all the caprice and
feverish effervescence of occasional feeling, they must have some accredited,
permanent document, exhibiting what they have agreed to consider as truth.
There is really no feasible alternative. They must either have such "a
form of sound words" (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13), which they have voluntarily
adopted, and pledged themselves to one another to "hold fast;" or
they can have no security that any two or more successive decisions concerning
soundness in the faith will be alike. In other words, they cannot attain, in
anything like a steady, uniform, consistent manner, one of the great purposes
for which the visible church was established.
It surely will not be said, by any considerate person, that the church, or
any of her individual members, can sufficiently fulfill the duty in question,
by simply proclaiming from time to time, in the midst of surrounding error, her
adherence and her attachment to the Bible. Everyone must see that this would
be, in fact, doing nothing as "witnesses of the truth" (cf. John
18:37); because it would be doing nothing peculiar, nothing distinguishing,
nothing which every heretic in Christendom is not ready to do, or rather is not
daily doing, as loudly, and as frequently as the most orthodox church. The very
idea of "bearing testimony to the truth," and of separating from
those who are so corrupt that Christian communion cannot be maintained with
them, necessarily implies some public discriminating act, in which the church
agrees upon, and expresses her belief in, the great doctrines of Christianity,
in contradistinction from those who believe erroneously. Now to suppose that
anything of this kind can be accomplished, by making a profession, the very
same in every respect with that which the worst heretics make, is too palpably
absurd to satisfy any sober inquirer. Of what value, let me ask, had the
Waldenses and Albigenses been, as witnesses of the truth as lights in the
world, amidst the darkness of surrounding corruption especially of what value
had they been to the church in succeeding times, and to us at the present day,
if they had not formed, and transmitted to posterity, those celebrated
confessions of faith, as precious as they are memorable, which we read in their
history, and which stand as so many monumental testimonies to the true
"gospel of the grace of God?" (Acts 20:24). Without these, how should
we ever have known in what manner they interpreted the Bible; or wherein they
differed from the grossest heretics, who lived at the same time, and professed
to receive the same Bible? Without these, how should we ever have seen so
clearly and satisfactorily as we do, that they maintained the truth and the
order of Christ's house, amidst all the wasting desolations of the "man of
sin" (2 Thess. 2:3); and thus fulfilled his promise that there shall
always be "a seed to serve him, who shall be accounted to the Lord for a
generation?" (cf. Ps. 22:20).
3. The adoption and publication of a creed is a tribute to truth and candor,
which every Christian church owes to the other churches, and to the world
around her.
Every wise man will wish to be united, in religious duty and privilege, with
those who most nearly agree with himself in their views of doctrine and order
with those in intercourse with whom he can be most happy, and best edified. Of
course, he will be desirous, before he joins any church, to know something of
its faith, government, and general character. I will suppose a pious and
ingenuous individual about to form his religious connections for life. He looks
round on the churches to which he has most access, and is desirous of deciding
with which of them he can be most comfortable. I will suppose that, in this
survey, he turns his eyes towards the truly scriptural and primitive church to
which it is our happiness to belong. He is anxious to know the doctrine as well
as the order which he may expect to find in connection with our body. How is he
to know this? Certainly not by going from church to church throughout our whole
bounds, and learning the creed of every individual minister from his own lips.
This would be physically impossible, without bestowing on the task a degree of
time and toil which scarcely any man could afford. He could not actually hear
for himself the doctrines taught in a twentieth part of our pulpits. And if he
could, he would still be unable to decide, from this source alone, how far what
he heard might be regarded as the uniform and universal, and especially as the
permanent character of the church, and not rather as an accidental exhibition.
But when such an inquirer finds that we have a published creed, declaring how
we understand the scriptures and explicitly stating, in detail, the great
truths which we have agreed to unite in maintaining he can ascertain in a few
hours, and without leaving his own dwelling, what we profess to believe and to
practice, and how far he may hope to be at home in our communion. And while he
is enabled thus to understand the system to which we profess to adhere, he
enables us to understand his views, by ascertaining how far they accord with
our published creed.
Further, what is thus due to ingenuous individuals, who wish to know the
real character of our church, is also due to neighboring churches,who may have
no less desire to ascertain the principles which we embrace. It is delightful
for ecclesiastical communities, who approach near to each other in faith and
order, to manifest their affection for one another, by cherishing some degree
of Christian intercourse.
But what church, which valued the preservation of its own purity and peace,
would venture on such intercourse with a body which had no defined system
either of doctrine or government, to which it stood pledged and which might,
therefore, prove a source of pollution and disorder to every other church with
which it had the smallest interchange of services? One of the ministers of such
a denomination, when invited into the pulpit of an orthodox brother, might give
entire satisfaction; while the very next to whom a similar mark of Christian
affection and confidence was shown, might preach the most corrupt heresy.
Creeds and confessions, then, so far from having a tendency to
"alienate" and "embitter" those Christian denominations
which think nearly alike, and ought to maintain fraternal intercourse, really
tend to make them acquainted with each other; to lay a foundation for regular
and cordial intercourse; to beget mutual confidence; and thus to promote the
harmony of the church of God.
I scruple not, therefore, to affirm, that, as every individual minister owes
to all around him a frank avowal of his Christian faith, when any desire to
know it; so every church owes it to her sister churches to be equally frank and
explicit in publicly declaring her principles. She, no doubt, believes those
principles to be purely scriptural. In publicly avowing them, therefore, she
performs the double duty of bearing testimony to the truth, and of endeavoring
to draw from less pure denominations, and from the surrounding world new
support to what she conscientiously believes to be more correct sentiments than
theirs. She may be erroneous in this estimate; but still she does what she can,
and what she unfeignedly believes to be right and what, of course, as long as
this conviction continues, she is bound to perform. And I have no hesitation in
further maintaining that, in all ages, those Christian churches which have been
most honorably distinguished for their
piety their zeal, and their adherence to the simplicity of the gospel, have
been not only most remarkable for their care in forming, but also for their frankness
in avowing, their doctrinal creed, and their disposition to let all around
them distinctly understand what they
professed to regard as the fundamental doctrines of our holy religion.
4. Another argument in favor of creeds, publicly adopted and maintained, is
that they are friendly to the study of Christian doctrine, and, of course, to
the prevalence of Christian knowledge.
It is the general principle of the enemies of creeds, that all who profess
to believe the Bible, ought, without further inquiry, to unite; to maintain
ecclesiastical communion; and to live together in peace. But is it not manifest, that the only way in which
those who essentially differ from each other concerning the fundamental
doctrines of the gospel can live together in perfectly harmonious
ecclesiastical fellowship is by becoming indifferent to truth: in other words, by becoming persuaded that modes of
faith are of little or no practical importance to the church, and are,
therefore, not worth contending for; that clear and discriminating views of
Christian doctrine are wholly unnecessary, and of little use in the formation
of Christian character? But in proportion as professing Christians are
indifferent to truth, will they not be apt to neglect the study of it? And if
the study of it be generally neglected, will not gross and deplorable ignorance
of it eventually and generally prevail?
The fact is, when men love gospel truth well enough to study it with care,
they will soon learn to estimate its value; they will soon be disposed to
"contend for it" against its enemies (cf. Jude 3), who are numerous
in every age; and this will inevitably lead them to adopt and defend that
"form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13) which they think they find in the
sacred scriptures. On the other hand, let any man imbibe the notion that creeds
and confessions are unscriptural, and of course unlawful, and he will naturally
and speedily pass to the conclusion, that all contending for doctrines is
useless, and even criminal. From this the transition is easy to the abandonment
of the study of doctrine, or, at least, the zealous and diligent study of it.
Thus it is, that laying aside all creeds naturally tends to make professing
Christians indifferent to the study of Christian truths, comparatively
uninterested in the attainment of religious knowledge; and, finally,
regardless, and, of course, ignorant of "the faith once delivered to the
saints" (Jude 3).
I would by no means, indeed, be understood to assert that no heretics have
ever been zealous in publishing and defending their corrupt opinions. The pages
of ecclesiastical history abundantly show that many of the advocates of error,
both in ancient and modern times, have contended not only pertinaciously, but
even fiercely, for their peculiar doctrines. But my position is that the
enemies of all creeds and confessions usually assume a principle which, if
carried out to its legitimate consequences, would discourage all zeal in
maintaining the peculiar doctrines of the gospel; that if all zeal in
maintaining peculiar doctrines were laid aside, all ardor and diligence in
studying them would be likely to be laid aside also; and that, if this were the
case, a state of things more unfriendly to the growth and prevalence of
Christian knowledge could scarcely be imagined.
Look at the loose, vague, indecisive character of the preaching heard in
nine-tenths of the Unitarian, and other latitudinarian pulpits in the United
States, and, as I suppose, throughout Christendom. If the occupants of those
pulpits had it for their distinct and main object to render their hearers
indifferent about understanding, and, of course, indifferent about studying the
fundamental doctrines of the gospel, they could scarcely adopt a plan more
directly calculated to attain their end, than that which they actually pursue.
Their incessant cry is, "matters of opinion are between God and a man's
own conscience. No one else has a right to meddle with them." Hence, in
pursuance of this maxim, they do, indeed, take care to meddle very little with
the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel. We conjecture what their doctrinal
opinions are, in general, not so much from what they say, as from what they do not
say. And the truth is, that if this
character of preaching was to become universal, all discriminating views of
gospel truth would, in thirty years, be banished from the church.
If the friends of orthodoxy and piety, then, really desire to cherish and
maintain a love for the discriminat ing study of Christian doctrine; a taste
for religious knowledge; a spirit of zeal for the truth, in opposition to that
miserable indifference to articles of faith,which is so replete with mischief
to every Christian community in which it is found; then let them be careful to
present, and diligent to keep before the eyes of one another, and the eye of
the public, that "good confession" which they are commanded to
"profess before many witnesses" (cf. 1 Tim. 6:12-13). If they fail to
do this; if, under the guise of adherence to that great Protestant maxim, that
the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and manners (a precious all
important truth which, properly understood, cannot be too often repeated), they
speak and act as if all who profess to receive the Bible were standing upon
equally solid and safe ground; if, in a word, they consider it as unnecessary,
and even criminal, to select from the mass of scriptural truth, and to defend,
as such, the fundamental doctrines of the gospel; then, nothing short of
miracle can prevent them from sinking into that coldness and sloth with respect
to the study of doctrine, and finally into the deplorable "lack of
knowledge" by which millions are constantly "destroyed" (Hos.
4:6).
5. It is an argument of no small weight, in favor of creeds, that the
experience of all ages has found them indispensably necessary.
Even in the days of the apostles, when all their inspiration and all their
miraculous powers were insufficient to deter heretics from spreading their
poison, men, calling themselves Christians, and professing to preach the religion
of Christ, perverted his truth, and brought "another gospel" (Gal.
1:6), which he had not taught. In this exigency, how did the churches proceed?
An inspired apostle directed them not to be contented with a general profession
of belief in the religion of Christ on the part of those who came to them as
Christian teachers; but to examine and try them, and to ascertain whether their
teachings were agreeable to the "form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13)
which they had been taught by him. And he adds with awful solemnity: "If
any man bring any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed" (cf. Gal. 1:9). Here was, in effect, an instance, and that by
divine warrant, of employing a creed as a test of orthodoxy: that is, men
making a general profession of Christianity are expressly directed by an
inspired apostle to be brought to the test, in what sense they understood that
gospel of which, in general terms, they declared their reception and how
they explained its leading doctrines. It would seem, indeed, that the
confession of faith then required was very short and simple. This, the peculiar
circumstances of the times, and the no less peculiar administration of the
church, rendered entirely sufficient. Still, whether the confession were long
or short, whether it consisted of three articles or of thirty, the principle
was the same.
In the second century, in the writings of Irenaeus; and, in the third, in
the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Lucian,
the martyr; we find a number of creeds and confessions more formally drawn out,
more minute, and more extensive than those of earlier date. They were intended
to bear testimony against the various forms of error which had arisen; and
plainly show that, as the arts and corruptions of heretics increased, the
orthodox church found more attention to the adoption and maintenance of these
formularies indispensable necessary.
In the fourth century, when the church was still more agitated by the
prevalence of heresy, there was a still louder demand for accredited tests, by
which the heretics were to be tried and detected. Of this demand there never
was a more striking instance than in the Council of Nicea, when the heresy of
Arius was under the consideration of that far-famed assembly. When the Council
entered on the examination of the subject, it was found extremely difficult to
obtain from Arius any satisfactory explanation ofhis views. He was not only as
ready, as the most orthodox divine present, to profess that he believed the
Bible; but he also declared himself willing to adopt, as his own, all the
language of the scriptures, in detail, concerning the person and character of
the blessed Redeemer. But when the members of the Council wished to ascertain
in what sense he understood this language, he discovered a disposition to evade
and equivocate, and actually, for a consider able time, baffled the attempts of
the most ingenious of the orthodox to specify his errors, and to bring them to
light. He declared that he was perfectly willing to employ the popular language
on the subject in controversy; and wished to have it believed that he differed
very little from the body of the church.
Accordingly the orthodox went over the various titles of Christ plainly
expressive of Divinity such as "God," "the true God," the
"express image of God," etc. (Titus 2:13; 1 John 5:20; cf. Heb. 1:3)
to every one of which Arius and his followers most readily subscribed, claiming
a right, however, to put their own construction on the scriptural titles in
question. After employing much time and ingenuity in vain, in endeavoring to
drag this artful chief from his lurking places, and to obtain from him an
explanation of his views, the Council found it would be impossible to
accomplish their object as long as they permitted him to entrench himself
behind a mere general profession of belief in the Bible.
They therefore did what common sense, as well as the word of God, had taught
the church to do in all preceding times, and what alone can enable her to
detect the artful advocate of error. They expressed, in their own language,
what they supposed to be the doctrine of scripture concerning the Divinity of
the Saviour: in other words, they drew up a confession of faith on this
subject, which they called upon Arius and his disciples to subscribe. This the
heretics refused; and were thus virtually brought to the acknowledgment that
they did not understand the scriptures as the rest of the Council understood
them, and, of course, that the charge against them was correct.
The same course was taken by all the pious witnesses of the truth in the
dark ages when, amidst the surrounding corruption and desolation, they found
themselves called upon to bear "witness to the truth" (cf. John
18:37). They all professed their belief in the Bible, and their love to it;
they constantly appealed to it as the only infallible rule of faith and
practice; and they studied it with incomparably more veneration and diligence
than any of the errorists around them. This all history plainly evinces. But at
the same time, they saw the futility of doing nothing more than proclaim, in
general, their adherence to the sacred volume. This would have been no
distinction, and, of course, no testimony at all. It would have been nothing
more than the bitterest enemies of the truth were proclaiming busily, and even
clamorously, every day. They, therefore, did what the friends of orthodoxy had
been in the habit of doing from the earliest ages. They framed creeds, from
time to time, as the exigencies of the church demanded, by means of which they
were enabled to bear their testimony for God: to vindicate his truth, and to
transmit the memorials of their fidelity to distant generations.
And finally, at the glorious Reformation from Popery by which the great
Head of the church may be said again to have "set his people free"
(cf. John 8:32, 36), and the memory of which shall never die in drawing the
line between "the precious and the vile" (cf. Jer. 15:19), the
friends of truth followed the same course. They, with one accord, formed their
creeds and confessions, which served, at once, as a plea for the truth, and a
barrier against heresy. And it is not, perhaps, too much to say, that the
volume which contains the collection of these creeds is one of the most
precious and imperishable monuments of the piety, wisdom, and zeal of the
sixteenth century.
What, now, is the inference, from all this experience of the church of God,
so universal and so uniform? It cannot be misunderstood. It speaks volumes.
When the friends of truth in all ages and situations, even those who were most
tenacious of the rights of private judgment, and most happy in the enjoyment of
Christian liberty, have invariably found it necessary to resort to the adoption
of creeds, in order to ascertain for themselves, as a social body, and to
communicate to others, for their benefit, their sense of the holy scriptures;
we are naturally led to conclude, not only that the resort is neither so
"unreasonable" nor so "baneful"as many would persuade us to
believe; but that there is really no other practicable method of maintaining
unity and purity in the church of Christ.
6. A further argument in favor of creeds and Confessions may be drawn from
the remarkable fact that their most zealous opposers have generally been
latitudinarians and heretics.
I do not affirm that the use of creeds has never been opposed by individuals substantially orthodox,
and even by orthodox churches: for it is believed that a few rare cases of this
anomaly have occurred, under the influence of strong prejudice, or very
peculiar circumstances. Yet, so far as I can recollect, we have no example of
it among the ancients. Such cases are the growth of very modern times. Nor, on
the other hand, is it my purpose to deny that heretics have sometimes been
extremely zealous in forming and maintaining the most corrupt creeds. For of
this the early history of the church abounds with examples, and its later
periods have not been wholly without them.
But what I venture to assert is that, as a general fact, the most ardent and
noisy opponents of creeds have been those who held corrupt opinions; that none,
calling themselves Christians, have been so bitter in reviling them, in modern
times, as the friends of Unitarianism, and those who were leaning toward that
awful gulf; and that the most consistent and zealous advocates of truth have
been, everywhere and at all times, distinguished by their friendship to such
formularies. Nor has this been by any means a fortuitous occur rence; but
precisely what might have been calculated, on principle, as likely to be
realized. It is an invariable characteristic of the orthodox that they lay
great stress on the knowledge and reception of truth; that they consider it as
necessary to holiness; that they deem an essential part of fidelity to their
Master in heaven to consist in contending for it, and maintaining it in
opposition to all the forms of error. On the contrary, it is almost as
invariable a characteristic of modern heretics, and more especially of those
who fall under the general denomination of Unitarians, that they profess
lightly to esteem modes of faith; that they manifest a marked indifference to
truth; that they, for the most part, maintain, in so many words, the innocence
of error; and hence very naturally reprobate, and even vilify, all faithful
attempts to oppose heresy, and to separate heretics from the church.
From those, then, who have either
far departed or at least begun to depart, from "the faith once delivered
to the saints" (cf. Jude 3), almost exclusively, do we hear of the
"oppression," and the "mischief" of creeds and confessions.
And is it any marvel that those
who maintain the innocence of error should be unwilling to raise fences for
keeping it out of the church? Is it any marvel that the Arian, the Socinian,
the Pelagian, and such as are verging toward those fatal errors, should
exceedingly dislike all the evangelical formularies which tend to make visible
the line of distinction between the friends and the enemies of the redeemer?
No; "men," as has been often well observed, "men are seldom
opposed to creeds, until creeds have become opposed to them." That they
should dislike and oppose them, in these circumstances, is just as natural as
that a culprit arraigned before a civil tribunal, should equally dislike the
law, its officer, and its sanction.
Accordingly, if we look a little into the interior of church history,
especially within the last century, we shall find these remarks often and
strikingly exemplified. We shall find, with few exceptions, that whenever a
group of men began to slide, with respect to orthodoxy, they generally
attempted to break, if not to conceal,
their fall, by declaiming against creeds and confessions. They have seldom
failed, indeed, to protest in the beginning, that they had no objections to the
doctrines themselves of the confession which they had subscribed, but to the
principle of subscribing confessions at all. Soon, however, was the melancholy
fact gradually unfolded, that disaffection to the doctrines which they once
appeared to love had more influence in directing their course than even they
themselves imagined, and that they were receding further and further from the
"good way" (Jer. 6:16) in which they formerly seemed to rejoice. Truly
that cause is of a most suspicious character to which latitudinarians and
heretics, at least in modern times, almost as a matter of course, yield their
support; and which they defend with a zeal, in general, strictly proportioned
to their hatred of orthodoxy!
7. The only further argument in support of creeds on which I shall dwell is
that their most zealous opposers do themselves virtually employ them in all
ecclesiastical proceedings.
The favorite maxim, with the opposers of creeds, that all who acknowledge
the Bible, ought, without hesitation, to be received, not only to Christian,
but also to ministerial communion, is invariably abandoned by those who urge
it, the moment a case turns up which really brings it to the test. Did any one
ever hear of a Unitarian congregation engaging as their pastor a preacher of
Calvinism, knowing him to be such? But why not, on the principle adopted, or at
least professed, by Unitarians? The Calvinist surely comes with his Bible in
his hand, and professes to believe it as cordially as they. Why is not that
enough? Yet we know that, in fact, it is not enough for these advocates of
unbounded liberality. Before they will consent to receive him as their
spiritual guide, they must be explicitly informed how he interprets the Bible:
in other words, what is his particular creed; whether it is substantially the
same with their own or not; and if they are not satisfied that this is the
case, all other professions and protestations will be in vain. He will be
inexorably rejected. Here, then, we have, in all its extent, the principle of
demanding subscription to a creed and a principle carried out into practice
as rigorously as ever it was by the most high-toned advocate of orthodoxy.
We have before seen that the friends of truth, in all ages, have found, in
their sad experience, that a general profession of belief in the Bible was
altogether insufficient, either as a bond of union, or as a fence against the
inroads of error. And here we find the warmest advocates of a contrary doctrine,
and with a contrary language in their mouths, when they come to act, pursuing
precisely the same course with the friends of creeds, with only this
difference: that the creed which they apply as a test, instead of being a
written and tangible document, is hidden in the bosoms of those who expound and
employ it, and, of course, may be applied in the most capricious as well as
tyrannical manner, without appeal; and further, that, while they really act
upon this principle, they disavow it, and would persuade the world that they
proceed upon an entirely different plan.
Can there be a more conclusive fact than this? The enemies of creeds
themselves cannot get along a day without them. It is in vain to say, that in
their case no creed is imposed, but that all is voluntary, and left entirely to
the choice of the parties concerned. It will be seen hereafter that the same
may be with equal truth asserted, in all those cases of subscription to
articles, for which I contend, without any exception. No less vain is it to
say, again, that in their case the articles insisted on are few and simple, and
by no means so liable to exception as the long and detailed creed which some
churches have adopted. It is the principle of subscription to creeds which is
now under consideration. If the lawfulness and even the necessity of acting
upon this principle can be established,
our cause is gained. The extent to which we ought to go in multiplying articles
is a secondary question, the answer to which must depend on the exigencies of
the church framing the creed. Now the adversaries of creeds, while they totally
reject the expediency, and even the lawfulness, of the general principle, yet
show that they cannot proceed a step without adopting it in practice. This is
enough. Their conduct is sounder than their reasoning. And no wonder. Their
conduct is dictated by good sense and practical experience, nay, imposed upon
them by the evident necessity of the case: while their reasoning is a theory,
derived, as I must believe, from a source far less enlightened, and less safe.
Several other arguments might be urged in favor of written creeds, did not
the limits to which I am confined in this Lecture, forbid me further to
enlarge.
It is easy to show that confessions of faith, judiciously drawn, and
solemnly adopted by particular churches, are not only invaluable as bonds of
union, and fences against error; but that they also serve an important purpose,
as accredited manuals of Christian doctrine, well fitted for the instruction of
those private members of churches, who have neither leisure nor habits of
thinking sufficiently close, to draw from the sacred writings themselves a
consistent system of truth. It is of incalculable use to the individual who has
but little time for reading, and but little acquaintance with books, to be
furnished with a clear and well arranged compend of doctrine, which he is
authorized to regard, not as the work of a single, enlightened, and pious
divine; but as drawn out and adopted by the collected wisdom of the church to
which he belongs. There is often a satisfaction, to plain, unsophisticated
minds, not to be described, in going over such a compend, article by article;
examining the proofs adduced from the word of God in support of each; and
"searching the scriptures daily to see whether these things which it
teaches are so or not" (cf. Acts 17:11).
It might also be further shown that sound and scriptural confessions of
faith are of great value for transmitting to posterity a knowledge of what is
done by the church, at particular times, in behalf of the truth. Every such
confession that is formed or adopted by the followers of Christ in one age is a
precious legacy transmitted to their children, and to all that may come after
them, in a succeeding age, not only bearing their testimony in support of the
true doctrine of Jesus Christ, but also pouring more or less light on those
doctrines, for the instruction of all to whom that testimony may come.
But while we attend to the principal arguments in favour of written creeds,
justice to the subject requires that we,
II. Examine some of the principal objections which have been made to creeds
by their adversaries.
1. And the first which I shall mention is that forming a creed, and
requiring subscription to it as a religious test, is superceding the Bible, and
making a human composition instead of it a standard of faith. "The
Bible," say those who urge this objection, "is the only infallible
rule of faith and practice. It is so complete, that it needs no human addition,
and so easily understood, that it requires
no human explanation. Why, then, should we desire any other ecclesiastical
standard? Why subscribe ourselves, orcall upon others to subscribe, any other
creed than this plain, inspired, and perfect one? Every time we do this we
offer a public indignity to the sacred volume, as we virtually declare, either
that it is not infallible, or not sufficient."
This objection is the most specious one in the whole catalogue. And although
it is believed that a sufficient answer has been furnished by some principles
already laid down; yet the confidence with which it is every day repeated
renders a formal attention to it expedient; more especially as it bears, at
first view, so much the appearance of peculiar veneration for the scriptures,
that many are captivated by its plausible aspect, and consider it as decisive.
The whole argument which this objection presents is founded on a false
assumption. No Protestant ever professed to regard his creed, considered as a
human composition, as of equal authority with the scriptures, and far less of
paramount authority. Every principle of this kind is, with one voice,
disclaimed, by all the creeds, and defenses of creeds, that I have ever read.
And whether, notwithstanding this, the constant repetition of the charge ought
to be considered as fair argument, or gross calumny, the impartial will judge.
A church creed professes to be, as was before observed, merely an epitome, or
summary exhibition of what the scriptures teach. It professes to be deduced
from the scriptures, and to refer to the scriptures for the whole of its
authority. Of course, when any one subscribes it, he is so far from dishonoring
the Bible, that he does public homage to it. He simply declares, by a solemn
act, how he understands the Bible in other words, what doctrines he considers
it as containing.
In short, the language of an orthodox believer, in subscribing his
ecclesiastical creed, is simply of the following import: "While the
Socinian professes to believe the Bible, and to understand it as teaching the
mere humanity of Christ; while the Arian professes to receive the same Bible,
and to find in it the Saviour represented as the most exalted of all creatures,
but still a creature; while the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian make a similar
profession of their general belief in the scriptures, and interpret them as
teaching a doctrine far more favorable to human nature, and far less honorable
to the grace of God, than they appear to me really to teach; I beg the
privilege of declaring, for myself, that, while I believe with all my heart
that the Bible is the word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and manners,
and the only ultimate test in all controversies; it plainly teaches, as I read
and believe, the deplorable and total depravity of human nature; the essential
divinity of the Saviour; a Trinity of persons in the Godhead; justification by
the imputed righteousness of Christ; and regeneration and sanctification by the
Holy Spirit, as indispensable to prepare the soul for heaven. These I believe
to be the radical truths which God has revealed in his word; and while they are
denied by some, and frittered away or perverted by others who profess to
believe that blessed word, I am verily persuaded they are the fundamental
principles of the plan of salvation."
Now, I ask, is there in all this language, any thing dishonorable to the
Bible? Any thing that tends to supersede its authority; or to introduce a rule,
or a tribunal of paramount authority? Is there not, on the contrary, in the
whole language and spirit of such a declaration, an acknowledgment of God's
word as of ultimate and supreme authority; and an expression of belief in certain
doctrines, simply and only because they are believed to be revealed in that
word? Truly, if this is dishonoring the scriptures, or setting up a standard
above them, there is an end of all meaning either of words or actions.
But still it is asked, "Where is the need of any definitive declaration
of what we understand the scriptures to teach? Are they not intelligible enough
in themselves? Can we make them plainer than their Author has done? Why hold a
candle to the sun? Why make an attempt to frame a more explicit test than he
who gave the Bible has thought proper to frame an attempt, as vain as it is
presumptuous?" To this plea it is sufficient to answer that, although the
scriptures are undoubtedly simple and plain so plain that " he who runs
may read" (cf. Hab. 2:2) yet it is equally certain that thousands do, in
fact, mistake and misinterpret them. This cannot possibly be denied, because
thousands interpret them (and that on points confessedly fundamental) not only
in different, but in directly opposite ways. Of course all cannot be equally
right. Can it be wrong, then, for a pious and orthodox man or for a pious
church to exhibit, and endeavor to recommend to others, their mode of
interpreting the sacred volume? As the world is acknowledged, on all hands, to
be, in fact, full of mistake and error as to the true meaning of the holy
scriptures, can it be thought a superfluous task for those who have more light
and more correct opinions, to hold them up to view, as a testimony to the
truth, and as a guide to such as may be in error? Surely it cannot. Yet this is
neither more nor less than precisely that formation and maintenance of a
scriptural confessions of faith for which I am pleading.
Still, however, it may be asked, what right has any man, or set of men, to
interpose their authority and undertake to deal out the sense of scripture for
others? Is it not both impious in itself, and an improper assumption over the
minds of our fellow men? I answer, this reasoning would prove too much, and therefore
proves nothing. For, if admitted, it would prove that all preaching of the
gospel is presumptuous and criminal; because preaching always consisted in
explaining and enforcing scripture, and that, for the most part, in the words
of the preacher himself. Indeed, if the objection before us were valid, it
would prove that all the pious writings of the most eminent divines, in all
ages, who have had for their object to elucidate and apply the word of God,
were profane and arrogant attempts to mend his revelation, and make it better
fitted than it is to promote its great design. Nay, further; upon the principle
of this objection, it not only follows, that no minister of the gospel ought
ever do more in the pulpit than simply to read or repeat the very words of
scripture; but it is equally evident that he must read or repeat scripture to
his hearers only in the languages in which they were given to the church. For,
as has been often observed, it cannot be said that the words of any translation
of the Bible are the very words of the Holy Spirit. They are only the words
which uninspired men have chosen, in which to express, as nearly as they were
able, the sense of the original. If, therefore, the objection before us be
admitted, no man is at liberty to teach the great truths of revelation in any
other way than by literally repeating the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and
the Greek of the New, in the hearing of the people. So extreme is the absurdity
to which an erroneous principle will not fail to lead those who are weak
enough, or bold enough, to follow it to its legitimate consequences!
But, after all, what language do facts speak on this subject? Are those
individuals or churches, who have been most distinguished for their attachment
and adherence to creeds, more regardless of the Bible than other professing
Christians? Do they appear to esteem the Bible less? Do they read it less? Do
they appeal to it less frequently, as their grand and ultimate authority? Do
they quote it more rarely, or with less respect in their preaching? Where they
once refer to their creeds or catechisms, for either authority or illustration,
in the pulpit, do they not, notoriously, refer to the Bible a thousand times?
Do they take less pains than others to impress the contents of the sacred
volume on the minds of their children, and to hold it forth as the unceasing
object of study to all? Look at the Reformed churches of Scotland and Holland,
of France and Geneva, in their best state, when their confessions of faith were
most venerated, and had most power, and then say, whether any churches, since
the days of the apostles, ever discovered more reverence for the scriptures, or
treated them with more devout regard, as the only perfect standard of faith and
practice, than they? Nay, am I not warranted in making a similar appeal with
respect to those churches in our land which have been most distinguished for
their attachment to creeds? Are not their ministers, in general, quite as
remarkable for very rarely quoting their own ecclesiastical formularies, for
either proof or illustration, as they are for their constant and abundant
quotations from scripture for both purposes? Can the same incessant and devout
recurrence to the sacred oracles be ascribed with equal truth to the great body
of the opposers of creeds, in ancient,or modern times? I will not press this
comparison into further detail; but have no apprehension that even the
bitterest enemy of creeds, who has a tolerable acquaintance with facts, and the
smallest portion of candor, will venture to say that the result, fairly
deduced, is in favor of his cause.
2. Another objection frequently made to church creeds is that they interfere
with the rights of conscience, and naturally lead to oppression. "What
right," say those who urge this objection, "has any church, or body
of churches, to impose a creed on me, or dictate to me what I shall believe? To
attempt such dictation is tyranny; to submit to it is to surrender the right of
private judgment."
There would be some ground for this objection, if a creed were, in any case,
imposed by the civil government, or by an established church; if any were
obliged to receive it, under heavy pains and disabilities, whether they
approved it or not. But as such a case does not, and, happily, cannot exist in
our favored country, the objection is surely as illegitimate in reasoning, as
it is false in fact. One is tempted to suspect that those who urge such an
objection among us have found it manufactured to their hands, by persons living
under civil governments and ecclesiastical establishments of an oppressive
character; and viewing it as a weapon which might be wielded with much popular
effect, they have taken it into their service, and thenceforward refused to
abandon it; though proved a thousand times to have no more application to any
creed or church in the United States, than to the inhabitants of another
planet.
It will not, surely, be denied by anyone, that a body of Christians have a
right, in every free country, to associate and walk together upon such
principles as they may choose to agree upon, not inconsistent with public
order. They have a right to agree and declare how they understand the
scriptures; what articles found in scripture they concur in considering as
fundamental; and in what manner they will have their public preaching and
polity conducted, for the edification of themselves and their children. They
have no right, indeed, to decide or to judge for others, nor can they compel
any man to join them. But it is surely their privilege to judge for themselves,
to agree upon the plan of their own association, to determine upon what
principles they will receive other members into their brotherhood, and to form
a set of rules which will exclude from their body those with whom they cannot
walk in harmony. The question is not whether they make, in all cases, a wise
and scriptural use of this right to follow the dictates of conscience, but
whether they possess the right at all? They are, indeed, accountable for the
use which they make of it, and solemnly accountable to their Master in heaven;
but to man they surely cannot, and ought not, to be compelled to give any
account. It is their own concern. Their fellow men have nothing to do with it,
as long as they commit no offense against the public peace. To decide otherwise
would indeed be an outrage on the right of private judgment. If the principles
of civil and religious liberty generally prevalent in our happy country are
correct, demonstration itself cannot be more incontrovertible than these positions.
But if a body of professing Christians have a natural right thus to
associate, to extract their own creed from the scriptures, and to agree upon
the principles by which others may afterwards be admitted into their number; is
it not equally manifest that they have the same right to refuse admittance to
those with whom, they believe, they cannot be comfortably connected?
Let us suppose a church to be actually associated upon the principle laid
down, its creed and other articles adopted, and published for the information
of all who may wish to be informed and its members walking together in harmony
and love. Suppose, while things are in this situation, a person comes to them,
and addresses them thus: "I demand admittance into your body, though I can
neither believe the doctrines which you profess to embrace, nor consent to be
governed by the rules which you have agreed to adopt." What answer would
they be apt to give him? They would certainly reply: "Your demand is very
unreasonable. Our union is a voluntary one, for our mutual spiritual benefit.
We have not solicited you to join us; and you cannot possibly have a right to
force yourself into our body. The whole world is before you. Go where you
please. We cannot agree to receive you, unless you are willing to walk with us
upon our own principles." Such an answer would undoubtedly be deemed a
proper one by every reasonable person. Suppose, however, this applicant were
still to urge his demand; to claim admission as a right; and, upon being
finally refused, to complain that the society had "persecuted" and
"injured" him? Would anyone think him possessed of common sense? Nay,
would not the society in question, if they could be compelled to receive such
an applicant, instead of being oppressors of others, cease to be free
themselves?
The same principle would still more strongly apply, in case of a clergyman
offering himself to such a church, as a candidate for the station of pastor
among them. Suppose, when he appeared to make a tender of his services, they were
to present him with a copy of that creed, and of that form of government and of
worship which they had unanimously adopted, and to say,"This is what we believe. We pretend not to prescribe to others; 'but
so we have learned Christ' (cf.
Eph. 2:20); so we understand the
scriptures; and thus we wish ourselves, our children, and all who look up to us
for guidance, to be instructed. Can you subscribe to these formularies? Are you
willing to come among us upon these principles, and, as our pastor, thus to break
to us, and our little ones, what we deem 'the bread of life?' " (cf. John
8:35, 48). Could the candidate complain of such a demand? Many speak as if the
church, in putting him to this test, undertook to "judge for him."
But nothing can be more remote from the truth. They only undertake to judge for
themselves. If the candidate cannot, or will not, accept of the test, he will
be, of course, rejected. But, in this case, no judgment is passed on his state
toward God; no ecclesiastical censure, not even the smallest, is inflicted upon
him. The churches only claim a right to be served in the ministerial office by
a man who is of the same religion with themselves. And is this an unreasonable
demand? Are not the rights of conscience reciprocal? Or do they demand, that
while a church shall be prohibited from "oppressing" an individual,
an individual shall be allowed to "oppress" a church? Surely it
cannot be necessary to wait for an answer.
Accordingly, the transactions of secular life furnish every day a practical
refutation of the objection which I am now considering. Does the head of a
family, when a person applies to be received as a resident under his roof, ever
doubt that he has a right to inquire whether the applicant is willing to
conform to the rules of his family or not; and if he declines this conformity,
to refuse him admission? And even after he has been received and tried, for
awhile, if he proves an uncomfortable inmate, does not every one consider the
master of the family as at liberty to exclude him? Has not every parent, and,
of course, every voluntary association of parents, an acknowledged right to
determine what qualifications they will require in a preceptor for their
children; and, if so, to bring all candidates to the test agreed on, and to reject
those who do not correspond with it? And if a candidate who fell totally short
of the qualifications required, and who, of course, was rejected, should make a
great outcry that he was "wantonly" and "tyrannically"
deprived of the place to which he aspired, would not every one think him
insane, or worse than insane? The same principle applies to every voluntary
association, for moral, literary, or other lawful purposes. If the members have
not a right to agree on what principles they will associate, and to refuse
membership to those who are known to be entirely hostile to the great object of
the association, there is an end of all liberty. Of the self evident truth of
all this, no one doubts. But where is the essential difference between any one
of these rights, and the right of any community of professing Christians to
agree upon what they deem the scriptural principles of their own union; and to
refuse admission into their body of those whom they consider as unfriendly to
the great purposes of truth and edification, for the promotion of which they
associated? To deny them this right, would be to make them slaves indeed!
It will probably, however, be alleged that a church cannot, properly
speaking, be considered as a voluntary association; that it is a community
instituted by the authority of Christ; that its laws are given by Him, as its
sovereign Head and Lord; and that its rulers are in fact only stewards, bound
to conform themselves in all that they do to his will; that, if the church were
their own, they would have a right to shut out from it whom they pleased; but
as it is Christ's, they must find some other rule of proceeding than their own
volitions. This is, doubtless, all true. The church of Christ certainly cannot
be regarded as a mere voluntary association, in the same sense in which many
other societies are so called. It is the property of Christ. His will is the
basis and the law of its establishment, and, of course, none can be either
admitted or excluded but upon principles which his own word prescribes. This,
however, it is conceived, does not alter, "one jot or tittle," the
spirit of the foregoing reasoning.
The union of Christians in a church state must, still, from the nature of
things, be a voluntary act; for if it were not so, it would not be a moral act
at all. But if the union is voluntary, then those who form it must certainly be
supposed to have a right to follow their own convictions as to what their
Divine Master has revealed and enjoined respecting the laws of their union. If they
are not to judge in this matter, who, I ask, is to judge for them? Has the Head
of the church, then, prescribed any qualifications as necessary for private
membership, or for admission to the ministerial office, in his church? If so,
what are they? Will any degree of departure from the purity of faith or
practice be sufficient to exclude a man? If it will, to whom has our Lord
committed the task of applying his law, and judging in any particular ease? to
the applicants or delinquents themselves; or to the church in which membership
is desired? If to the latter, on what principle is she bound to proceed? As her
members have voluntarily associated for their mutual instruction and
edification in spiritual things, have they not a right to be satisfied that the
individual who applies to be received among them, either as a private member or
minister, entertains opinions, and bears a character, which will be consistent
with the great object which they seek? Can any such individual reasonably
refuse to satisfy them as to the accordance of his religious sentiments with
theirs, if they think that both the law of Christ, and the nature of the case,
render such accordance necessary to Christian fellowship? If he could not
reasonably refuse to give satisfaction verbally on this subject, could he, with
any more reason, refuse to state his own sentiments in writing, and subscribe
his name to that written statements? Surely to decline this, while he consented
to give a verbal exhibition of his creed, would wear the appearance of singular
caprice or perverseness. But if no rational objection could be made to his
subscribing a declaration, drawn up with his own hand, would it not be exactly
the same thing, as to the spirit of the transaction, if with a view, simply
to ascertain the fact of his belief, not to dictate laws to his conscience a
statement, previously drawn up by the church herself, should be presented for
his voluntary signature? What is required of an individual in such case is not
that he shall believe what the church believes; but simply that he shall
declare, as a matter of fact, whether he does possess that belief which, from
his voluntary application to be received into Christian fellowship with that
church, he may be fairly presumed to possess.
Again, I ask, is it possible to deny a church this right, without striking
at the root of all that is sacred in the convictions of conscience, and of all
that is precious in the enjoyment of Christian communion? I fully grant,
indeed, that, as her authority rests entirely on the declared will of Christ,
she has no right, in the sight of God, to propose to a candidate, any other
than a sound orthodox creed. She cannot possibly be considered as having a
right, on this principle, to require his assent to anti-scriptural principles.
Still, however, as the rights of conscience are unalienable; and as every
church must be considered, of course, as verily believing that she is acting
according to her Master's will, we must concede to her the plenary right, in
the sight of man, to require from those who would join her, a solemn assent to
her formularies.
But, perhaps, it will be asked, when a man has already become a member, or
minister of a church, in virtue of a voluntary and honest subscription to her
articles, and afterwards alters his mind; if he is excluded from her communion
as a private member, or deposed from office as a minister, is not here
"oppression?" Is it not inflicting on a man a "heavy
penalty" for his "opinions," "punishing" him for his
"sincere, conscientious convictions?" I answer, if the Lord Jesus
Christ has not only authorized, but solemnly commanded his church to cast the
heretical, as well as immoral, out of her communion, and wholly to withdraw her
countenance from those who preach "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6); then
it is manifest that the church, in acting on this authority, does no one any
injury. In excluding a private member from the communion of a church, or
deposing a minister from office in the regular and scriptural exercise of
discipline, she deprives neither of any natural right. It is only withdrawing
that which was voluntarily asked, and voluntarily bestowed, and which might
have been, without injustice, withheld. It is only practically saying,
"You can no longer, consistently with our views, either of obedience to
Christ, or of Christian edification, be a minister or a member with us. You may
be as happy and as useful as you can in any other connection; but we must take
away that authority and those privileges which we once gave you, and of which
your further exercise among us would be subversive of those principles which we
are solemnly pledged to support." Is this language unreasonable? Is the
measure which it contemplates oppressive? Would it be more just in itself, or
more favorable to the rights of conscience, if any individual could retain his
place as a teacher and guide in a church, contrary to its wishes; to the
subversion of its faith; to the disturbance of its peace; and finally to the
endangering of its existence; and all this contrary to his own solemn
engagements, and to the distinct understanding of its members, when he joined
them? Surely every friend of religious liberty would indignantly answer,
"No!" Such a church would be the oppressed party, and such a member,
the tyrant.
The conclusion, then, is that when a church makes use of a creed in the
manner that has been described as a bond of union, as a barrier against what
it deems heresy, and in conformity with what it conscientiously believes to be
the will of Christ it is so far from encroaching on the "rights" of
others; so far from being chargeable with "oppression;" that it is
really, in the most enlightened manner, and on the largest scale, maintaining
the rights of conscience; and that for such a church, instead of doing this, to
give up its own testimony to the truth and order of God's house; to surrender
its own comfort, peace, and edification, for the sake of complying with the
unreasonable demands of a corrupt individual, would be to subject itself to the
worst of slavery. What is the subjugation of the many, with all their
interests, rights, and happiness to the dictation of one, or a few, but the
essence of tyranny?
3. A third objection often urged against subscription to creeds and
confessions is that it is unfriendly to free inquiry. "When a man,"
say the enemies of creeds, "has once subscribed a public formulary, and
taken his ecclesiastical stand with a church which requires it, he must
continue so to believe to the end of life or resign his place; new light in
abundance may offer itself to his view; but he must close his eyes against it.
Now, can it be right," say they, "for anyone voluntarily to place
himself in circumstances of so much temptation; willingly to place himself
within the reach of strong inducements to tamper with conscience, and to resist
conviction?"
In answer to this objection, my first remark is that when a man takes on
himself the solemn and highly responsible office of a public instructor of
others, we must presume that he has examined the most important of the various
creeds (called Christian) with all the deliberation, sincerity, and prayer, of
which he is capable, and that he has made up his mind with respect to the
leading doctrines of scripture. To suppose anyone capable of entering in the
duties of the ministerial office while he is wavering and unsettled, and liable
to be "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (cf. Eph. 4:14), is
to suppose him both weak and criminal to a very great degree. I know, indeed,
that some ardent opposers of creeds consider a state of entire indecision, with
regard even to leading theological doctrines, as the most laudable and
desirable state of mind. They wish every man not only to feel himself a learner
to the end of life, which is undoubtedly right, but also, if possible, to keep
himself in that equilibrium of mind with respect to the most important
doctrinal opinions, which shall amount to perfect indifference whether he
retains or relinquishes his present sentiments. This they eulogize, as
"openness to conviction," "freedom from prejudice," etc.
Without stopping to combat this sentiment at large, I hesitate not to pronounce
it unreasonable in itself, contrary to scripture, and an enemy to all Christian
stability and comfort. We know what is said in the word of God, of those who
are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth" (2 Tim. 3:7). I repeat it; we must suppose him who undertakes to be
a teacher of others to be himself, as the apostle expresses it, "grounded
and settled in the faith" (cf. Col. 1:23). We ought to be considered,
then, as having all the security that the nature of the case admits, that he
who comes forward as one of the lights and leaders of a religious community is
firm in the principles which he has professed, and will not be very apt,
essentially, to alter his creed.
But further, the same objection might be urged, with quite as much force,
against a man's making any public declaration of his sentiments, either by
preaching, or by writing, and printing; lest he should afterwards obtain more
light, and yet be tempted to adhere, contrary to his conscience, to what he had
before so publicly espoused. But does any honest minister of the gospel think
it his duty to forbear to preach, or otherwise to express his opinions, because
it is possible he may afterwards change them? We know that if the preacher of a
Unitarian congregation should alter his views, and become orthodox, he must
quit his place, give up his salary, and seek employment among his new
connections. The same thing would happen if a change the converse of this were
to occur, and an orthodox preacher become a Unitarian. What then? Because an
honest man, when he changes his mind on the subject of religion, will always
hold himself in readiness to change his situation, and to make every necessary
sacrifice, shall he, therefore, never venture to take any public station, lest
he should not always think as he does at present?
Nay, this objection, if it proves anything, will be found to prove by far
too much, even for our opponents themselves. The adversaries of creeds
acknowledge, with one consent, that every one ought to be ready to profess his
belief in the Bible. But is not even this profession just as liable to the
charge of being "unfriendly to free inquiry" as any other? Suppose
anyone, after solemnly declaring his belief in the Bible, should cease to
believe it? Would he be bound to consider his old subscription as still
binding, and as precluding further examination? Or would it be reasonable in
any man to decline any profession of belief in the Bible, lest he should, one
day, alter his mind, and feel himself embarrassed by his profession?
There can be no doubt that every public act by which a man pledges himself,
even as a private member, to any particular denomination of Christians,
interposes some obstacle in the way of his afterwards deserting that
denomination, and uniting himself with another. And, perhaps, it may be said,
the more delicate and honorable his mind, the more reluctant and slow he will
be to abandon his old connections, and choose new ones. So that such an one
will really labor under a temptation to resist light, and remain where he is.
But because this is so, shall a man therefore, never join any church; never
take one step that will, directly or indirectly, pledge his religious creed or
character, lest he should afterwards alter his mind, and be constrained to
transfer his relation to a different body, and thus be liable to find himself
embarrassed by his former steps? Upon this principle, we must go further, and
adopt the doctrine, equally absurd and heathenish, that no parent ought ever to
instruct his child in what he deems the most precious truths of the gospel,
lest he should fill his mind with prejudices, and present an obstacle to free
and unshackled inquiry afterwards. For there can be no doubt that early
parental instruction does present more or less obstacle, in the way of a
subsequent change of opinion, on those subjects which that instruction
embraced. Yet our Father in heaven has expressly commanded us to instruct our
children and to endeavor to pre-occupy their minds with everything that is excellent both in principle and practice. In
short, if the objection before us is valid, then no one ought ever to go forward
in the discharge of any duty; for he may one day cease to think it a duty; in
other words, he ought habitually, and upon principle, to disobey some of the
plainest commands of God, lest he should afterwards entertain different views
of those commands, from those which he at present entertains. Nay, if this be
so, then every book a man reads, and every careful, deep inquiry he makes
concerning the subject of it, must be considered as tending to influence the
mind, and to interfere with perfect impartiality in any subsequent inquiry on
the same subject; and, therefore, ought to be forborne!
Surely no man in his senses judges or acts thus. Especially, no Christian
allows himself thus to reason or act. In the path of what appears to be present
duty, he feels bound to go forward, leaving future things with God. If
subscription to a correct creed is really agreeable to the will of God; if it
is necessary, both to the purity and harmony of the church; and, therefore, in
itself a duty; then no man ought any more to hesitate about discharging this
duty, than about discharging any of those duties which have been mentioned, or
any others which may be supposed. There is no station in life in which its
occupant does not find some peculiar temptation. But if he is a man of a right
spirit, he will meet it with Christian integrity, and overcome it with
Christian courage. If he is a truly honest man, he will be faithful to his God,
and faithful to his own conscience, at all hazards; and if he is not honest, he
will not be very likely to benefit the church by his discoveries and
speculations. Accordingly, the voice of history confirms this reasoning. On the
one hand, how many thousand instances have the last two centuries afforded of
men who were willing to incur not only obloquy and reproach, but also beggary,
imprisonment, and even death itself, in their most frightful forms, rather than
abandon the truth, and subscribe to formularies which they could not
conscientiously adopt! On the other hand, how many instances have occurred,
within the last fifty years, of unprincipled men, after solemnly subscribing
orthodox creeds, disregarding their vows, and opposing the spirit of those
creeds, and still retaining their ecclesiastical stations, without reserve! It
is plain, then, that this whole objection, though specious, has not the least
solidity. Truly upright and pious men will always follow their convictions;
while, with regard to those of an opposite character, their light, whether they
remain or depart, will be found to be of no value, either to themselves, or the
church of God.
4. A fourth objection frequently brought against creeds is that they have
altogether failed of answering the purpose professed to be intended by them.
"Churches," it is said, "which have creeds the most carefully
drawn, and of the most rigid character, are as far from being united in
doctrinal opinions, as some which either have never had any creeds at all, or
have long since professedly omitted to enforce subscription to them. To mention
only two examples: the Church of England, for nearly three centuries, has had a
set of articles decisively Calvinistic, to which all her candidates for the
ministry are required to subscribe; but we know that more than a hundred and
fifty years have passed away, since Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian tenets began to
pollute that important branch of the reformed church; and that within the last
seventy-five or eighty years, almost every form of heresy has lurked under
subscription to her orthodox Articles. And even the Church of Scotland, which
has had, for nearly two centuries, the most rigidly and minutely orthodox
confession on earth, is generally supposed, at this hour, to have a ministry
far from being unanimous in loving and honoring her public standards. Now, if
creeds have not, in fact, been productive of the great benefit intended by
them, even in some of the most favorable cases that can be produced, why be
perplexed and burdened with them at all?"
This objection evidently proceeds on the principle, that a remedy which does
not accomplish everything, is worth nothing. Because creeds have not completely
banished dissension and discord from the churches which have adopted them,
therefore they have been of no use. But is this sound reasoning? Does it accord
even with common sense, or with the dictates of experience in any walk of life?
Because the Constitution of the United States has not completely defended our
country from all political animosity and strife, is it, therefore, worthless?
Or should we have been more united and harmonious without any constitutional
provision at all? Because the system of public law does not annihilate all
crime, should we, of course, be as well without it? No one will say this. Nay,
may not the objection be retorted on those who urge it? They contend that
creeds are unnecessary; that the Bible is amply sufficient for all purposes, as
a test of truth. But has the Bible banished dissension and discord from the
church? No one will pretend that it has. Yet why not? Surely not on account of
any error or defect in itself; but on account of the folly and perverseness of
depraved man, who, amidst all the provisions of infinite wisdom and goodness,
is continually warring against the peace of the world.
But I go further, and maintain that the history of the practical influence
of creeds is strongly in their favor. Though they have not done everything that
could have been desired, they have done much; and much in those very churches
which have been most frequently selected as examples of their entire want of
efficacy. The Calvinistic articles of the Church of England were the means of
keeping her doctrinally pure, to a very remarkable degree, for the greater part
of a hundred years. In the reign of James I, very few opponents of Calvinism
dared publicly to avow their opinions; and of those who did avow them, numbers
were severely disciplined, and others saved themselves from similar treatment
by subsequent silence and discretion. The inroads of error, therefore, were
very powerfully checked, and its triumph greatly retarded by those public
standards. In fact, the great body of the bishops and clergy professed to be
doctrinal Calvinists, until a number of
years after the Synod of Dort, when, chiefly by the influence of Archbishop
Laud, and his creatures, Arminianism was gradually and guardedly brought in, in
consequence of which the faithful application of the thirty-nine articles, as a
test of orthodoxy, and of admission to the ministry, was discontinued. The
articles continued to speak as before, and to be solemnly subscribed; but the
spirit of the administration under them was no longer the same.
It became predominantly Arminian. We may truly say, then, that the creed of the
Church of England continued to operate effectually as a bond of union, and a
barrier against the encroach ments of heresy, as long as it continued to be
faithfully applied, agreeably to its known original purport. When it ceased to
be thus applied, it ceased to produce its wonted effect. But can this be
reasonably wondered at? As well might we wonder that a medicine, when its use
was, laid aside, should no longer heal.
The very same representation, in substance, may be made concerning the
Church of Scotland. Her preeminently excellent creed was the means, under God,
of keeping her united and pure, as long as that creed continued to be honestly
employed as a test, according to its true intent and spirit. When this ceased
to be the case, it would have been strange, indeed, if the state of things had
remained as before. It did not so remain. With lax and dishonest subscription,
heresy came in: at first, with reserve and caution, but afterwards, more
openly. But even to the present day, as all know who are acquainted with the
state of that church, the movements of heresy within her bosom are held in most
salutary check; and her condition is incomparably more favorable than it could
have been, had her public standards been long ago abolished.
Nor have the creeds of those national churches of Great Britain yet
accomplished all the benefits to the cause of truth and righteousness which
they are destined to confer. Though their genuine spirit has been long since
forgotten by many, this is by no means the case with all. There has constantly
been, in both those churches, a body of faithful witnesses to the truth. This
body, thanks to the Almighty and all-gracious King of Zion! is increasing.
Their "good confessions" (cf. 1 Tim. 6:13) form a rallying point,
around which numbers are now gathering; and those far-famed formularies, the
favorable influence of which has been supposed by many to be long since
exhausted, and more than exhausted, will again become, there is every reason to
believe, an "ensign to the people" (cf. Isa. 11:10), to which there
shall be a flocking of those who love the "simplicity that is in
Christ" (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3), more extensive and more glorious than ever
before.
Nor are we without significant attestations to the efficacy of creeds, and
to the mischief of being without them, in our own country. Of the former, the
Presbyterian Church in the United States, is one of the most signal examples.
Conflicts she has, indeed, had; but they have been such as were incident to
every community, ecclesiastical or civil, administered by the counsels of
imperfect men. Amidst them all, she has, by the favor of her Divine Head, held
on her way, substantially true to her system of doctrine and order; and though
constituted, originally, by members from different countries, and of different
habits, she has remained united to a degree, considering all things, truly
wonderful. Of the latter, the Congregational churches of Massachusetts, furnish
a melancholy memorial. Though originally formed by a people far more
homogeneous in their character and habits, and far more united in their
opinions; yet, being destitute of any efficient bond of union, and equally
destitute of the means of maintaining it, if it had been possessed, they have
fallen a prey to dissension and error, to a degree equally instructive and
mournful.
5. The last objection which I shall consider is that subscription to creeds
has not only failed entirely of producing the benefits contemplated by their
friends, but has rather been found to produce the opposite evils, to generate
discord and strife. "Creeds," say some, "instead of tending to
compose differences, and to bind the members of churches more closely together,
have rather proved a bone of contention, and a means of exciting mutual charges
of heresy, and a thousand ill feelings, among those who might have been
otherwise perfectly harmonious."
In reply to this objection, my first remark is that the alleged fact, which
it takes for granted, is utterly denied. It is not true that creeds have
generated contention and strife in the bosom of those churches which have
adopted them. On the contrary, it would be easy to show, by an extended
induction of facts, that in those churches in which creeds and confessions have
been most esteemed and most regarded, there union and peace have most
remarkably reigned. In truth, it has ever been the want of faithful regard to
such formularies that has led to division and strife in the church of Christ. I
doubt whether any denomination of Christians ever existed, for half a century
together, destitute of a public creed, however united and harmonious it might
have been, at the commencement of this period, without exhibiting, before the
end of it, either that stillness of death, which is the result of cold
indifference to the truth, or that miserable scene of discord, in which
"parting asunder" (cf. Acts 15:39) was the only means of escaping
from open violence.
My next remark is that, even if it were shown that orthodox public creeds
are often indirectly connected with conflict and contention in the church, it
would form no solid argument against them. Ardent attachment to what they
deemed truth is the principle, in all ages, which has led Christian communities
to adopt creeds and confessions of faith. The same attachment to truth will
naturally lead them to watch with care against everything that is hostile to
it; and to "contend earnestly" (cf. Jude 3) in its defense, when it
is attacked. In this case, a creed, supposing it to be a sound and scriptural
one, is no more the cause of conflict and division, than a wholesome medicine
is the cause of that disease which it is intended to cure. The word of God
commands us to "contend," and to "contend earnestly, for the
faith once delivered to the saints," and to hold him "accursed"
who preaches "another gospel" than that which the scriptures reveal
(Gal. 1:6-9). But when such "contention" becomes necessary, who is to
blame for it? Surely not truth, or its advocates, but those who patronize
error, and thus endeavor to corrupt the body of Christ and, of course, render
contention for the truth a duty. It is
granted, indeed, that, in this conflict, much unhallowed temper may be
manifested: not only on the part of the advocates of error, but also, in some
degree, on the part of the friends of truth. They may contend, even for the
truth, with bigotry and bitterness. Still, this does not render the truth
itself less precious; or the duty of contending for it less imperative; or
those summaries of it which Christians have been led to form less valuable, as
testimonies for God.
Before Christianity was preached in the Roman empire, the different classes
of Pagans lived together in peace. The foundation of this peace was the opinion
that error was innocent; and that all classes of religionists were equally
safe. But when the religion of Jesus Christ was preached; when his ministers
proclaimed that there was no other system either true or safe; that there was
no other foundation of hope; that all false religions were not only highly
criminal, but also eternally destructive; and that the followers of Christ
could not possibly countenance any of them; then a scene of the most shocking
persecution and violence, on the part of the Pagans, commenced. But on what, or
on whom, are we to throw the blame for these scenes of violence? No one,
surely, will say, on Christianity. We are rather to impute it to the corruption
of human nature, and to the blindness and violence of Pagan malice. If the
primitive Christians had been willing to give up the precious truth committed
to them, and to act upon the principle that all modes of faith were equally
safe they might have escaped much, if not the whole of the dreadful persecution
which they were called to endure.
The only additional remark, therefore, which I have to make, on the
objection before us, is that it can have no force, excepting upon the principle
that error ought to be left unassailed, and that contention for the truth is
not a duty; for all defense of the truth, against its active opposers all
"contending for the truth" (cf. Jude3) must, of course, disturb
that cold and death-like tranquility which indifference to the purity of faith
tends to introduce. We are commanded, "if it be possible, as much as lies
in us, to live peaceably with all men" (cf. Rom. 12:18). But it is not
"possible" to be at peace with some men. We must not be at peace with
error or wickedness. The Divine authority makes it our duty to oppose them to
the utmost at our peril. And if, in the discharge of this duty, the peace of
the church is, for a time, disturbed, the sin lies at the door of those who
rendered the conflict necessary. Those summaries of truth, which particular
occasions make it important to embody and to publish, are no more to blame for
the struggle, than the wise and wholesome law of the land is to blame for that
agitation which necessarily attends the seizure, the trial, and the execution
of a malefactor.
But admitting creeds to be lawful and necessary, it has often been asked by
some who profess to be their friends, whether they ought ever to contain any
other articles than those few which are
strictly fundamental: in other words, whether we ought ever to insert among the
members of a creed, intended to be subscribed by all candidates for office in a
church, any more than some half a dozen articles, the reception of which is generally
considered as absolutely essential to Christian character? This is a question
of real importance, which certainly deserves grave consideration, and a candid
answer. And for one, I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion,church
creeds not only lawfully may, but always ought, to contain a number of articles besides those which
are fundamental. And to establish this, as it appears to me, no other proof is
necessary than simply to remark that there are many points confessedly not
fundamental, concerning which, nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance to
Christian peace and edification that the members, and especially the ministers,
of every church should be harmonious in their views and practice. As long as
the visible church of Christ continues to be divided into different sections or
denominations, the several creeds which they employ, if they are to answer any
effectual purpose at all, must be so constructed as to exclude from each those
teachers whom it conscientiously believes to be unscriptural and corrupt; and
whom, as long as it retains this belief, it ought to exclude.
To exemplify my meaning: the Presbyterian Church, and most other
denominations who have a regular system of government, believe that the
Christian ministry is a divine ordinance, and that none but those who have been
regularly authorized to discharge its functions ought, by any means, to attempt
to preach the gospel, or administer the sacraments of the church. Yet there are
very pious, excellent men who have adopted the sentiments of some high-toned
Independents, who verily think that every "gifted brother," whether
ordained or not, has as good a right to preach as any man; and, if invited by
the church to do it, to administer the sacraments. Now, no sober-minded Presbyterian
will consider this as a fundamental question. Fundamental, indeed, it is, to
ecclesiastical order; but to the existence of Christian character, it is not.
Men may differ entirely on this point, and yet be equally united to Christ by
faith, and, of course, equally safe as to their eternal prospects. But would
any real, consistent Presbyterian be willing to connect himself with a church,
calling itself by that name, in which, while one portion considered none but a
regular minister as competent to the discharge of the functions alluded to, as
many of the other portion as chose claimed and actually exercised the right to
rise in the congregation, and preach, baptize, and dispense the Lord's Supper,
when and how each might think proper; and not only so, but when the ordained
ministers occupying the pulpit, in succession, differed no less entirely among
themselves in reference to the disputed question; some encouraging, and others
repressing, the efforts of these "gifted brethren?" I do not ask whether
such a church could be tranquil or comfortable, but whether it could possibly
exist in a state of coherence for twelve months together?
Take another example. No man in his senses will consider the question which
divides the Paedobaptists and the Antipaedobaptists as a fundamental one.
Though I have no doubt that infant baptism is a doctrine of the Bible, and an
exceedingly important doctrine; and that the rejection of it is a mischievous
error; yet I have quite as little doubt that some eminently pious men have been
of a different opinion. But what would be the situation of a church equally
divided, or nearly so, on this point; ministers, as well as private members,
constantly differing among themselves; members of each party conscientiously
persuaded that the others were wrong; each laying great stress on the point of
difference, as one concerning which there could be no compromise, or
accommodation; all claiming and endeavoring to exercise the right not only to
reason, but to act, according to their respective convictions; and every one
zealously? Is endeavoring to make proselytes to his own principles and
practice? Which would such a church most resemble: the builders of Babel, when
their speech was confounded; or a holy and united family, "walking together
in the fear of the Lord, and in the consolations of the Holy Ghost, and
edifying one another in love?" (cf. Acts 9:31; Eph. 4:16).
Let me offer one illustration more. The question between Presbyterians and
Prelatists is generally acknowledged not to be fundamental. I do not mean that
this is acknowledged by such of our Episcopal brethren as coolly consign to
what they are pleased to call the "uncovenanted mercy of God" all
those denominations who have not a ministry episcopally ordained; and who, on
account of this exclusive sentiment, are styled by Bishop Andrews, "iron
hearted," and by Archbishop Wake, "madmen." But my meaning is
that all Presbyterians, without exception, a great majority of the best
Prelatists themselves, and all moderate, sober-minded Protestants, of every
country, acknowledge that this point of controversy is one which does by no
means affect Christian character or hope. Still is it not plain, that a body of
ministers entirely differing among themselves as to this point though they
might love, and commune with, each other, as Christians could not possibly
act harmoniously together in the important rite of ordination, whatever they
might do in other religious concerns?
In all these cases, it is evident there is nothing fundamental to the
existence of vital piety. Yet it is equally evident that those who differ
entirely and zealously concerning the points supposed cannot be comfortable in
the same ecclesiastical communion. But how is their coming together, and the
consequent discord and strife which would be inevitable, to be prevented? I
know of no method but so constructing their confessions of faith as to form
different families or denominations, and to shut out from each those who are
hostile to its distinguishing principles of order.
It is plain, then, that unless confessions of faith contain articles not,
strictly speaking, fundamental, they cannot possibly answer one principal
purpose for which they are formed, viz. guarding churches which receive the
pure order and discipline, as well as truth, of scripture, from the intrusion
of teachers who, though they may be pious, yet could not fail to disturb the
peace and mar the edification of the more correct and sound part of the body.
But for further details on this subject, both for and against the doctrine
which I maintain, I must refer you to those works which have been devoted to
its more extended discussion; more particularly to what if said by the
judicious and excellent Mr. Dunlop, in the able "Preface" to his Collection
of Confessions; to The
Confessional, by Mr. Blackburne, one of the
most zealous and formidable opposers of creeds (which will prepare you for
perusing some of the best of the many valuable answers to that far-famed work);
to Walker's Vindication of the Church of Scotland, etc.; and, finally, to Mr. Dyer's Inquiry into
the Nature of Subscription to Articles of Religion.
The subject, beloved pupils, on which I have been addressing you, is
eminently a practical one. It enters deeply into many questions of personal and
official duty I shall, therefore, detain you a few moments longer, by calling
your attention to some of those practical inferences from the foregoing
principles and reasonings, which appear to me to deserve your serious
regardand,
1. From the representation which has been given, we may see how little
reason any have to be afraid of creeds as instruments of oppression.
There is something so perfectly visionary and unreasonable in the very
thought of "tyranny," or "oppression," as connected with
subscription to creeds in this country, that the only wonder is how it can be
admitted, for a moment, into any sober mind. Who does or can impose a creed
upon any one, or ever attempt to do it? Is any man in the United States obliged
to profess any belief, to subscribe any creed, or to join any church whatever?
Every man, indeed, is bound by the law of God to believe correctly, and to
connect himself with a pure church. He is not and cannot be at liberty, in the
sight of Jehovah, to neglect either. But is any man bound by human law,
ecclesiastical or civil, to do any of these things? Is any man in the United
States, after he has subscribed a creed, and
joined a church, obliged, by any human authority, to adhere to either a single
day longer than he pleases? Is he not at perfect liberty to withdraw, at any
moment, and that with or without giving a reason for his conduct, as he thinks
proper? Everlasting thanks to him who gives us this freedom! May it be
perpetual and universal! Now, one would think this is liberty enough to satisfy
any reasonable man.
But it seems there are really those who wish for more. They demand, in
effect, that the church should be willing to take all manner of heresy, as well
as orthodoxy, to her bosom, and to act as if she regarded both with an equal
eye. Nay, they ask that heretics be freely allowed to impose themselves upon
her, whether she be willing or not not to unite and edify her members, but to
divide and distract them; that they be at liberty to come into the Redeemer's
family, and there, without any regard to its scriptural rules, or its happy
harmony, to propagate such discordant sentiments, and to establish such new
principles of order (or disorder) as the intruders may choose to adopt. But is
this Christian liberty? Is this a kind of liberty which any benevolent, or even
honest man would wish to possess? It is liberty, truly, of the most
extraordinary kind, to the individual who intrudes; but what becomes of the
liberty of the ecclesiastical body which he thus enters, contrary to its wishes
and comfort, and to its real injury? It is, evidently, the same sort of
privilege in the church, as the privilege of invading the retreat of private
families, or disturbing the peace of civil society, at pleasure, and with impunity,
would be regarded by the inhabitants of any free country.
2. We may see, from what has been said, that subscribing a church creed is
not a mere formality, but a very solemn transaction, which means much, and
infers the most serious obligations. It is certainly a transaction which ought
to be entered upon with much deep deliberation and humble prayer; and in which,
if a man be bound to be sincere in anything, he is bound to be honest to his
God, honest to himself, and honest to the church which he joins. For myself, I
know of no transaction in which insincerity is more justly chargeable with the
dreadful sin of "lying to the Holy Ghost" (cf. Acts 5:3) than in
this. It is truly humiliating and distressing to know that in some churches it
has gradually become customary to consider articles of faith as merely articles
of peace: in other words, as articles which he who subscribes is not considered
as professing to believe, but as merely engaging not to oppose at least in
any public or offensive manner. Whether we bring this principle to the test of
reason, of scripture, of the original design of creeds, or of the ordinary
import of language among honorable men, it seems equally liable to the severest
reprobation, as disreputable and criminal in a very high degree. Nor does it
appear to me to be any alleviation, either of the disgrace or the sin, that
many of the governors of the churches referred to, as well as of those who
subscribe, publicly avow their adoption of this principle; admit the
correctness of it; keep each other in countenance; and thus escape, as they
imagine, the charge of hypocrisy. What would be thought of a similar principle,
if generally adopted and avowed, with respect to the administration of oaths in
civil courts? Suppose both jurors and witnesses, feeling it a grievance to be
bound by their oaths to speak the truth, were to agree among themselves, and
openly to give out, that they did not mean, when they swore, to take on
themselves any such obligation; that they did not so understand the import of
their oaths, and did not intend to recognize any such meaning? And suppose the
judges were freely to admit them to their oaths with a similar understanding?
Would a witness or a juror, in such a case, be exempt from the charge of
perjury, or the judge from the guilt of subornation of perjury? I presume not,
in the estimation of any sober-minded man. If it were otherwise, then bad men,
who form a majority of every community, might, by combining, violate all the
principles of virtue and order, not only with impunity, but also without sin.
Set it down, then, as a first principle of common honesty, as well as of
Christian truth, that subscription to articles of faith, is a weighty
transaction which really means what it professes to mean; that no man is ever
at liberty to subscribe articles which he does not truly and fully believe; and
that, in subscribing, he brings himself under a solemn, covenant engagement to
the church which he enters, to walk with it "in the unity of faith,"
and "in the bond of peace and love" (Eph. 4:13; cf. Eph. 4:2-3). If
he cannot do this honestly, let him not profess to do it at all. I see not but
that here, insincerity, concealment, double dealing, and mental reservations,
are, to say the least, quite as mean and base as they can be in the
transactions of social and civil life.
You will, perhaps, ask me, what shall be done by a man who loves the
Presbyterian Church; who considers it as approaching nearer to the scriptural
model than any other with which he is acquainted; who regards its Confession of
Faith as by far the best, in its great outlines, and in all its fundamental
articles, that he knows; and who yet, in some of its minor details, cannot
entirely concur? Can such a one honestly subscribe, without any previous
explanation of his views? I answer, "by no means." Ought he, then,
you will ask, to abandon all thoughts of uniting himself with our church, when
he is in cordial harmony with it in all fundamental principles, and nearer to
it, in all respects, than to any other church on earth? I again answer,
"by no means." I know of no other mode of proceeding in such a case
as this which Christian candor, and a pure conscience will justify than the
following: Let the candidate for admission unfold, to the Presbytery before
which he presents himself, all his doubts and scruples, with perfect frankness;
opening his whole heart, as if on oath; and neither softening nor concealing
anything. Let him cause them distinctly to understand, that if he subscribe the
Confession of Faith, he must be understood to do it in consistency with the
exceptions and explanations which he specifies. If the Presbytery, after this
fair understanding, should be of the opinion that the excepted points were of
little or no importance, and interfered with no article of faith, and should be
willing to receive his subscription in the usual way, he may proceed. Such a
method of proceeding will best accord with every principle of truth and honor; and will remove all ground of
either self-reproach, or of reproach on the part of others, afterwards.
3. From the view which has been presented of this subject, we may decide how
an honest man ought to act, after subscribing to a public creed. He will feel
it to be his duty to adhere sincerely and faithfully to that creed, in public
and in private; and to make it his study to promote, by all means in his power,
the peace and purity of the body with which he has connected himself. And if he
should, at any time, alter his views concerning any part of the creed or order
of the church in question, it will be incumbent on him to inquire whether the
points, concerning which he has altered his mind, are of such a nature as that
he can conscientiously be silent concerning them, and "give no offense"
to the body to which he belongs (cf. 1 Cor. 10:32; 2 Cor. 6:3). If he can
reconcile this with an enlightened sense of duty, he may remain in peace. But
if the points, concerning which his views have undergone a change, are of so
much importance in his estimation, as that he cannot be silent, but must feel
himself bound to publish, and endeavor to propagate them; then let him
peaceably withdraw, and join some other branch of the visible church, with
which he can walk harmoniously. Such he may find almost everywhere, unless his
views be singularly eccentric. But, at any rate, he has no more right to insist
on remaining and being permitted publicly to oppose what he has solemnly
vowed to receive and support than a member of any voluntary association,
which he entered under certain engagements, but with which he no longer agrees,
has a right obstinately to retain his connection with it, and to avail himself
of the influence which his connection gives him, to endeavor to tear it in
pieces.
It is no solid objection, to this view of the subject, to allege that every
man is under obligations to obey the great Head of the church, altogether
paramount to those which bind him, in virtue of any ecclesiastical engagements,
to obey the church herself. This is most readily granted. No man can lawfully
bind himself to disobey Christ, in any case whatever. But this principle, it is
conceived, has nothing to do with the point under consideration. Though a man
cannot properly bind himself always to believe as he now believes; nor always
to remain in connection with the ecclesiastical body which he now joins; yet he
may safely promise that he will be a regular and orderly member of the body, as
long as he does remain in connection with it. When he ceases to be able to do
this, without sinning against God, he will, if he is an honest man, immediately
withdraw. If he remains, and suffers himself habitually to violate his
engagement, under the pretence of benefitting the body to which he has vowed
allegiance, he will be chargeable with the sin of treacherously and basely
"doing evil that good may come" (cf. Rom. 3:8).
To illustrate my meaning by a familiar example: Every student of this
seminary has, at his entrance, made a solemn promise, that "as long as he
shall continue a member of it, he will conscientiously and vigilantly observe
all the rules and regulations specified in the plan for its instruction and
government, so far as the same relate to the students; and further, that he
will obey all the lawful requisitions of the Professors and Directors,"
etc. As this engagement was voluntarily made, no honest man will doubt that you
are all bound to act in conformity with it, to the utmost tittle, as far as you
have ability. Suppose, however, that one of your number should become persuaded
that some of the "regulations specified in the plan" of the seminary
are not only unwise, and inconvenient, but also immoral; what ought he to do?
Ought he to remain in the institution, and habitually violate the regulations
to which he excepted, pleading that he could not conscientiously obey them,
because, though he had solemnly engaged to do so, he felt himself under a prior
and paramount obligation to "obey God rather than man?" (cf. Acts
5:29). This, surely, no Christian would approve, nor any faithful government
tolerate.
No; every principle of honor and integrity would dictate that he should
immediately withdraw from the seminary; and if, after withdrawing, he should be
able to convince the General Assembly of our church that his exceptions were
just, and should prevail with that body to alter the offensive rules; then, and
not till then, he might with a good conscience resume his place in the
institution.
4. We are led to reflect, from the representation which has been given, how
easy it is for a single imprudent or unsound minister to do extensive and
irreparable mischief in the church. Such a one, especially if he be a man of
talents and influence, by setting himself, either openly or covertly, against
the public standards of his church; by addressing popular feeling, and availing
himself of popular prejudice; may do more, in a short time, to prepare the way
for fatal error, than all his usefulness, though multiplied a hundred fold,
would be able to countervail. Ministers, my young friends, may be said to hold
in their hands the interests of the church, to a degree which no other class of
men do; and which ought to make them tremble under a sense of their
responsibility! Such as is the character of the ministry of any particular
church, will be, generally speaking, the character of the church itself.
On the one hand, if the ministers of religion be generally enlightened,
orthodox, holy, diligent, and faithful men, the church to which they belong
will never fail to display the influence of this character in happy results. On
the other hand, never was the church, in any country or age, corrupted,
divided, and ruined, but the mischief was done by its ministers. However
humiliating or painful this assertion may be, it is undoubtedly confirmed by all
scripture, and all experience. And as the general influence of the clerical
character is so vital, so it is not easy to measure the mischief that may be
done by one unsound, graceless, imprudent, turbulent minister. If, in every
walk of society, "one sinner destroyeth much good" (Eccles. 9:18),
how much more wide-spread, deplorable, and fatal is the mischief, when the
criminal individual is a minister! By erroneous opinions; by corrupt habits; by
a love of innovation; by embracing himself, and extensively imparting to
others, pernicious delusions; he may do more in five or ten years, to agitate,
divide, corrupt, and weaken the church, than, perhaps, a score of the most
faithful ministers in the land can do, humanly speaking, for promoting its
purity and peace in half a century. The influence of two or three individuals,
of popular talents, in Massachusetts, more than fifty years ago, in gradually
undermining orthodoxy, and in reconciling the public mind to heretical opinions
is as well known, as it is deeply deplored, by many who are acquainted with the
ecclesiastical history of New England. The authors of this mischief have long
since gone to their account; but their works have survived them; and of their
awful ravages, no one can estimate the extent, or see the end.
Beloved pupils! be it your study, at all times, to cherish a deep sense of
your solemn responsibility to God and his church. In a little while, you will
be among those to whom the most weighty interests that can be committed to man,
will be entrusted. Be faithful to your high trust. Guard, with the utmost
vigilance, the church's orthodoxy. Nothing can be truly right, where her
doctrinal principles are essentially wrong. But, O, think not that mere frigid
orthodoxy, however perfect, is all that is needed. Labor to diffuse, in every
direction, the holy and benign influence of truth. If "the household of
faith" (Gal. 6:10) is corrupted by heresy, or torn by schism, or agitated
by unhallowed innovation, or becomes cold through want of ministerial faithfulness,
see to it that none of you be found among the workers of the mischief. See to
it that you seek unceasingly not "your own things" (cf. Phil. 2:21),
your own aggrandizement, your own honor, your own fancies, or your own
speculations, but "the things which are Jesus Christ's." If you
cannot benefit the church (and no man has a right to say that he cannot, if he
has a heart for the purpose), at least do not lend your influence to the
unhallowed work of corrupting and dividing it. And if you should ever be
brought into circumstances in which you can do nothing else, see that you be
found, like the "ministers of the Lord" of old, "weeping between
the porch and the altar, and saying, 'Spare thy people, O, Lord, and give not
thine heritage to reproach; save them, and lift them up forever!' " (cf.
Joel 2:17).
5. We may infer, from what has been said, the duty and importance of all the
members, and especially the ministers, of the Presbyterian Church, exerting
themselves to spread a knowledge of her public standards. I say, her
"public standards," notwithstanding
all the sneer and censure which have been cast on this language. For every
intelligent and candid man in the community knows that we employ it to
designate not formularies which we place above the Bible, but simply those
which ascertain and set forth how we interpret the Bible. These formularies
if they are really an epitome of the word of God, and surely we think them so
every minister is bound to circulate, with unwearied assiduity, among the people
of his charge. This is so far, in general, from being faithfully done, that I
seriously doubt whether there is a Protestant church in Christendom in which
there is so striking a defect as to the discharge of this duty, especially in
some parts of the country, as in the Presbyterian Church. Our Episcopal
brethren exercise a most laudable diligence in placing the volume which
contains their articles, forms, and offices, in every family within their reach
which belongs to their communion, or can be considered as tending towards it.
Our Methodist and Baptist brethren, with no less diligence, do the same, with
respect to those books which exhibit the doctrines and order of their
respective denominations. All this is as it should be. It bespeaks men sincere
in their belief, and earnest in the dissemination of what they deem correct
principles.
Why is it that so many ministers of the Presbyterian Church, with a
Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, which, I verily believe, and which the
most of them readily acknowledge, are by far the best that were ever framed by
uninspired wisdom and with a Form of Government and Discipline more
consentaneous with apostolical practice than that of any other church on earth
are yet so negligent, not to say so indifferent, as to the circulation of these
formularies? They, perhaps, do not take the trouble even to inquire whether
there is a copy of the volume which contains them in every family, or even in
every neighborhood, of their respective charges. How are we to account for the
peculiar frequency of this negligence in the ministry of our church? It would
be far from being true, I trust, to say, that our clergy are more unfaithful in
the general discharge of their duties, than those of any other communion. May
we not rather ascribe the fact in question to another fact, from which it might
be expected naturally to arise?
The fact to which I allude is that, in the Presbyterian Church, at the
present day, and in this country whatever may have been the case in former
times there is less of sectarian feeling; less of what is called, the esprit
du corps, than in any other ecclesiastical
body among us. We are in truth, if I do not mistake, so excessively free from
it, as to be hardly ready to defend ourselves when attacked. We are so ready to
fraternize with all evangelical denominations, that we almost forget that we
have a denomination of our own, to which we are peculiarly attached. Now, this
general spirit is undoubtedly excellent, worthy of constant culture, and the
highest praise. But may it not be carried to an extreme? Universal, active
benevolence is a Christian duty; but when the head of a family, in the ardor of
its exercise, feels no more concern or responsibility respecting his own
household, than he does about the households of others, he acts an unreasonable
part, and, what is worse, disobeys the command of God. Something analogous to
this, I apprehend, is the mistake of that
Christian, or that minister, who in the fervor of his catholicism, loses
sight of the fact that God, in his providence, has connected him with a
particular branch of the visible church, the welfare and edification of which
he is peculiarly bound to seek. If his own branch of the church has anything of
peculiar excellence in his estimation, on account of which he prefers it
which is always to be supposed can it be wrong for him to desire that others
should view it in the same light? And if he be justifiable in recommending
these peculiarities from the pulpit (as all allow), is he not equally justifiable
in recommending them from the press, especially by means of accredited
publications?
Happy will it be for our church, then, if her future ministry shall be more
attentive to the duty in question, than many of those who have gone before
them. To you, beloved candidates for the sacred office, let me recommend a
sacred regard to this duty. Resist, always, to the utmost of your power, the
littleness of sectarian bigotry, and strive to banish it from the church. But,
at the same time, cherish among her members an enlightened attachment to that
particular branch of the family of Christ in which their lot is cast. For this
purpose, strive to promote among them a general and intimate acquaintance with
our Confession of Faith, and Form of Government and Discipline, as well as our
Catechisms, which latter, I fain would hope, are not entirely neglected in any
part of the church. Never advise the people to take the contents of these
public formularies on trust; but diligently to compare every part of them with
scripture, and see how far they agree with the unerring standard. Thus will you
be likely to become instrumental in forming solid, intelligent Christians. Thus
may you hope to become the spiritual fathers of multitudes, "whose faith
shall stand, not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (cf. 1
Cor. 2:5).
6. Once more; if the foregoing principles be just, then how unhappy is the
mistake of those who imagine that, by abandoning all creeds and confessions,
they are about to render the church an essential service; to build her up more
extensively and gloriously than ever! There are those who imagine that a new
order of things is about to open on the church, amounting to as great a change
of dispensation as ever marked the progress of the Redeemer's kingdom in any
preceding age. In this new and undefined prospect, they seem to themselves to
see the approaching prostration of most of those fences, and the dissolution of
most of those ties, which have heretofore been regarded as indispensable to the
maintenance of unity and harmony in the family of Christ. I shall only say,
that it will be time enough to provide for this new order of things when it
shall arrive; and that, in the mean while, in the present state of the world, I
should as soon think of extending and edifying the church by laying aside all
the means of grace, as of promoting its purity and peace by abandoning those
methods of binding its members together which have been found necessary ever
since the days of the apostles.
The apostle Peter thus exhorted the Christians in his day: "Be sober,
be vigilant; because your adversary the Devil, as a roaring lion, goes about,
seeking whom he may devour" (cf. 1 Pet. 5:8). And another apostle reminded
those to whom he wrote, that this adversary oftentimes "transformed
himself into an angel of light" (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14). So it was eighteen
centuries ago; and so it is at this hour. The very blessings of the church, as
they have been in all ages, so they are now, converted into means of deception.
The progressive harmony of the different evangelical denominations; their
increasing zeal for the spread of the gospel; their growing disposition to
sacrifice many smaller differences on the altar of our common Christianity;
have so fired the imaginations of some ardent, sanguine spirits, that they have
allowed themselves to be hurried on to the unwarranted conclusion that all
former rules were about to be laid aside, and all former barriers to be broken
down. But remember, my young friends, that a similar notion has been
entertained, and afterwards abandoned, in almost every century since the
incarnation of Christ. Remember, too, that even when the Millennium shall
arrive, human nature will still be depraved, and will still stand in need of
law and regulation, not, perhaps, as much, but as really as now. And, finally,
remember that before that blessed day shall actually dawn upon our world, we
shall probably have many a sore conflict with the enemies of truth, and stand
in need of all those methods of distinguishing and binding together its
friends, to which the word of God, and uniform experience have so long given
their sanction.
While I exhort you, then, to hail with delight the spirit of harmony, of
union, and of active cooperation, which is among the most precious and
animating "signs of the times" in which we live; and while I
earnestly hope that no student of this seminary will ever stand a far off, or
turn away with an evil eye, when the true standard of Christ is raised by any
denomination; let me, at the same time, entreat you always to temper your zeal
with soberness. I say soberness; for this is a quality not always found
associated even with great vigor of talent, and great warmth of piety. Many a
man of admirable endowments in other respects endowments which qualified him,
if they had been happily directed, to adorn and bless the church has been
either so transported by the visions of a heated fancy; or so deceived by
keeping his eye fixed on a single point only of the vast scene before him; or
so impelled by the approaches of others, as anomalous as himself; that, like
the comet of the infidel philosopher, he has only been able to strike off a few
wandering stars from the parent luminary, while he himself, given up to an
orbit more and more eccentric, never returned, either to regularity or
usefulness.
The church is still "in the wilderness" (cf. Acts 7:38; 1 Cor.
10:1-11); and every age has its appropriate trials. Among those of the present
day is a spirit of restless innovation, a disposition to consider everything
that is new as of course an improvement. Happy are they who, taking the word of
God for their guide, and walking in "the footsteps of the flock"
(Song 1:8), continually seek the purity, the peace, and the edification of the
Master's family; who, listening with more respect to the unerring Oracle, and
to the sober lessons of Christian experience, than to the delusions of
fashionable error, hold on their way, "turning neither to the right hand
nor the left" (cf. Prov. 4:27; Deut. 28:14), and considering it as their
highest honor and happiness to be employed as humble, peaceful instruments in
building up that "kingdom which is not meat and drink, but righteousness,
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost!" (cf. Rom. 14:17). May God grant to
each of us this best of all honors! And to his name be the praise, forever!
Amen!
Go to Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards.