Remarks on the rise, use and unlawfulness of creeds and confessions of faith in the church of God

Front matter

Division...

Section... Ses No, =]

eG

Introduction

‘Tus public have already been informed, that during the last year I was called upon to deliver a Discourse before the Directors and Students of the Theological Seminary, at Princeton. It was necessary that the discourse should be appropriate to the occasion; and, as it is believed, addressed particularly to the Students. Such an occasion is always a solemn one, and its exercises may be followed by the most interesting and important consequences. Paul never spake in more awful tones than in the last charge which he delivered to the Elders of Ephesus; “Take heed, therefore,” said he, “unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Nor does he ever appear more deeply affected, than when he forewarns those very Elders of the un- ‘happy occurrences which would shortly take place among themselves. “For I know this,” he adds, “that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock; also of your own selves shall men arise, speak-

V1 ing perverse things, to draw away disciples after them: Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn — every one of you, night and day, with tears.” That man is thrown into similar circumstances with this magnanimous Apostle, who is called to address the rising ministry of his own age, on the nature and importance of those relations which they sustain to the church of God. Such is the situation of every Director of the Seminary, who appears to deliver the semi annual sermon at Princeton. Of all audiences that can ever be summoned to listen to his imstructions, _ he has before him then, one of the most peculiar and interesting; and he should feel as though, for the time being, he was constituted their OvERsEER by the Holy Ghost. He who ean trifle with, or lightly esteem, such responsibilities, or who can bring in any unhallowed motive to preside over their discharge, had better take care how he consents to assume them. They are high, holy, and eventful.

I believe that I did,in some good measure, understand and feel both the value and the delicacy of the exercises which the appointment prescribed; and did honestly endeavour to fulfil the duty to the best of my ability, and to express a proper and tender concern for those young men, whom, for the first, and perhaps for the last, time, I was addressing in the name of our common Master, and on behalf of a redeemed church and a dying world. It appears, however, that the discourse then delivered, had some of-

Vil fensive peculiarities about it; peculiarities which have procured for it the censure of some aged ministers, who have risen in their might, and with very strong feeling, to counteract its baneful influence. And if heretical it was, they had done right to express their disapprobation of its anti-scriptural principles in a firm, decisive, and dignified manner; but if its doctrines were all true, consistent with the word of God, and. appropriate to the circumstances under which it was delivered, it becomes them to have a very good reason to render, for attempting to wound the feelings of an unoffending brother, who had courage enough conscientiously to do, what he thought, his duty.

Perhaps it may be both necessary and proper

to explain the motives and views which animated the bosom of the Preacher; as men very often appear excessively fond of sifting each other’s motives, and unwilling to concede that there is any thing right, where it may be suspected that there is any thing wrong _If so, no disposition is cherished to withhold them from public inspection.. They were all carefully and conscientiously formed; and created deeper anxiety in no bosom than in that which produced, and is not now ashamed to avow, them. They are the following:

1. I believed what was said to be TRUTH; that every proposition advanced was abundantly visible in the passage of scripture which had been chosen; and that each particular illustration, under each particular proposition, was just, re-

Vill spectful, affectionate, and easily understood.— The contrary may have been insinuated; but it has not been proved.

2. I believed what was said to be truth appropriate to the occasion. ‘The circumstances of the ministerial office were, in a fair and honourable manner, disclosed to those who were very soon to be inducted into that office. Creeds and Confessions of Faith,even supposing them to be what they are so confidently represented to be, yet as they are now used, have a desolating effect upon a young mind, from which it:can be redeemed only by the simple study of the scriptures; and church courts, even admitting their divine warrant, yet by their abuse of power, are “bold and domineering enough to frighten and discourage any youthful spirit that seeks the spiritual weal of mankind. It was therefore thought proper to proclaim on this subject “a plea for ministerial liberty.” The ideas, which the Presbyterian Church now cherishes concerning the Westminster Confession of Faith, are very different from those which were admitted, when that book was composed, even by its authors; and an intention to resist the encroachments of human authority, constituting its own laws a test of ministerial character, rather than the word of God, is not disowned.

3. I thought that, holding the opinions on the present state of religious society which the discourse unfolds, an obligation was thereby created to declare them to those who were most deeply interested in them, that they might judge for

: 1X themselves; and that, instead of blindly pursuing a course which they had not deliberately investigated, they might carefully examine, and most profoundly feel, what was passing every day before their eyes. It was moreover supposed, _ that this declaration must be made on the very spot where I had been placed by the Providence of God, and in the midst of those who were Fa- _ thers and Brethren. Would not strangers have thought any interference with them, on similar _ principles, officious and imprudent; and very politely have bid me attend to the concerns of the religious family to which I belonged? The idea, that a man, who has something to tell, which he apprehends to be scriptural truth, and which he fears his associates do not like to hear, must cut himself loose from his social relations, belongs to the dark ages, when civil power reigned over the human conscience; or when an inquisitor’s sentence would quickly and effectually determine the fate of an independent ecclesiastic. Muinisters of the Gospel must not talk so in these days: ecclesiastical philology has been greatly changed; and we must now talk to one another like freemen of the Lord. ;

Such were the views sustained throughout the Discourse; and that without the smallest intention of hurting any man’s feelings, or challenging any other Director of the board, or any Professor of the institution, to controversy. Not one of the principles discussed has been denied, not even by those who felt themselves called upon to enter the lists with its author; but inx ferences of a most serious character have been drawn, which must be admitted, or the principles themselves must be controverted, or these good brethren have not reasoned fairly. ‘The deduction of the inferences is a work of their own; and under such auspices the following remarks are committed to the press; yet the public must not be surprised to find that those very inferences are conceded and justified. All this was fully apprehended. Religious prejudice. is no novelty in our world: and that it is both foreible and unfeeling, is a characteristic of its operations, which every man may learn from the tears and blood that have so freely flowed in ages past. All the excitement which has been produced, only proves the truth of what had been said concerning the sensitiveness of the religious mind, on the subject of Creeds and Confessions:—it is so excessive, that even the abuse of them must not be publicly condemned; nor the distinguishing principle of Protestantism, that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, be fairly argued out. It was well known that both ministers and their people are exceedingly tenacious of their own ecclesiastical forms; that in every age, since their introduction, their advocates have reasoned most zealously in their defence; and that even now, as well as then, a divine warrant, which, if it can be proved, closes the controversy at once and for ever, is pleaded im their favour. ‘These facts made it somewhat hazardous to deliver the discourse at all, but yet could not alter the nature of the solemn duty x1 which the occasion enjoined. My conscience would not accept them as an apology, and I could not decline obeying a call which was felt to be imperious. Yet, after all, the Discourse was framed in a manner so respectful to the feelings of those, who, it was supposed, were inimical to its views, that when it is subjected even to harsh and fiery criticism, its reviewers are obliged to retreat into intentions and designs, in order to find matter of censure. “No man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in. him.” |

Shortly after the Discourse was delivered, and at the opening of the subsequent session, Dr. Miller addressed an introductory lecture to the Students of the Theological Seminary, selecting for its subject, “The utility and importance of Creeds and Confessions.” He did not allude to the Discourse, with which the preceding session had been closed: But the connexion between the two productions has been perceived by every reader; and at the same time it has been explicitly declared by our common reviewer, who has passed on the Professor a very handsome compliment for not being transfixed by either horn of an “apparent dilemma,” and who confidently challengesan “attempt” to answer the lecture. Dr. Miller will not be surprised, nor offended therefore, if I consider Him as having thrown me on my own defence; and as having made it necessary for me again to appear before the public, to plead in favour of opinions, which the whole circumstances of the case have iden-

XIV foul. Be my opinions what they may, I had hoped that my integrity was not to be impeached. It is surprising that Dr. G. should have alluded to the subject at all; because he knows, that there are in his own: denomination, and in every other denomination; and that there are in the Board of Directors of the Seminary at Princeton, ministers and laymen, who espouse very different sentiments. In differmg from one another, do none of them differ from the Confession of Faith, which they have alike subseribed? If Dr. G. intended that these brethren should feel the pungency of his remark, he should have told all the truth, and let the whole Christian Church know how far subscription to Creeds and Confessions is desolating our moral feelings; that, if her sons have any magnanimity left, they might rise in their majesty, and put these polluting things out of God’s holy sanctuary.

He has thought proper to give the public the following information:—“Mr. D. did this too,” that is, violently impugn all Standards of Faith, “we. speak of what we witnessed—within four or five hours after he had himself, in the most solemn manner, subscribed a formula, by which he pledged himself faithfully to endeavour to carry into effect all the articles and provisions of the plan of that Seminary; one article of which declares, that the Institution is intended to sustain, in their integrity, the Standards of the Presbyterian Church.” And in a note, after copying out the formula, which the Directors

XV subscribe, he remarks,—“‘This was the formula which Mr. D. first read, deliberately and audibly, in the presence of the Board, and then sub- ~seribed his name to a copy of it, in a book kept for the purpose.” |

Now all this is, what some writers would call, a false fact: For this formula I had subscribed about twelve months before, instead of “four or five hours;” and that in the city of Philadelphia, and not at Princeton; and ona loose piece of ‘paper, and not “in a book kept for the purpose.” Dr. G. will certainly not tell the Presbyterian Church, that the Directors of the Theological Seminary are all sworn im every time they meet; nor can he justify himseif, considering the high — ground he has taken, in making the assertion he has, with such circumstantial phrase. The affair,as it occurred at Princeton, is as follows, The book was handed to me for my signature. I stated that I hada year before subscribed a formula, preparatory to occupying a seat at the board. To this it was replied, that my subscription had been given on a loose piece of paper, which might be lost; and that it was desirable to preserve the names of the Directors together. ‘With these explanations, I transcribed my name, never suspecting that I was involved in the repetition of an oath. Had such an idea been suggested, the loose paper must have served for my time of service. For I do think it to be adeep disgrace to the Church, that her ministers must be so continually harrassed with fests and _ ocths, as though they had forfeited every claim

XVl to the character of honest men; and could not be trusted in ecclesiastical matters, which are yet so deeply interesting to themsclves, without continually swearing to be faithful. Such views of the ministerial character, carried out into practice, will destroy all ministerial influence. A minister’s ordination to office, includes his oath, and the whole Church should be satisfied with it. ‘Their yea should be yea; and their nay should be nay.

But still, “four or five hours,” or twelve months, may not materially affect the morality of the transaction. A difference might indeed exist, if a man was ever permitted to alter his opinions, when he is convinced that they are wrong; and if twelve months would not be too _ short a period for such a change, which might probably take place even “within four or five hours.” This, however, is not consistent with the confessional system. According to its dictates, a man is not at liberty to throw his docirinal views into any new form: he must. preserve them inviolable until his latest hour, and then transmit them unimpaired to his children. Or, if he should be so eccentric as to acquire different ideas, as he advances in life, and extends his researches after truth, then he must leave the Church, which possesses every association of his youth, and whose interests have been entwined with every fibre of his heart.—Thus, the difficulty is only removed one step farther, and there it must be met in all its ugliness,

XV

What then must the Directors of this institution promise to do? Dr. G. it is presumed, has. placed their duties in the clearest light; for he has shown considerable anxiety to prove his charge, and to make it speak audibly. According to his quotations, their official aim must be— “To form men for the Gospel ministry, who shall truly believe and cordially love, and therefore — endeavour to propagate and defend, in its genuineness, and simplicity, and fulness, that system of religious belief and practice which is set forth im the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Plan of Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church; and thus to perpetuate and extend the influence of true evangelical piety and gospel order.” How far all this might be affected in a single discourse, it is not easy to see. ‘The decision of that question must depend upon the character of the discourse itself. In relation to that one which has fallen under bis censure, it is abundantly evident that the very front of its offending is, that it has honourably and honestly thaintained, that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, a proposition which the Confession of Faith has again and again asserted; and it therefore states an essential principle of that system of religious belief and practice, which the Directors are bound to preserve in its integrity. Does Dr. G. question this proposition? If he does, then let him disburthen himself of the charge he deals out to others. Does he not question it? Then why so severely condemn others?

XVill

Does the Confession contradict itself? Then abandon it; for if the Directors are sworn to reconcile contraries, the matter of their oath is unlawful, because it is impracticable. Most assuredly, if the Confession of Faith itself declares, that God is the only Lord of conscience, and the Bible the only rule of faith and practice, it occupies as high ground, as the Discourse which has provoked so much ire. ‘The truth is, the Confession of Faith never was intended to express what some of the brethren wish to make out; they have added something of their own to it in their rules of order, and the two things do not, and never will, harmonize; one or the other must be given up. For the advocates of Creeds and Confessions, after admitting that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, have the trouble of proving that there is another rule of faith and practice; and so little do they like the trouble, that they will. not express a proposition on the subject in plain language. Ii is true, they call ahuman Creed a lest of orthodoxy, without which no Church ever lived in peace for half a century: but is this test of orthodoxy a rule of faith and practice? They make a distinction also between an infallible, and a fallible rule; but who wants a fallible, when an infallible, rule is to be obtained? So that the whole of this argument has yet to be made plain: let the brethren make themselves clearly understood. | | ‘To sustain the charge of the Reviewer, perhaps some great and distinguishing doctrine of

XIX the gospel must have been denied in the discourse, Which has so much displeased him. Let him speak for himself: “We feel no reluctance,” he says, “but a real pleasure, in stating that, so far as we understand him, Mr. D. appears to hold fast the essential doctrines of the gospel. Of these doctrines, his subject did not lead him to treat directly; but, from what he says incidentally, we think we can gather, that he is not only entirely free from any leaning to the Socinian or Unitarian heresy,* but that he fully believes in the native depravity of man, the necessity of regeneration by the spirit of grace, justification solely by the righteousness of Christ, evangelical repentance for sin, the essential importance of obedience to all.the commands of God, the progressive sanctification of. believers, a judgment to come, and a future state of endless rewards and punishments. Nor only so, but he seems to be a warm advocate for great ministerial fidelity, simplicity, zeal, charity, holy and exemplary living, and an unreserved devotion to. the glory of God, and the winning of souls to Jesus Christ. Now thisis much as it should be.”” And what more does the good man require,

_ *What need is there for such a remark as this? It serves to reveal the character of the reports which had been in circulation, and to show how very sinfully Christian ministers can speak of one another, without ever inquiring into facts. Perhaps the Reviewer might have felt some misgiving on this subject. I have certainly to thank him for assuring the public that lam nota Socinian. The brethren had better omit associating the denial of Creeds and Confessions with this heresy; it is an unmanly attempt to throw public odium over upon those who do not deserve it, and can only demonstrate that they are in want of proof to substantiate their unbrotherly charges.

xX that he should insinuate a want of integrity, and charge me with unfaithful dealing with the plan of the Seminary? Did the Students hear any thing contrary to the “system of religious belief and practice,” which had been drawn out in the Confession of Faith, as explanatory of scriptural doctrines? And if not, was the sub- ‘scription invalidated?

But the Reviewer has declared explicitly the matter of offence. In continuance of what has been already quoted, he says; “It really looks as if Mr. D. had been intended for better things, than to be a panick-struck declaimer against all the formulas of faith in protestant Christendom, and a visionary expectant of the speedy oceurrence of such a new and improved state of the world, as to render all old things—not excepting Christianity itself, as it has hitherto existed— as much matters out of date, as the Jewish dispensation was, after the coming of Cbrist, and the preaching of his Apostles. Here is the rock, on which Mr. D. has unhappily run foul; and we heartily wish he may get off, without eventually making shipwreck of faith and a good conscience.”

So then it seems that a man may “hold fast the essential doctrines of the gospel;” but if he should venture to say any thing disrespectful of human Creeds, he is in danger of losing his soul for ever, and deserves the severest animadversions which an old minister of the gospel can write. It is too common an idea. There are many besides Dr. G. who cherish this idolatrous

XX]

~ reverence for “human inventions.”—The ques-: tion still is, has “the system of religious faith and practice, set forth in the Confession of Faith,” been invaded? The charge, be it remembered, is the violation of a particular oath. When the Assembly adopted their book of discipline, did they take such high ground as this? Hear what they say in their prefatory chapter:-—“They aré . unanimously of opinion, that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrine and commandments of men, which are. in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship: therefore, they con- - sider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unahenable.” And again they declare—“That all church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or, in the way of representation, by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative; that is to say, that the holy scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners; that no church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws, to bind the conscience, m virtue of their own authority, &c.’* Dr. G. and some others, who have been very liberal in their censure, must have forgotten what the system of religious belief and practice, proposed to the Directors of the Theological Seminary, really is. Apprehending, from the exquisite tenderness which is cherished for Creeds and Confessions, and which I have had abundant opportuxxil nity of knowing, that some such charge might be brought against me as a Director of the Seminary, I had consulted the Confession of Faith before the discourse was prepared; and had deliberately formed the opinion, that there was mothing in it which the Confession itself did not distinctly assert. Often, and very often, have “warm advocates of “our excellent standards” argued against propositions, which those very standards themselves most explicitly declare. And no wonder, for: many ardent friends of the Westminster Confession of Faith seldom or ever read it—But still farther. Suppose the whole doctrine of subscription to our own church Creed had been assaulted, would the system of belief and practice, therein contained, have been thereby invaded and set aside? ‘Then the Westminster Assembly itself, which made this book that Presbyterians so highly eulogise, must fall under the reviewer’s lash; for that Assembly did declare, that to require subscription simply to the answers to the questions in the shorter eatechism, was an UNWARRANTABLE IMPOSITION— as shall be shown in its proper place, in the course of the following remarks.

‘Once more: Dr. G. says, “Mr. D. is a visionary expectant of the speedy occurrence of such a new and improved state of the world, as:to ren-— der all old things as much matters out of date, as the Jewish dispensation was, &c.” ‘That a change, and a very great change too, is coming, Dr. G. himself believes; and so does every christian who has read his Bible. God forbid that

XXL we should be disappointed; for, really, ecclesiastical matters are, at present, most terribly distracted. As to the speedy occurrence of such a change, it happens that I believe directly the reverse of that which the Reviewer charges upon me as a serious crime; neither have J made any such visionary calculations, derived from a hasty glance at the vast scene, which a troubled worldy and a distracted church spread out to the view of every sanctified philanthrophist. But sappose this had been done. Have I thereby offended against my subscribed formula, as a Director of the Theological Seminary? That prescribes:no doctrinal decision on the question, whether. the Millennium shall burst forth within the next twenty. years, or shall be deferred for two centuries. And if, in relation to this subject, I have been unfortunate enough to say, that Sectarianism is now falling like the worn out economy of Moses, . is it not a fact? May not every man see it? Have not christian denominations felt it to their very centres? Does not Dr. G. himself exult in it, when he says, ‘“‘t.is pleasant to observe, that whatever sectarian feelings may exist at home, the missionaries, when they meet in heathen lands, lay them all aside; and live, and love, and co-operate as brethren? In this way, it may be the walls of division between christian sects will at last be so far prostrated, that while each may retain its peculiar forms and usages, all maa cherish.a spirit of christian feeling and fellowship.” Lagree with Dr. G. and have expressed similar ideas in my own language, which he has

XXIV thought proper to criticise with all the asperity he could employ. So then, at last, we are both heretics together.— What a strange creature is man! | |

Thope that T have fairly disabused myself of the unjust and cruel insimuation of a want of integrity, as to the matter of subscription. If @ has not been done to the satisfaction of the reader, I shall never return to it again, and shall hear of its renewal with composed silence. My feelings, on such a subject, are housed under the protection of a good conscience, and my heart is safe. Deeply regretting that any necessity existed to notice the review at all,and particularly that such a long explanation had become requisite, I now part from its author, hoping that it may be our happy lot to meet on that holy mount, where nothing shall hurt or destroy; in that home of the redeemed, where there is fulness of joy, and where there are pleasures forevermore. There the sectarian shall be found a spiritualised man; human inventions shall be forgotten, as the unsanctified elements of earthly strife; and God shall be ALL AND IN ALL.

The following remarks, on the Rise, Use and Unlawfulness of Creeds and Confessions of Faith are now given to the public, because it is conceived that the Lecture andthe Review have furnished a very unfair view of the utility and importance of these ecclesiastical rules;and because these two publications, as has already been stated, have, in the minds of their readers, identified the con-

XXV troversy on this subject with my. ministerial character. I do not deny the views which are ascribed to me: That is to say, I am an. undisguised advocate of the following truths —That God alone is Lord of conscience, and that his Bible is the only ruleof faith and practice: Or, if the reader pleases, that church courts and human Creeds or Confessions, are not entitled,

‘im any shape whatever, to control the human ‘conscience. If these things be true, and if contrary principles of ecclesiastical policy are in operation in the church, the subject is worth

-an elaborate discussion. ‘And. if my discourse has particularly associated me with that subject in the public mind, I dare not decline to state my reasons for the opmions which have been advanced. Yet most cheerfully would the important cause be yielded into other hands, if any other advocate, to whom the church might be’ more willing to listen, would take it up. Under these. feelings, and with these views, I write.

Though. the early ages of the Christian

Church are briefly reviewed in the first part of.

these remarks, and the testimony of such histo- Yians as were within my reach is freely quoted, yet Laitach very little importance to any argu ment that may be derived from that source-.— _ For, admitting that human Creeds were then in favour and fashion, the fact would only prove these imstruments of human authority to be.

lawful, by human auihority.. And can any given

: number of human witnesses, however learned

XXXVI and holy they may be, and however frequently and unanimously they may declare their testimony, prove that one human being has a _ right to control the conscience of another human being? If our political ideas and institutions were subjected to such a process of reasoning, it would certainly follow that we have no right to be an miependent nation; and that these United States were traitorous indeed, when they refused to live any longer in colonial servitude; for political despotism and hereditary rulers have long enslaved the human mind. We Americans say, that all men of right ought to be free, and that the people are the fountain of political power. If some sagacious statesman should rise to prove these principles unsound and dangerous, because they were not recognized in ancient times, when Nebuchadnezzar kindled his “‘burning fiery furnace,” or when ‘Tarquin despised the approbation of public assemblies, and trampled on the decisions of the Senate, who would listen tohim? We havea political charter of our own, Which we chose to frame for ourselves, and which other nations have been copying out in blood. The argument is equally futile in ecclesiastical matters; and if carried out, would prove that the Pope is of right our sovereign lord, both in church and state. The Scriptures alone are of any avail here; and if they have declared that God is the only Lord of conscience, and have forbidden any man, or any set of men, to usurp his prerogative, then the united testimony of all ages in sustaining con-