The proposed revision of the Westminster standards

Front matter

DR. SHEDD'S WORKS.

Dogmatic Theology.

Two vols., 8vo, $7,00

Preface

The distinction between doctrines and persons, projects and their advocates, is a valid one. One may have little or no confidence in a doctrine or a project, and yet have confidence in an advocate of it, because a person may be different in his spirit and intention from the nature and tendency of his doctrine, while his doctrine is a fixed quantity. Coleridge, in a conversation with a Unitarian friend said : " I make the greatest difference between ans and isms. I should deal insincerely with you, if I said that I thought Unitarianism is Christianity ; but God forbid that I should doubt that you and many other Unitarians are in a practical sense very good Christians." (Table Talk, April 4, 1832.) This distinction is important in the present controversy. When the opponent of revision asserts that revision is anti-Calvinistic in its logic and tendency, he does not assert that all of its advocates are anti-Calvinists. The writer of these papers believes that the natural and inevitable effect of the proposed changes in the Confession, will be more or less to weaken and break down the Calvinistic system contained in it, and endeavors to prove it ; but he does not believe or say that this is the desire or intention of many who urge them.

The spirit of revision, which it is so often said is " in the air," is pervading Pan-Presbyterianism. If it preiv

PREFACE.

vails, there can be little doubt that the historical Calvinism of the past will be considerably modified ; and doctrinal modification is an inclined plane. In a materialistic age, when the Calvinistic type of doctrine is vehemently opposed, the Presbyterian Church should not modify the creed from which it has derived its past solidarity and power, but should reaffirm it ; and non-revision is reaffirmation.

New York, February 22, 1890.

Contents

PAGE

Inexpediency op the Revision op the Westminster Confession, 1

Objections to the Revision of the Westminster Confession, .13

II. Objections To The Revision Of The Westminster Confession. 1

The first question sent down to the presbyteries is the most important of the two ; namely, Whether a revision of the Confession is desired. If this is answered in the nes;- ative, it will mean that the Presbyterian Church of the present day is satisfied with its ancestral faith, as formulated in its Standards, and accords with the Church of the past in this respect. It will be a formal and positive reaffirmation of the historic Calvinism, at a time when this system of doctrine is charged with being unscriptural, erroneous, and antiquated by modern theological progress. If it be answered in the affirmative, it will mean that the Church of the present day is more or less dissatisfied with the doctrines of the Westminster Assembly, and is no longer willing to endorse and preach them as that body of divines defined and stated them. Revision is alteration^ more or less. The object is not merely to make sure that the creed just as it stands is understood; but to modify it either in its structural plan, its component parts, its emphasis, or its general perspective. The second question, How much revision is desired ? is comparatively of less consequence, because it is the first question alone that decides the vital point, whether the Presbyterian Church

1 New York Presbytery, November 20, 1889 ; Northwestern Presbyterian, November 23, 1889.

lias drifted at all from the old anchorage. For this reason, we present in a brief form the following objections to the revision of the Westminster Confession :

1. Revision is objectionable, because the project originated in too small a fraction of the Church. Only fifteen presbyteries out of two hundred and two united in overtiming the Assembly in its favor. The remaining one hundred and eighty-seven will have to be argued and persuaded into it. But so important a step as the revision of the doctrinal basis of a denomination should begin in a general uprising of the whole body, and be the spontaneous and strongly expressed desire of the great majority of its members. The revision of secondary matters, like the form of government and discipline, does not require this in the same degree. As the case now stands, fifteen presbyteries have asked one hundred and eighty-seven presbyteries if they do not want to amend the Confession. There should have been a far wider dissatisfaction with the Standards than this indicates, to initiate revision.

2. Revision is objectionable, because the Confession is a correct statement of " the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures." The system meant in this phrase is universally known as the Calvinistic ; not as resting upon the authority of Calvin, but as a convenient designation of that interpretation of Scripture which is common to Augustine, Calvin, the Reformed theologians, and the Westminster divines. The term "evangelical" does not define it, because there are several evangelical systems, but only one Calvinistic. The systems of Arminius, of Wesley, and of the Later-Lutherans, as well as that of Calvin, are alike evangelical, in distinction from anti-evangelical systems like Socinianism and Deism. They are all alike derived from the Bible, and contain the doctrines of the

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.

trinity, the incarnation, the apostasy, and the redemption. But the Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture, which is the one formulated in the W estminster Standards, differs from these other "evangelical" systems, in teaching unconditional election and pretention, instead of conditional ; limited redemption (not atonement) instead of unlimited; regeneration wholly by the Holy Spirit instead of partly ; the total inability of the sinner instead of partial. The Calvinistic system, as thus discriminated from the other " evangelical " systems, has been adopted by American Presbyterians for two centuries. Neither Old Lights, nor Is ew Lights ; neither Old School, nor ~New School ; have demanded that these tenets which distinguish Calvinism from Arminianism should be eliminated from the creed. They were accepted with equal sincerity by both branches of the Church in the reunion of 1870, and there is no reason for altering the formulas that were satisfactory then, unless the belief of the Church has altered in regard to these distinctive points of Calvinism.

3. The revision of the Confession is objectionable, because the principal amendments proposed by its advocates will introduce error into it, so that it will no longer be " the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures." The four following alterations are urged upon the Church : (a) To strike out the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in pretention, leaving the doctrine of election unlimited and universal, (b) To retain pretention, but assign as the reason for it the sin of the non-elect, (c) To strike out the statement that the number of the elect and non-elect is "so certain and definite, that it cannot be increased or diminished" by "angels and men." (d) To strike out the statement that no man who rejects the " Christian religion," or the evangelical method of salvation, can be saved by the legal method of living " according to the light of nature," or some system of morality which he " professes." If these changes are made, the Westminster Standards will no longer contain a class of truths that are plainly taught in Scripture, and will cease to be that " system of doctrine " which these authors had in mind, and to which the present generation of ministers and elders have subscribed like their fathers before them.

4. Revision is objectionable, because it will be a concession to the enemies of the Standards that their aspersions of them are true. The charges that have been made by the opponents of them from time immemorial are, that Calvinism represents God as a tyrannical sovereign who is destitute of love and mercy for any but an elect few, that it attributes to man the depravity of devils, deprives him of moral freedom, and subjects him to the arbitrary cruelty of a Being who creates some men in order to damn them. A few ministers and elders within the Presbyterian Church endorse these allegations ; and many assert that the Confession contains no universal offer of salvation, teaches that none of the heathen are saved, and that some infants are non-elect and lost. The great reason assigned by such Presbyterians for revising the Standards is, that they inculcate unscriptural and offensive doctrines that cannot be believed or preached. But this is to concede that all preceding Presbyterians have been grossly mistaken in denying that the Confession contains such doctrines, either directly or by implication. It is an acknowledgment that one of the most carefully drawn and important of all the Reformed symbols, inculcates in a latent form some of the most repulsive tenets conceivable by the human mind. Presbyterians of all schools have hitherto met this calumny on their creed by contradicting it, and trying the issue by close reasoning and debate. Revision proposes, in the legal phrase, to give a

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.

cognovit, admit the charge, and alter the standards to suit the enemy who made it.

5. Revision is objectionable, because it will reopen the old discussions and controversies upon the difficult doctrines, without resulting in any better definitions of them than they already have in the Church. On the contrary, the great variety of changes that will be urged, from the very conservative to the very radical, will introduce a period of speculative dispute and disagreement that will seriously impair the existing harmony of the denomination, and divert its attention from the great practical interests of Christ's kingdom in which it is now engaged.

These five objections, it seems to us, are conclusive reasons why the Presbyterian Church should not alter, but reaffirm the doctrines of the Westminster Standards, and continue to teach and defend them as they have been by all the past generations of Presbyterians. 2

THE PROPOSED REVISION OE

III. Are There Doctrinal Errors In The Westminster

CONFESSION ? 1

The strongest reason presented for the revision of the Westminster Confession is the allegation that the phraseology of some of its sections contains serious error, or is liable to be understood as containing it. Is this true ? In order to answer this question, we shall examine a few of the principal sections which are asserted to be erroneous either in their direct teaching or in their implication.

1. Confession iii. 3 asserts that " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death." It is contended that this section teaches, or is liable to be understood as teaching, that the decree of God in election and reprobation has no connection with sin and the fall of man, but that God by an arbitrary decree, wholly irrespective of sin, creates some men in order to save them, and some men in order to damn them. To correct this alleged error, or liability of interpretation, several advocates of revision propose to insert the clause, " On account of their sins," to qualify the clause, " Foreordained to everlasting death ; " and one advocate of revision proposes to strike out the entire section concerning election and reprobation.

We maintain that the Confession neither teaches the

1 Philadelphia Presbyterian, October 19, 1889.

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.

error aforesaid, nor is fairly liable to be understood to teach it. According to Confession iii. 6, both the elect and non-elect are " fallen in Adam," and are thereby in a common guilty state of sin. The former are delivered out of sin by regenerating grace, and the latter are left in sin. Why are the latter left in sin ? Because " God so pleased," is the reason given by the Confession. " On account of their sins," is the reason which the reviser would insert into the Confession. But this, surely, cannot be the reason why God leaves a sinner in his sin. I see two suicides who have flung themselves into the water. I rescue one of them, and the other I let drown. They are both alike in the water, and by their own free agency. But his being in the water, is not the reason why I do not rescue the one whom I let drown. I have some other reason. It may be a good one or a bad one. But whatever it be, it certainly is not because the man is in the water. Similarly God does not leave a sinner in his own voluntary and loved sin because he is in sin. He has some other reason why he makes this discrimination between two persons, both of whom are in sin, neither of whom has any claim upon his mercy, and neither of whom is more deserving of election and regeneration than the other. God's reason, in this case, we know must be a good one. But it is a secret with himself. The only answer to the inquiry, ""Why didst thou elect and regenerate Saul of Tarsus, and didst not elect and regenerate Judas Iscariot ? " is, " Because it seemed good in my sight."

The allegation that there is error in this section of the Confession arises from misunderstanding the meaning of the clause, "Foreordained to everlasting death." It is the omission to regenerate, not the punishment of sin, that is intended by it. When God " foreordains " a sinner

THE PROPOSED REVISION OE

" to everlasting death," lie decides to leave him in the sin which deserves everlasting death and results in it. The non-elect sinner has experienced the operation of common grace. It is an error to say that God shows no kind or degree of mercy to the non-elect. But he has resisted and defeated it. God decides to proceed no further with him by the bestowment of that special grace which regenerates, and " makes willing in the day of God's power." The elect sinner has also experienced, resisted, and defeated common grace. God decides to proceed further with him, by effectual calling and regeneration. The particular question, therefore, in this paragraph of the Confession is, " Why does God leave a sinner to his own wilful free agency ? " and not, " Why does God punish him for it?" The answer to the first question is, "Because of his sovereign good pleasure." The answer to the second is, " Because of the ill-desert of sin." The reason why God omits to take the second step, and exert a yet higher degree of grace after his first step in exerting a lower degree has been thwarted by the resistance of the sinner, is entirely different from the reason why he inflicts retribution upon the sinner's sin. This is more fully explained in the seventh section of the third chapter, which should always be read in connection w T ith the third. Here, the reason for God's "passing by," or omitting to regenerate a sinner, is found in " the unsearchable counsel of his own will whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth." This first negative part of reprobation, which is properly called " pretention," is not qualified by the clause, " for their sin," as the correct punctuation in the Board's edition shows. This latter clause qualifies only the sentence, " And to ordain them to dishonor and wrath." Sinners are punished " for their sin," but sin is not the reason why God does not regenerate them. If sin

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.

were the reason for non-election, holiness, logically, would be the reason for election. If some men are not regenerated because they are unbelieving, others would be regenerated because they are believing. This is the Arminian doctrine, not the Calvinistic ; and this is the reason why the Westminster Assembly did not qualify the words, " pass by," by the proposed clause, " for their sins," but left " passing by," or " foreordination to everlasting death," to be a purely sovereign act according to " the good pleasure " of God.

2. Confession iii. 4 teaches that " the angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed ; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished." One advocate of revision proposes that this whole section be struck out of the Standards, because it " is not a scriptural form of expression ; it is misleading."

What is the meaning of this section ? " Increased or diminished " by whom f What is the ellipsis intended to be supplied by the framers of the statement ? Plainly they meant that the number of the elect and non-elect cannot be increased or diminished by the "angels and men " spoken of in the connection : that is, by any finite power. Neither the human will, nor the angelic, can determine the number of God's elect and non-elect, because this depends wholly upon " the counsel of his own will." Of course, the Assembly did not mean to say that God could not have made the number of his elect larger or smaller, if " the counsel of his own will " had so determined. Probably no advocate of revision understands the Confession to teach this. But will any advocate of it say that the number of the regenerate and saved can be made greater or less by the decision and action of either

THE PROPOSED PREVISION OF the unregenerate world, or the regenerate church ? This would contradict the statement of St. John, that the elect "sons of God are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It would also contradict the corresponding statement in the Confession which teaches that " in effectual calling man is altogether passive, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer the call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it " (Confession x. 2). This fourth section of the third chapter is simply another way of teaching the common doctrine, running all through the Standards, that the sinful will is in "bondage to sin, and cannot regenerate itself, and that consequently the number of the regenerate depends wholly upon the will and decision of God.

3. Confession x. 4 asserts that " men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess." This is alleged to be erroneous by an advocate of revision, because " every promise and every warning of God is addressed to man as a free agent, and not as one who cannot be saved."

Who are the persons " not professing the Christian religion ? " They are those who reject it, either formally, or in their spirit and disposition. The class here spoken of are the legalists of every variety, who repudiate salvation through Christ's blood and righteousness, and rely upon "diligently framing their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion which they do profess" — which is some other than "the Christian religion," which they do not " profess," but contemn. The Christian religion is evangelical religion, and this they dislike. They expect to be saved by morality and personal virtue,

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.

and not by faith in the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine then, in this section is, in brief, that no man can be saved by good works ; by any endeavors however " diligent " to obey the written law of the decalogue, as the Christian legalist does, or the unwritten law of conscience, as the heathen legalist does. Now concerning this class of persons St. Paul explicitly says that " they cannot be saved." " By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." St. Peter says the same. "There is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

There is nothing in this section that denies the possibility of the salvation of any sinner on earth who feels his sin, and trusts in the sacrifice of Christ in case he has heard of it, or would trust in it if he should hear of it. It does not teach that no heathen is or can be saved. This fourth section, so often misunderstood and misrepresented, is aimed at the self-righteous moralist, whether in Christendom or Heathendom, who has no sorrow for sin, feels no need of God's mercy as manifested in Christ, and has no disposition to cast himself upon it, but claims the rewards of eternity on the ground of personal character and obedience to " the light of nature " and the maxims of morality. It is only a bold and strong assertion of the great truth, that no sinner can be saved by his most strenuous endeavors to keep the moral law. It is not strange, therefore, that this section closes with the affirmation that " to assert and maintain the contrary is very pernicious and to be detested."

If this is the correct explanation of these three sections of the Confession, it is evident that they neither teach nor imply error, and therefore do not need any revision.

IY.

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS AND THE UNIVERSAL OFFER OF MERCY. 1

The Westminster Standards are now meeting an attack from some who have adopted them as their religious creed. Formerly the onset came from the enemy on the outside, now it comes from within the Church. When so many presbyterians are objecting to the Confession as containing " offensive articles that wound the consciences of tens of thousands of loyal and orthodox presbyterians," it is proper for an ordinary presbyterian to say a good word for the time-honored symbol which has been subscribed by the present generation of ministers and elders, and was dear to all the former generations. May it not be that these " offensive articles " are not in the Standards, and that the advocates of revision, in order to find a sufficient reason for their project, are inventing and fighting men of straw ? Let us look at one of these alleged offences.

It is strenuously contended that the Standards contain no declaration of the love of God towards all men, but limit it to the elect ; that they make no universal offer of salvation, but confine it to a part of mankind.

The following declaration is found in Confession ii. 1. " There is but one only living and true God, who is most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in

1 New York Observer, November 14, 1889.

goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Of whom speaketh the Confession this ? of the God of the elect only ? or of the God of every man ? Is he the God of the elect only ? Is he not also of the non-elect ? Is this description of the gracious nature and attributes of God intended to be restricted to a part of mankind ? Is not God as thus delineated the Creator and Father of every man without exception ? Can it be supposed that the authors of this statement meant to be understood to say that God is not such a being for all men, but only for some ? If this section does not teach the unlimited love and compassion of God towards all men as men, as his creatures, it teaches nothing.

The following declaration is found in Confession xv. 1, Larger Catechism, 159. " Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached in season and out of season by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ." This certainly teaches that faith and repentance are the duty of all men, not of some only. ~No one contends that the Confession teaches that God has given a limited command to repent. u God commandeth all men everywhere to repent." But how could he give such a universal command to all sinners if he is not willing to pardon all sinners ? if his benevolent love is confined to some sinners in particular ? How could our Lord command his ministers to preach the doctrine of faith and repentance to " every creature," if he does not desire that every one of them would believe and repent ? And how can he desire this if he does not feel infinite love for the souls of all ? When the Confession teaches the duty of universal faith and repentance, it teaches by necessary inference the doctrine of God's universal compassion and readiness to forgive. And it also teaches in the same inferential way, that the sacrifice of Christ for sin is ample for the forgiveness of every man. To preach the duty of immediate belief on the Lord Jesus Christ as obligatory upon every man, in connection with the doctrine imputed to the Confession by the reviser, that God feels compassion for only the elect, and that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for all, would be selfcontradictory. The two things cannot be put together. The reviser misunderstands the Standards, and reads into them a false doctrine that is not there.

Confession xv. 5, 6, declares that " it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins particularly. Every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof, upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy." How shall every such man find mercy, if the reviser's understanding of the Confession is correct ? if it teaches that God's love for sinners is limited to the elect, and that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for the sins of all ? According to the revised version, the meaning of the Westminster divines in this section is, that some men who " pray for pardon and forsake sin " shall " find mercy," and some shall not.

Larger Catechism, 160, declares that " it is required of those that hear the word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation and prayer; receive the truth in faith, love, meekness and readiness of mind, as the word of God ; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives." Would God require all this from every hearer of the word, if he were not kindly disposed towards him? if he did not love and pity his immortal soul, and desire its salvation ? Does not this declaration mean that God will encourage, assist, and bless every hearer of the word without exception who

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.

does the things mentioned ? What shadow of reason is there for alleging that it means that God will help and bless some of these hearers, and some he will not ? But in order to make out that the section does not teach the universal offer of mercy, this must be the allegation.

Larger Catechism, 95, declares that " the moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God ; to convince them of their disabilit}- to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature ; to humble them in the sense of sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience." But what is the use of showing every man his need of Christ, if Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for every man ? What reason is there for convincing every man of the pollution of his nature, and humbling him for it, unless God is for every man " most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin ? " The doctrine taught in this section, that all men are to be convicted of sin, like the doctrine that all men are to repent and to pray, supposes that God sustains a common benevolent and merciful relation to them all.

Confession xxi. 3, declares that " prayer with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is required by God of all men." How could God require prayer from every man, if he were not disposed to hear the prayer of every man ? And does not this imply that he loves the soul of every man ? The duty of prayer supposes a corresponding kind and gracious feeling in God that prompts him to answer it ; that " he is the hearer of prayer, and that unto him all flesh should come." In order to make out his "offensive doctrine," the reviser must explain this section by appending to it : " Though

God requires prayer from all men, he is the hearer of prayer for only the elect."

Confession vii. 3, declares that " man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that (legal) covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace : wherein he freely offered to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." Two distinct and different things are mentioned here : (a) an offer of salvation ; (b) a promise of the Holy Spirit to make the unwilling sinner willing to accept it. The number of those to whom the offer of salvation is made is unlimited ; of those to whom the promise of the Spirit to "make them willing" is made, is limited by "ordination to life" or election. It is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide and purpose to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call. His desire that sinners would hear his universal call to repentance may be, and is unlimited ; but his purpose to overcome their unwillingness and incline them to repentance may be, and is limited. God offers Christ's sacrifice to every man, without exception, and assures him that if he will trust in it lie shall be saved, and gives him common grace to help and encourage him to believe. This is a proof that God loves his soul and desires its salvation. But God does not, in addition to this universal offer of mercy, promise to overcome every man's aversion to believe and repent and his resistance of common grace. Election and pretention have no reference to the offer of salvation or to common grace. They relate only to special grace and the effectual application of