The question however is, What is the true sense of the phrase, “system of doctrine,” in our ordination service? or, What does the Church understand the candidate to profess, when he says that he “receives and adopts the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures”? There are three different answers given to that question. First, it is said by some, that in adopting the “system of doctrine,” the candidate is understood to adopt it, not in the form or manner in which it is presented in the Confession, but only for “substance of doctrine.” The obvious objections to this view of the subject are:

1. That such is not the meaning of the words employed. The two expressions or declarations, “I adopt the system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith,” and, “I adopt that system for substance of doctrine,” are not identical. The one therefore cannot be substituted for the other. If there were no other difference between them, it is enough that the one is definite and univocal, the other is both vague and equivocal. The latter expression may have two very different meanings. By substance of doctrine may be meant the substantial doctrines of the Confession; that is, those doctrines which give character to it as a distinctive confession of faith, and which therefore constitute the system of belief therein contained. Or it may mean the substance of the several doctrines taught in the Confession, as distinguished from the form in which they are therein presented. It will be at once perceived that these are very different things. The substance or essence of a system of doctrines is the system itself. In this case, the essence of a thing is the whole thing. The essential doctrines of Pelagianism are Pelagianism, and the essential doctrines of Calvinism are Calvinism. But the substance of a doctrine is not the doctrine, any more than the substance of a man is the man. A man is a given substance in a specific form; and a doctrine is a given truth in a particular form. The substantial truth, included in the doctrine of original sin, is that human nature is deteriorated by the apostasy of Adam. The different forms in which this general truth is presented, make all the difference, as to this point, between Pelagianism, Augustinianism, Romanism, and Arminianism. It is impossible, therefore, in matters of doctrine, to separate the substance from the form. The form is essential to the doctrine, as much as the form of a statue is essential to the statue. In adopting a system of doctrines, therefore, the candidate adopts a series of doctrines in the specific form in which they are presented in that system. To say that he adopts the substance of those doctrines, leaves it entirely uncertain what he adopts. The first objection then to this view of the meaning of the phrase, “system of doctrine,” is, that it is contrary to the simple historical sense of the terms. What a man professes to adopt is, “the system of doctrine,” not the substance of the doctrines embraced in that system.

2. Another objection is, that it is contrary to the mind of the Church. The Church, in demanding the adoption of the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, demands something more than the adoption of what the candidate may choose to consider the substance of those doctrines. This is plain from the words used, which, as we have seen, in their plain import, mean something more, and something more specific and intelligible than the phrase “substance of doctrine.” The mind of the Church on this point is rendered clear beyond dispute by her repeated official declarations on the subject. The famous adopting act of the original Synod, passed in 1729, is in these words: “Although the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith on other men’s consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances, all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven, yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity; and do therefore agree that all ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agreement in, and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree, that all Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise of the sacred functions, but what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said Confession and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time of making said declaration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapable of communion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree that none of them will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those who differ from us in extra-essential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if they did not differ in such sentiment.”

On the afternoon of the day on which the above act was adopted, the following minute was recorded, viz. “All the ministers of this Synod now present, except one,* that declared himself not prepared, namely, Masters Jedediah Andrews, Thomas Craighead, John Thompson, James Anderson, John Pierson, Samuel Gelston, Joseph Houston, Gilbert Tenant, Adam Boyd, John Bradner, Alexander Hutchinson, Thomas Evans, Hugh Stevenson, William Tenant, Hugh Conn, George Gillespie, and John Wilson, after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare, that they do not receive those articles in such sense, as to suppose that the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods, with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority, or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.

“The Synod observing that unanimity, peace, and unity, which appeared in all their consultations relating to the affair of the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn prayer and praises.”

This fundamental act, passed in 1729, has never been either repealed or altered. It has on several occasions been interpreted and reaffirmed, but it has never been abrogated, except so far as it was merged in the readoption of the Confession and Catechisms at the formation of our present Constitution, in the year 1788. This important document teaches, first: That in our Church the terms of Christian communion are competent knowledge, and a creditable profession of faith and repentance. The Synod, say they, “admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances, all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven.” Second: That the condition of ministerial communion is the adoption of the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. This is expressed by saying, “We adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith.” For this is substituted as an equivalent form of expression, “agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession.” That is, “all the essential and necessary articles” of the system of doctrine contained in the Confession. Third: That the only exceptions allowed to be taken were such as related to matters outside that system of doctrine, and the rejection of which left the system in its integrity. That this is the true meaning and intent of the act is plain, first, because the Synod in 1730 expressly declared, “that they understand those clauses that respect the admission of entrants or candidates, in such sense as to oblige them to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms at their admission, in the same manner, and as fully as the members of the Synod did, that were then present. Those members adopted the whole system in its integrity, excepting only to certain clauses relating to the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. Again, in 1736, they say, “The Synod have adopted, and still do adhere to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, without the least variation or alteration… and they further declare, that this was our meaning and true intent in our first adopting of said Confession.” In the same minute they say, “We hope and desire that this our Synodical declaration and explication may satisfy all our people, as to our firm attachment to our good old received doctrines contained in said Confession, without the least variation or alteration.” This minute was adopted nemine contradicente.* Second: Not only this official and authoritative exposition of the “adopting act,” given by its authors, but the subsequent declarations of the several presbyteries composing the Synod, and of the Synod itself, prove that “the system of doctrines” was adopted, and not merely the substance of those doctrines. The common form of adoption may be learned from such records as the following, from the Presbytery of Philadelphia. Mr. Samuel Blair was licensed after “having given his assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as the confession of his faith.” David Cowell was ordained “after he had adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of his faith.” In 1741, the great schism occurred by the exclusion of the New Brunswick Presbytery, which being subsequently joined by the Presbyteries of New York and New Castle, constituted the Synod of New York. This body, composed of the friends of the Whitefieldian revival, say: “We do declare and testify our constitution, order, and discipline, to be in harmony with the established Church of Scotland. The Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, adopted by them, are in like manner adopted by us.” The first article of the terms of union, by which the two Synods were united, in 1758, and which was unanimously adopted, is as follows: “Both Synods having always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of doctrine, founded on the word of God; we do still receive the same as the confession of our faith, and also adhere to the plan of worship, government, and discipline, contained in the Westminster Directory; strictly enjoining it on all our ministers and probationers for the ministry, that they preach and teach according to the form of sound words in the said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.” When the General Assembly was constituted, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were declared to be parts of the Constitution of the Church, and every candidate for the ministry was required, previous to his ordination, to receive that Confession, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. From the beginning, therefore, the mind of our Church has been that that “system of doctrine” in its integrity, not the substance of those doctrines, was the term of ministerial communion. For a fuller discussion of this subject we would refer our readers to Hodge’s Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church, vol. i., chap. 3. It is there shown that no exception to the Confession of Faith, touching any of the doctrines constituting that system, was ever allowed.

3. Not only are the plain meaning of the words, and the animus imponentis opposed to the interpretation of the ordination service now under consideration, but that interpretation is liable to the further objection, that the phrase “substance of doctrine” has no definite assignable meaning. What the substance of any given doctrine is cannot be historically ascertained or authenticated. No one knows what a man professes, who professes to receive only the substance of a doctrine, and, therefore, this mode of subscription vitiates the whole intent and value of a confession. Who can tell what is the substance of the doctrine of sin? Does the substance include all the forms under which the doctrine has been, or can be held, so that whoever holds any one of those forms, holds the substance of the doctrine? If one man says that nothing is sin but the voluntary transgression of known law; another, that men are responsible only for their purposes to the exclusion of their feelings; another, that an act to be voluntary, and therefore sinful, must be deliberate and not impulsive; another, that sin is merely limitation or imperfect development; another, that sin exists only for us and in our consciousness, and not in the sight of God; another, that sin is any want of conformity in state, feeling, or act, to the law of God; do all these hold the substance of the doctrine? What is the substance of the doctrine of redemption? The generic idea of redemption, in the Christian sense of the word, may be said to be the deliverance of men from sin and its consequences by Jesus Christ. Does every man who admits that idea hold the substance of the doctrine as presented in our Confession? If so, then it matters not whether we believe that that deliverance is effected by the example of Christ, or by his doctrine, or by his power, or by the moral impression of his death on the race or the universe, or by his satisfying the justice of God, or by his incarnation exalting our nature to a higher power. The same remark may be made in reference to all the other distinctive doctrines of the Confession. The general idea of “grace” is that of a remedial divine influence; but is that influence exercised only by ordering our external circumstances? or is it simply the moral influence of the truth which God has revealed? or that influence exalted by some special operation? is it proeveniens as well as assisting? is it common without being sufficient, or sufficient as well as common? is it irresistible, or efficacious only through its congruity or the cooperation of the sinner. Does the man who holds any one of these forms, hold the substance of the doctrine of grace? It is perfectly obvious that there is no authoritative standard by which to determine what the substance of a doctrine is; that the very idea of a doctrine is a truth in a specific form, and, therefore, those who do not hold the doctrines of the Confession in the form in which they are therein presented, do not hold the doctrines. It is equally obvious, that no definite, intelligible, trustworthy profession of faith is made by the man who simply professes to hold the substance of certain doctrines. Such a mode of adopting the Confession of Faith is morally wrong, because inconsistent with the plain meaning of the words, and with the mind of the Church, and because it renders the adoption nugatory.

4. This system has been tried, and found to produce the greatest disorder and contention. Men acting on the principle of receiving the Confession for substance of doctrine, have entered the ministry in our Church, who denied the doctrine of imputation, whether of Adam’s sin or of Christ’s righteousness; the doctrine of the derivation of a sinful depravity of nature from our first parents; of inability; of efficacious grace; of a definite atonement; that is, of an atonement having any such special reference to the elect, as to render their salvation certain. In short, while professing to receive “the system of doctrine” contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, they have rejected almost every doctrine which gives that system its distinctive character. It was this principle more than any other cause, and probably more than all other causes combined, that led to the division of our Church in 1838, and it must produce like disasters should it again be brought into practical application among us.

The second interpretation given to the question, “Do you receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?” is, that the person who answers that question in the affirmative does thereby profess to receive and adopt every proposition contained in that Confession as a part of his own faith. The objections to this view are substantially the same as those urged against the view already considered.

1. It is contrary to the plain, historical meaning of the words. To adopt a book as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and to adopt every proposition contained in that book, are two very different things. The book, although a confession of faith, may contain many propositions by way of argument or inference, or which lie entirely outside the system, and which may be omitted, and yet leave the system in its integrity. The words “system of doctrine,” have a definite meaning, and serve to define and limit the extent to which the Confession is adopted.

No man has the right to put upon them his own sense. He must take them in their historical sense, i.e. in the sense which by historical proof it may be shown they were intended to bear, just as the phrase “Holy Scriptures” must be taken in its historical sense. By the words “system of doctrine,” as used in our ordination service, as remarked on a preceding page, are not to be understood the general doctrines of Christianity, nor the whole system of a man’s convictions on politics, economics, morals, and religion, but the theological system therein contained. That is the established meaning of the phrase. The Westminster divines did not intend to frame a new system of doctrines, nor have they done it. They have simply reproduced and presented, with matchless perspicuity and precision, the system of doctrines common to the Reformed Churches. That is the system which the candidate professes to adopt, and no one can rightfully demand of him either more or less. It is one thing to adopt the system of doctrine and order of worship contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and quite another thing to “assent and consent” to everything contained in that book, as the clergy of England are required to do. So it is one thing to adopt the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession, and quite another thing to adopt every proposition contained in that Confession. Many a man could do the one, who could not do the other.

2. A second objection to this interpretation of the adoption of the Confession is, that it is contrary to the animus imponentis, or mind of the Church. The mind of the Church on this subject is indicated and established, first, by the words employed; secondly, by the official explanations of the sense in which these words are to be taken; thirdly, by the contemporaneous testimony of the men who framed the constitution, or acted under it; and, fourthly, by the uniform action of the Church. First, as to the words employed. If the Church intended that the candidate should adopt every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, why did she not say so? It was very easy to express that idea. The words actually used do not, in their plain, established meaning, express it. The simple fact that no such demand is made, is evidence enough that none such was intended. The Church makes a clear distinction between the terms of Christian communion, of ministerial communion, and the condition on which any one is to be admitted to the office of professor in any of her theological seminaries. For Christian communion, she requires competent knowledge, and a credible profession of faith and repentance; for ministerial communion, the adoption of the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession; for admission to the office of a professor, she exacts the promise, “not to teach anything which directly or indirectly contradicts anything taught in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, or Form of Government in this Church.” Does all this mean nothing? Do these differently worded demands all amount to the same thing? This is impossible. The words have not only a different meaning, but there is an obvious reason for the different demand in these several cases. More is in Scripture required for admission to the office of a minister, than is required for admission to Church privileges; and more may reasonably be demanded of a professor than of a minister. Whatever a professor’s private convictions may be as to anything not included in the system of doctrines, he is bound to avoid going counter to the standards of the Church whose servant he is. He may think that ministers and ruling elders do not differ in office, but he cannot properly officially inculcate that idea. The mind of the Church, therefore, as to the meaning of the ordination service, is already indicated by the words employed.

Secondly, This is placed, as it seems to us, beyond dispute, by the official explanation given of the words in question. The original Synod of Philadelphia officially declared that there were certain clauses in the Westminster Confession relating to the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion, which they did not adopt. This was no less true of the two Synods of Philadelphia and New York after the schism, and of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia after the union. Yet all these bodies uniformly declared for themselves, and required all candidates to declare, that they received that “Confession as the confession of their faith,” or that they “received and adhered to the system of doctrines” therein contained. Every minister received, and every candidate ordained, was required to make that declaration. It cannot be denied, therefore, that the Church understood the adoption of the Westminster Confession as not involving the adoption of every proposition contained in that book. Let it be remembered that the formula of adoption was not, “Do you receive the Westminster Confession, with the exception of certain clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, as the confession of your faith?” but simply, “Do you receive that Confession,” or, “the system of doctrine in that Confession?” It was not considered necessary to make that exception, because the language was not intended to extend to every proposition, but only to “the system of doctrine.” This is the Church’s own official explanation of the sense of the words in question.

Thirdly, The mind of the Church as to this point is determined by contemporaneous testimony. There were three forms of opinion on the subject of confessions in our original Synod. First; There was a very small class represented by President Dickinson, who were opposed to all creeds of human composition. They entered a protest, signed by four ministers,* against the overture for the adoption of a confession as a test of orthodoxy. On this subject President Dickinson said: “The joint acknowledgment of our Lord Jesus Christ for our common head, of the sacred Scriptures as our common standard both of faith and practice, with a joint agreement in the same essential and necessary articles of Christianity, and the same methods of worship and discipline, are a sufficient bond of union for the being and well-being of any Church under heaven.” This small class, therefore, made no distinction between Christian and ministerial communion, requiring for the latter, as well as for the former, simply agreement in the “necessary and essential articles of Christianity.” Another class, represented by Mr. Creaghead, who afterward left our Church mainly on account of the imperfect adoption of the Confession of Faith, desired unqualified adherence to the Confession, and to all that it contained. The third class, including the great body of the Synod, insisted on the adoption of “the system of doctrine” contained in the Confession, admitting that there were propositions in the book not essential to the system, or even connected with it, which they did not receive. With this class the whole body of ministers subsequently concurred, and established this as the permanent condition of ministerial communion. Mr. Thompson, the leader of the Synod, and author of the overture for the adoption of the Confession, says, that the object of the measure was to protect our infant Church from the inroads of error; “of Arminianism, Socinianism, Deism, and Free-thinking,” especially, he says, from Ireland, whence the larger supply of ministers was expected. Although the Synod unanimously declared that they adopted everything in the Confession, except certain clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, yet as there was this exception, they were forced to limit the adoption to the “necessary and essential articles,” or, as it is elsewhere expressed, to “the system of doctrine.” As, however, the words of the preamble to the adopting act, declaring that the Synod received the Confession “in all the essential and necessary articles,” were interpreted by some to mean the essential doctrines of the gospel, these words became a bone of contention, and called for frequent explanations. Mr. Creaghead made them the ground of his secession, saying that the Synod had never adopted the Confession in all its articles or chapters. To him Mr. Samuel Blair replied, that the Synod did expressly adopt the Confession in all its articles or chapters, excepting only to certain clauses. On the other hand, the Rev. Samuel Harker, having been suspended from the ministry for certain Arminian doctrines, complained that his suspension was a violation of the adopting act, which required only agreement in the essential doctrines of Christianity. In his published reply to this complaint, Mr. John Blair says, that Mr. Harker takes the words cited “in a sense in which it is plain the Synod never intended they should be taken.” “The Synod,” he adds, “say essential in doctrine, worship, or government, i.e. essential to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, considered as a system, and to the mode of worship, and to the plan of government contained in our Directory. Now what unprejudiced man of sense is there, who will not readily acknowledge that a point may be essential to a system of doctrine as such, to our mode of worship, and to Presbyterial government, which is not essential to a state of grace?” “That, therefore, is an essential error in the Synod’s sense, which is of such malignity as to subvert or greatly injure the system of the doctrine, and mode of worship and government, contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Directory.”* Such is the explanation of the adoption of the Confession of Faith, given by the original framers of the act, and by their contemporaries. They did not merely receive it for “substance of doctrine,” nor did they adopt all the propositions which it contains, but they received the system of doctrine” therein taught in its integrity.

Fourthly, The mind of the Church on this subject is clearly evinced by the uniform action of our Church courts, from the highest to the lowest. So far as we have been able to learn from the records, no man has ever been refused admission to the ministry in our Church, who honestly received “the system of doctrine” contained in the Westminster Confession, simply because there are propositions in the book to which he could not assent. And no Presbyterian minister has ever been suspended or deposed on any such ground. It is a perfectly notorious fact, that there are hundreds of ministers in our Church, and that there always have been such ministers, who do not receive all the propositions contained in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms. To start now, at this late day, a new rule of subscription, which would either brand these men with infamy, or exclude them from the Church, is simply absurd and intolerable.

This introduces our third objection. The principle that the adoption of the Confession of Faith implies the adoption of all the propositions therein contained, is not only contrary to the plain, historical meaning of the words which the candidate is required to use, and to the mind of the Church in imposing a profession of faith, but the principle is impracticable. It cannot be carried out without working the certain and immediate ruin of the Church. Our Confession is a large book; beside the system of doctrine common to all the Reformed Churches, it contains deliverances on many other topics relating to the Church, the state, and to our social relations. No doubt the original framers of the Westminster Confession, or the majority of them, thought these deliverances both important and scriptural. No doubt also the majority of our own Church have concurred in so regarding them. But this is a very different thing from making the adoption of these judgments, all and several, a condition of ministerial communion. One man may dissent from one of them, and another from another, while some may adopt them all; and to many of them they may attach very great importance, without recognizing them as terms of communion. Thus our standards distinctly teach, that the Church is bound to admit all true Christians “to fellowship in sacred ordinances.” Yet there have always been, and there still are, some among us who deny this. They press so far the idea of the Church as a witnessing body, that they will not commune with any Christians whose creed they cannot adopt; neither will they receive to the communion of the Presbyterian Church any who do not adopt its doctrinal standards. This rejecting from our communion those whom Christ receives into fellowship with himself, is revolting to the great body of our ministers and members. Yet who would think of making departure from our standards on this point, the ground either of reproach or of judicial process. Again, our book recognizes the right of a woman to divorce her husband, as well as that of a man to divorce his wife. Some of our most distinguished men, however, hold that the Scriptures give the right of divorce solely to the husband. Our book also teaches that wilful desertion is a legitimate ground of divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, but many of our brethren in the ministry do not believe this. Other Presbyterians again, knowing that our Lord says, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery,” cannot bring themselves to believe that there can be any such divorce as renders a second marriage lawful. Our standards deny the lawfulness of the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife, yet it is notorious that a large portion, probably a large majority, of our ministers openly reject that doctrine. Now what is to be thought of a rule, which, if applied, would cast out of the ministry all these classes —a rule which would have strangled the Church in its infancy, and which would kill it now in a week—a rule which would have deposed from the ministry the venerable Dr. Ashbel Green, and scores of men among our fathers of like standing? If the rule that no man should be allowed to exercise the ministry in our Church, who did not adopt every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, should be carried out, we verily believe we should be left almost alone. We are not sure that we personally know a dozen ministers besides ourselves, who could stand the test. We should have to mourn the exodus of our valued friends, the editors of the Presbyterian, and should doubtless be called to bid a tearful adieu to the venerable “G.,” of Richmond, Virginia. As we have no desire to sit thus solitary on the ruins of our noble Church, we enter a solemn protest against a principle which would work such desolation.

4. There is another view of this subject. We all admit that the preservation of the truth is one of the most important duties of the Church, and that she is bound to guard against the admission of unsound men into the ministry. We all admit that the Holy Ghost calls men to preach the gospel, and that soundness in the faith is one of the marks by which that call is authenticated to the Church. We admit, further, that the Church has no right to call men to the sacred office; that the authority to preach does not come from her; that the prerogative of the Church is simply to judge of the evidence of a divine call. Her office is purely ministerial, and should be exercised cautiously and humbly. She has no more right unduly to lower, or to raise unduly the evidence which she demands of a vocation to the ministry, than she has to alter the evidence of a call to grace and salvation. If she does not, and dares not, require perfect holiness of heart and life, as proof of a call to fellowship with the Son of God, neither can she demand perfect knowledge or perfect freedom from error, as evidence of a call to the ministry. Now, who is prepared, standing in the presence of Christ, and acting in his name, to say, that so far as the Presbyterian Church can prevent it, no man shall be ordained to the ministry, no man shall be a pastor, no man shall be a missionary, no man shall preach the gospel anywhere, to the poor and the perishing, who does not believe that wilful desertion is a legitimate ground of divorce? Who is ready to shut up every Church, silence every pulpit, abandon every missionary station, where that principle is not maintained? There doubtless have been, and there still may be, men who would do all this, and, in the mingled spirit of the Pharisee and Dominican, rejoice in the desolation they had wrought, and shout, “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we.” God forbid that such a spirit should ever gain the ascendency in our Church. Let us keep our hands off of God’s ark, and not assume to be more zealous for his truth, or more solicitous for the purity of his Church, than he is himself. We may well bear with infirmities and errors which he pities and pardons in his servants.

There is another great evil connected with these inordinate demands. Whenever a man is induced either to do what he does not approve, or to profess what he does not believe, his conscience is defiled. Those who lead their brethren thus to act, the Apostle says, cause them to offend, and destroy those for whom Christ died. To adopt every proposition contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, is more than the vast majority of our ministers either do, or can do. To make them profess to do it, is a great sin. It hurts their conscience. It fosters a spirit of evasion and subterfuge. It teaches them to take creeds in a “non-natural sense.” It at once vitiates and degrades. There are few greater evils connected with establishments than the overwhelming temptations which they offer to make men profess what they do not believe. Under such strict requirements, men make light of professions, and are ready to adopt any creed which opens the door to wealth or office. The over strict, the world over, are the least faithful.

The third interpretation of the formula prescribed for the adoption of the Confession of Faith is the true via media. It is equally removed from “the substance of doctrine” theory, which has no definite meaning, leaving it entirely undetermined what the candidate professes; and from the impracticable theory which supposes the candidate to profess to receive every proposition contained in the Confession. What every minister of our Church is bound to do is to declare that he “receives and adopts the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.” The words “system of doctrine” have a fixed, historical meaning. The objection that it is an open question, what doctrines belong to the system and what do not, and therefore if the obligation be limited to the adoption of the system, it cannot be known what doctrines are received and what are rejected, is entirely unfounded. If the question, “What is the system of doctrine taught by the Reformed Churches?” be submitted to a hundred Romanists, to a hundred Lutherans, to a hundred members of the Church of England, or to a hundred sceptics, if intelligent and candid, they would all give precisely the same answer. There is not the slightest doubt or dispute among disinterested scholars as to what doctrines do, and what do not belong to the faith of the Reformed. The Westminster Confession contains three distinct classes of doctrines. First, those common to all Christians, which are summed up in the ancient creeds, the Apostles’, the Nicene and the Athanasian, which are adopted by all Churches. Secondly, those which are common to all Protestants, and by which they are distinguished from Romanists. Thirdly, those which are peculiar to the Reformed Churches, by which they are distinguished, on the one hand, from the Lutherans, and on the other from the Remonstrants, or Arminians, and other sects of later historical origin. From the Lutherans the Reformed were distinguished principally by their doctrine on the sacraments, and from the Arminians, by the five characteristic points of Augustinianism, rejected by the Remonstrants, and affirmed at the Synod of Dort by all the Reformed Churches, viz.: those of Switzerland, Germany, France, England and Scotland, as well as of Holland. What those points are everybody knows. First. The doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin, i.e., that the sin of Adam is the judicial ground of the condemnation of his race, so that their being born in sin is the penal consequence of his transgression. Second. The doctrine of the sinful, innate depravity of nature, whereby we are indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good. Therefore there can be no self-conversion, no co-operation with the grace of God in regeneration, as the Arminians taught, and no election not to resist as the Lutherans affirmed. With this doctrine of absolute inability consequently is connected that of efficacious, as opposed to merely preventing and assisting grace. Thirdly. The doctrine that as Christ came in the execution of the covenant of redemption, in which his people were promised to him as his reward, his work had a special reference to them, and rendered their salvation certain. Fourth. The doctrine of gratuitous, personal election to eternal life; and, Fifth. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is a matter of history that these doctrines constitute the distinguishing doctrines of the Reformed Churches. And, therefore, any man who receives these several classes of doctrine, (viz.: those common to all Christians, those common to all Protestants, and those peculiar to the Reformed Churches,) holds in its integrity the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession. This is all that he professes to do when he adopts that Confession in the form prescribed in our Constitution. A man is no more at liberty to construct a system of theology for himself, and call it the system contained in the Confession of Faith, than he is authorized to spin a system of philosophy out of his head, and call it Platonism. The first argument, therefore, in favour of this interpretation of our ordination service is that it is in accordance with the literal, established meaning of the words, and attaches to them a definite meaning, so that every one knows precisely what the candidate professes.

2. The second argument is, that such was and is the intention of the Church in requiring the adoption of the Confession. This has already been proved from the meaning of the language employed, from the official explanations given of that language, from the declarations of the framers of our Constitution, and from the uniform practice of the Church. No case can be produced from our annals of any man being censured or rejected, who received the system of doctrines contained in the Confession of Faith, in the sense above stated. The Church in point of fact, never has required more, and no man has now the right to exalt or extend her requirements. What is here said does not imply that the deliverances contained in the Confession relating to civil magistrates, the power of the state, conditions of Church membership, marriage, divorce, and other matters lying outside of “the system of doctrine” in its theological sense, are unimportant or without authority. They are the judgments of the Church solemnly expressed on very important subjects; but they are judgments which she most wisely has not seen fit to make conditions of ministerial communion. As she does not require the adoption of her whole system of doctrine as the condition of Church fellowship; so she does not require the adoption of these collateral and subordinate judgments as the condition of ministerial communion. And as her receiving gladly to her bosom thousands who are not able intelligently to adopt her whole system of faith, does not imply that she does not value that system, or that she does not strive to bring all her members, even the weakest, to adopt it in its integrity; so her not making her judgments of points lying outside of that system a condition of ministerial communion, does not imply that she undervalues those judgments, or that she would not rejoice to see them universally embraced. There are many things both true and good which cannot be made the condition of either Christian or ministerial fellowship.

3. A third argument in favour of this view of the meaning of the formula used in the ordination service is, that it is the only one consistent with a good conscience, and with the peace and union of the Church. To make every minister affirm that he adopts as a part of his faith every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, would make the vast majority of them profess an untruth, and what those demanding the profession know to be untrue. This is a dreadful evil. And it is a very great evil for any portion of our brethren to represent the great majority of their fellow-ministers as guilty of a false profession. This is done by every man who asserts that to adopt the system of doctrine contained in the Confession means to adopt every proposition in the book. He thereby asserts that every minister who does not believe that desertion is a scriptural ground of divorce, or that every true Christian should be received to sealing ordinances, or that a man may not marry his desceased wife’s sister, is guilty of a breach of his ordination vows.

Does not the doctrine concerning subscription here advocated answer all desirable or practicable purposes? We can agree; and to a wonderful extent, to an extent greater than in any other age, in so large a communion, we do agree as to “the system of doctrine.” Our ministers hold the faith of the Reformed Churches in its integrity. This they are bound to do, and this they do with exceptions so few that it would be difficult to point them out. If we are not satisfied with this, we shall soon split into insignificant sects, each contending for some minor point, and all allowing “the system of doctrine” to go to destruction. If there is any dependence to be placed on the the teachings of history, the men who begin with making the tithing of anise and cummin of equal importance with justice and mercy, are sure in the end to cling to the anise, and let the mercy go.

As so many of our brethren have taken exception to the remarks in our last number, we deem this extended exposition of our views on the matter of subscription, due to them no less than to ourselves. We are confident there is no real disagreement between us on this subject. It is a misunderstanding, as we hope and believe, due to the absence of all explanation or limitation of a passing remark, which, although true in itself, and true in the sense intended, was capable of an application wide of the truth.

b. In View of the Reunion Every minister at his ordination is required to declare that he adopts the Westminster Confession and Catechism, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the sacred Scriptures. There are three ways in which these words have been, and still are, interpreted. First, some understand them to mean that every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith is included in the profession made at ordination. Secondly, others say that they mean just what the words import. What is adopted is the “system of doctrine.” The system of the Reformed Churches is a known and admitted scheme of doctrine, and that scheme, nothing more or less, we profess to adopt. The third view of the subject is, that by the system of doctrine contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of Christianity and nothing more.

As to the first of these interpretations it is enough to say: 1. That it is not the meaning of the words. There are many propositions contained in the Westminster Confession which do not belong to the integrity of the Augustinian, or Reformed system. A man may be a true Augustinian or Calvinist, and not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by St. Paul; or that the 18th chapter of Leviticus is still binding. 2. Such a rule of interpretation can never be practically carried out, without dividing the Church into innumerable fragments. It is impossible that a body of several thousand ministers and elders should think alike on all the topics embraced in such an extended and minute formula of belief. 3. Such has never been the rule adopted in our Church. Individuals have held it, but the Church as a body never has. No prosecution for doctrinal error has ever been attempted or sanctioned, except for errors which were regarded as involving the rejection, not of explanations of doctrines, but of the doctrines themselves. For example, our Confession teaches the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine is essential to the Reformed or Calvinistic system. Any man who denies that doctrine, thereby rejects the system taught in our Confession, and cannot with a good conscience say that he adopts it. Original sin, however, is one thing; the way in which it is accounted for, is another. The doctrine is, that such is the relation between Adam and his posterity, that all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, are born in a state of sin and condemnation. Any man who admits this, holds the doctrine. But there are at least three ways of accounting for this fact. The scriptural explanation as given in our standards is, that the “covenant being made with Adam not only for himself, but also for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.” The fact that mankind fell into that estate of sin and misery in which they are born, is accounted for on the principle of representation. Adam was constituted our head and representative, so that his sin is the judicial ground of our condemnation and of the consequent loss of the Divine image, and of the state of spiritual death in which all men come into the world. This, as it is the scriptural, so it is the Church view of the subject. It is the view held in the Latin and Lutheran, as well as in the Reformed Church, and therefore belongs to the Church catholic. Still it is not essential to the doctrine. Realists admit the doctrine, but unsatisfied with the principle of representative responsibility, assume that humanity as a generic life, acted and sinned in Adam, and, therefore, that his sin is the act, with its demerit and consequences, of every man in whom that generic life is individualized. Others, accepting neither of these solutions, assert that the fact of original sin (i.e., the sinfulness and condemnation of man at birth) is to be accounted for in the general law of propagation. Like begets like. Adam became sinful, and hence all his posterity are born in a state of sin, or with a sinful nature. Although these views are not equally scriptural, or equally in harmony with our Confession, nevertheless they leave the doctrine intact, and do not work a rejection of the system of which it is an essential part.

So also of the doctrine of inability. That man is by the fall rendered utterly indisposed, opposite, and disabled to all spiritual good, is a doctrine of the Confession as well as of Scripture. And it is essential to the system of doctrine embraced by all the Reformed Church. Whether men have plenary power to regenerate themselves; or can co-operate in the work of their regeneration; or can effectually resist the converting grace of God, are questions which have separated Pelagians, the later Romanists, Semi-Pelagians, Lutherans, and Arminians, from Augustinians or Calvinists. The denial of the inability of fallen man, therefore, of necessity works the rejection of Calvinism. But if the fact be admitted, it is not essential whether the inability be called natural or moral; whether it be attributed solely to the perverseness of the will, or to the blindness of the understanding. These points of difference are not unimportant; but they do not affect the essence of the doctrine.

Our Confession teaches that God foreordains whatever comes to pass; that he executes his decrees in the works of creation and providence; that his providential government is holy, wise, and powerful, controlling all his creatures and all their actions; that from the fallen mass of men he has, from all eternity, of his mere good pleasure, elected some to everlasting life; that by the incarnation and mediatorial work of his eternal Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the effectual working of his Spirit, he has rendered the salvation of his people absolutely certain; that the reason why some are saved and others are not, is not the foresight of their faith and repentance, but solely because he has elected some and not others, and that in execution of his purpose, in his own good time, he sends them the Holy Spirit, who so operates on them as to render their repentance, faith, and holy living absolutely certain. Now it is plain that men may differ as to the mode of God’s providential government, or the operations of his grace, and retain the facts which constitute the essence of this doctrinal scheme. But if any one teaches that God cannot effectually control the acts of free agents without destroying their liberty; that he cannot render the repentance or faith of any man certain; that he does all he can to convert every man, it would be an insult to reason and conscience, to say that he held the system of doctrine which embraces the facts and principles above stated.

The same strain of remark might be made in reference to the other great doctrines which constitute the Augustinian system. Enough, however, has been said to illustrate the principle of interpretation for which Old-school men contend. We do not expect that our ministers should adopt every proposition contained in our standards. This they are not required to do. But they are required to adopt the system; and that system consists of certain doctrines, no one of which can be omitted without destroying its identity. Those doctrines are, the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and the consequent infallibility of all their teachings; the doctrine of the Trinity, that there is one God subsisting in three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit, the same in substance and equal in power and glory; the doctrine of decrees and predestination as above stated; the doctrine of creation, viz., that the universe and all that it contains is not eternal, is not a necessary product of the life of God, is not an emanation from the divine substance, but owes its existence as to substance and form solely to his will: and in reference to man, that he was created in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and not in puris naturalibus, without any moral character; the doctrine of providence, or that God effectually governs all his creatures and all their actions, so that nothing comes to pass which is not in accordance with his infinitely wise, holy, and benevolent purposes;—the doctrine of the covenants: the first, or covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience, and the second, or covenant of grace, wherein God freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all who are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe;—the doctrine concerning Christ our Mediator, ordained of God to be our prophet, priest, and king, the head and Saviour of his Church, the heir of all things and judge of the world, unto whom he did, from eternity, give a people to be his seed, to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified, and that the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, took upon him man’s nature, so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; that this Lord Jesus Christ by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given to him;—the doctrine of free will, viz.: that man was created not only a free agent, but with full ability to choose good or evil, and by that choice determine his future character and destiny; that by the fall he has lost this ability to spiritual good; that in conversion God by his Spirit enables the sinner freely to repent and believe;—the doctrine of effectual calling, or regeneration, that those, and those only whom God has predestinated unto life, he effectually calls by his word and Spirit, from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life, renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining their wills, thus effectually drawing them to Christ; yet so that they come most freely;—and that this effectual calling is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing foreseen in man; the doctrine of justification, that it is a free act, or act of grace on the part of God; that it does not consist in any subjective change of state, nor simply in pardon, but includes a declaring and accepting the sinner as righteous; that it is founded not on anything wrought in us or done by us; not on faith or evangelical obedience, but simply on what Christ has done for us, i.e., in his obedience and sufferings unto death; this righteousness of Christ being a proper, real, and full satisfaction to the justice of God, his exact justice and rich grace are glorified in the justification of sinners;—the doctrine of adoption, that those who are justified are received into the family of God, and made partakers of the spirit and privileges of his children;—the doctrine of sanctification, that those once regenerated by the Spirit of God are, by his power and indwelling, in the use of the appointed means of grace, rendered more and more holy, which work, although always imperfect in this life, is perfected at death;—the doctrine of saving faith, that it is the gift of God, and work of the Holy Spirit, by which the Christian receives as true, on the authority of God, whatever is revealed in his word, the special acts of which faith are the receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life;—the doctrine of repentance, that the sinner out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but of the odiousness of sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does with grief and hatred of his own sins, turn from them unto God, with full purpose and endeavour after new obedience;—the doctrine of good works, that they are such only as God has commanded; that they are the fruits of faith; such works, although not necessary as the ground of our justification, are indispensable, in the case of adults, as the uniform products of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers;—the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, that those once effectually called and sanctified by the Spirit, can never totally or finally fall from a state of grace, because the decree of election is immutable, because Christ’s merit is infinite, and his intercession constant; because the Spirit abides with the people of God; and because the covenant of grace secures the salvation of all who believe;—the doctrine of assurance; that the assurance of salvation is desirable, possible, and obligatory, but is not of the essence of faith;—the doctrine of the law, that it is a revelation of the will of God, and a perfect rule of righteousness; that it is perpetually obligatory on justified persons as well as others, although believers are not under it as a covenant of works;—the doctrine of Christian liberty, that it includes freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemnation of the law, from a legal spirit, from the bondage of Satan and dominion of sin, from the world and ultimately from all evil, together with free access to God as his children; since the advent of Christ, his people are freed also from the yoke of the ceremonial law; God alone is the Lord of the conscience, which he has set free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. The doctrines concerning worship and the Sabbath, concerning vows and oaths, of the civil magistrate, of marriage, contain nothing peculiar to our system, or which is matter of controversy among Presbyterians. The same is true as to what the Confession teaches concerning the Church, of the communion of saints, of the sacraments, and of the future state, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of the final judgment.

That such is the system of doctrine of the Reformed Church is a matter of history. It is the system which, as the granite formation of the earth, underlies and sustains the whole scheme of truth as revealed in the Scriptures, and without which all the rest is as drifting sand. It has been from the beginning the life and soul of the Church, taught explicitly by our Lord himself, and more fully by his inspired servants, and always professed by a cloud of witnesses in the Church. It has moreover ever been the esoteric faith of true believers, adopted in their prayers and hymns, even when rejected from their creeds. It is this system which the Presbyterian Church is pledged to profess, to defend, and to teach; and it is a breach of faith to God and man if she fails to require a profession of this system by all those whom she receives or ordains as teachers and guides of her people. It is for the adoption of the Confession of Faith in this sense that the Old-school have always contended as a matter of conscience.

There has, however, always been a party in the Church which adopted the third method of understanding the words “system of doctrine,” in the ordination service, viz., that they mean nothing more than the essential doctrines of religion or of Christianity.

That such a party has existed is plain, 1. Because in our original Synod, President Dickinson and several other members openly took this ground. President Dickinson was opposed to all human creeds; he resisted the adoption of the Westminster Confession, and he succeeded in having it adopted with the ambiguous words, “as to all the essential principles of religion.” This may mean the essential principles of Christianity, or the essential principles of the peculiar system taught in the Confession. 2. This mode of adopting the Confession gave rise to immediate and general complaint. 3. When President Davies was in England, the latitudinarian Presbyterians and other dissenters from the established Church, from whom he expected encouragement and aid in his mission, objected that our Synod had adopted the Westminster Confession in its strict meaning. President Davies replied that the Synod required candidates to adopt it only as to “the articles essential to Christianity.”* 4. The Rev. Mr. Creaghead, a member of the original Synod, withdrew from it on the ground of this lax rule of adoption. 5. The Rev. Mr. Harkness, when suspended from the ministry by the Synod for doctrinal errors, complained of the injustice and inconsistency of such censure, on the ground that the Synod required the adoption only of the essential doctrines of the gospel, no one of which he had called in question.

While it is thus apparent that there was a party in the Church who adopted this latitudinarian principle of subscription, the Synod itself never did adopt it. This is plain, 1. Because what we call the adopting act, and which includes the ambiguous language in question, the Synod call “their preliminary act,” i.e., an act preliminary to the actual adoption of the Westminster Confession. That adoption was effected in a subsequent meeting (on the afternoon of the same day), in which the Confession was adopted in all its articles, except what in the thirty-third chapter related to the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. This is what the Synod itself called its adopting act. 2. In 1730 the Synod unanimously declared that they required all “intrants” to adopt the Confession as fully as they themselves had done. A similar declarative act of their meaning was passed in 1736. Again, in the reply to the complaints of Messrs. Creaghead and Harkness, it was asserted that the Synod never intended that the Confession should be adopted only in those articles essential to Christianity. 3. Over and over again at different periods—in the negotiations for the union of the Synod of Philadelphia and that of New York and New Jersey, both parties declared their adhesion to the whole system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession. The same thing was done in the correspondence of our Synod with that of the Dutch Reformed Church, and in their letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in which that body was assured that we had the same standard of doctrine as they had. 4. Finally, when in 1787 the General Assembly was organized, it was solemnly declared that the Westminster Confession of Faith, as then revised and corrected, was part of the CONSTITUTION of this Church. No man has ever yet maintained that in adopting a republican constitution, it was accepted only as embracing the general principles of government, common to monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies.*

---

← Chapter XIV. The Presbytery, § 6. Reordination · Contents · Chapter XIV. The Presbytery, § 8. Church Membership of Ministers →