should be adopted? Most of these confessions are sufficiently explicit on this point. In the Presbyterian church, a minister, or elder, at his ordination, is required to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith, "as containing THE SYSTEM of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures." Can the import of this declaration be misunderstood? It is certainly explicit enough for any ordinary understanding, without note or comment. The same may be affirmed of the Cambridge Platform. That was received and adopted by the pilgrim fathers, "for substance of doctrine." The expressions, "system of doctrine," and "substance of doctrine," are qualifying phrases, and speak for themselves; and if they mean any thing, they teach us, in the plain, common-sense import of the English language, that these formularies were to be received, as presenting merely the "substance" of christian doctrine,the true "system," in distinction from all opposing systems, such as the Unitarian, the Pelagian and the Arminian. If this had not been the animus of the imposer, the real intention, the terms "system" and "substance" would never have been inserted.

This is rendered still more certain, as to the Presbyterian church, by the striking departure in its terms of subscription, from those of the Church of Scotland, from which, in the words of the BIBLICAL REPERTORY, "by far the greater portion of our rules and habits are derived." Every licentiate of the Scottish church, is required to give his assent to the "whole doctrine contained in the Confession," and "to disown all other doctrines, and tenets, and opinions, whatsoever, contrary to, or inconsistent with the foresaid Confession." Now this is the kind of subscription to the assembly's formularies, which is contended for by many. But the rejection of the Scottish form, by the founders of our Presbyterian church, and the substitution of the phrase, "system of doctrine," shows conclusively, that the animus, or intention of the imposers, was directly the reverse. I wish it were in my power to quote at large the sentiments and reasonings of the BIBLICAL REPERTORY on this subject, in the number for October, 1831, p. 521. A distinction is there made, as to the leading and the explanatory parts of a confession, which has called forth not a little reproach against New-Haven divines, as if it was of their invention. "There are, with regard to every doctrine, certain constituent, formal ideas, which enter into its very nature, and the rejection of which, is the rejection of the doctrine; and there are certain others, which are merely accessory or explanatory." As to the latter, it is stated, "When the Confession was adopted by the Presbyterian church of this country, it was with the distinct understanding, that the mode of subscription did not imply strict uniformity of views." We know from President Davies, what was the practice on this subject in his day. "We allowed the candidate to maintain his objections against any part of the Confession, and the judicatures judged whether the articles objected to were essential to christianity; and if they judged they were not, they would admit the candidate, notwithstanding his objections." Later practice has been the same. The Minutes of the Presbytery of New-York, and of many others, and possibly the Records of the Princeton Board of Directors, can inform us, that the same measures have been more recently adopted in relation to some articles embraced in the Confession of Faith.

The views of the Puritan divines on this subject, are placed beyond all doubt, by the famous "Heads of Agreement," between the Presbyterians and Independents, in England, which also form a part of the Saybrook Platform. Strongly attached, as, these divines were, to their extended Confessions, they declared it sufficient "in matters of faith," to " own either the doctrinal part of those commonly called Articles of the Church of England, or the Confessions or Catechisms, shorter or longer, compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at the Savoy." By this declaration, they expressly set aside, as unessential, a considerable number of statements of an "explanatory" nature, which are contained in the Westminster Confession, but are omitted in the Thirty-Nine Articles. My limits will not permit me to collate these two formularies at length. Suffice it to say, that the "Articles" wholly omit the doctrine of Adam's being our federal head; of his sin's being imputed to his descendants; of our being in him seminally, and thus sharing in his transgression:the doctrine, that Christ's active obedience constituted a part of his atonement for sin; that the atonement operates in the way of discharging a debt, for those who are justified, and becomes effectual, by God's imputing to them the obedience and satisfaction of Christ; the doctrine, that regeneration is something antecedent to conversion, and is a change in which man is wholly passive. These, and other doctrines of an "explanatory" nature, contained in the Westminster and Savoy Confessions, were certainly regarded as important by the Puritan divines; but the ground taken in the "Heads of Agreement," shows beyond all question, that they neither considered them essential to soundness in the faith, nor necessary to be maintained, as the condition of ministerial confidence and co-operation.

But, waving all consideration of precedent and custom, it is plainly impossible, in the nature of things, to secure such conformity, in every minute article of doctrine, as is implied in any other construction of these creeds, than the one now given. The project would be perfectly chimerical. Select, for illustration, the Presbyterian church, and the Westminster Confession. Here you have a voluminous creed, embracing a vast number of doctrinal points, some essential, and some unessential, to salvation, expressed in form and language purely human, and consequently differing from the form and language of the bible. Does any mortal man believe, that the whole Presbyterian church, embracing 2150 ordained and licensed preachers, and 247,964 communicants, could be pressed, by any moral machinery, into the same human mold ? Such an effect might be produced in the Roman church, where the spiritual head thinks for all the members, and where its decrees or veto can be enforced by the iron arm of power; but among Protestants, where the current of thought is unrestrained and free, where religious investigation is not a sin, and where the bible is the only standard by which religious opinions, and even CREEDS themselves, are to be tried, no such thing is practicable. Let the question now be fairly met, -Shall every minister be deposed, and every church-member be excommunicated, who does not, ex animo, embrace every ery iota of every doctrine stated in this creed? The ground assumed and occupied by the "Act and Testimony" brethren, would seem to require it. Are they perfectly agreed among themselves? and are they quite sure, that there might not be a new war for orthodoxy, the moment the old one should be happily terminated? It might be well for them to think of this, lest a division, upon their principles, should seem to require a subdivision. But if the limited number who have subscribed this document, or given in their adhesion, (amounting to 350* ordained and licensed preachers, out of 2150,) are all perfectly agreed in every iota of doctrine, and receive the Westminster Creed, in the same sense in which they receive the bible, only, that they do not think it inspired; or, admitting they receive it with the same confidence with which they would receive the same amount of quotations from the bible; the same thing cannot be said of the Presbyterian church, as a body. What shall be done with those who disbelieve one point, or cherish a doubt on another? Shall they be cut off? Shall a minister be deposed, who rejects the doctrine of "eternal generation," and who does not believe, that this doctrine is taught in the passages referred to for proof, viz., John i. 14, 18, which were undoubtedly designed to teach the opposite sentiment? Or shall another be pronounced unsound, and be treated accordingly, who does not believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit, in his existence, from the Father and the Son; and who should dare to say, that this doctrine is not taught in John xv. 26, and Galatians iv. 6, where the mission of the Spirit into our world, and not his origin, or mode of existence, is evidently intended ?+ Questions of this character might be multiplied to any extent; but it is unnecessary to detain the reader. To attempt to bring a large body of men to entire con

formity in the extended creeds referred to, would be visionary, beyond a parallel, and was never attempted or anticipated by their framers.

Should it be said, that neither the Westminster Confession, nor the Saybrook Platform, is as large as the bible, and that we expect perfect conformity in the acknowledgment of each and every part of the bible, and why not in "the form of sound words," here presented? The reply is at hand. God made the bible, man the creeds. The first is the word of truth itself, the last is a human exposition, or commentary. These long creeds undertake to cover the whole ground of revelation; and how is it possible, that a human production, so extensive, and one that virtually professes to settle the meaning of almost the entire book of God, should be perfect in all its parts? But these are not the only disabilities under which extended Confessions of Faith lie, if they are to be considered, not as containing simply "the system" of orthodoxy, but as requiring a belief in every minute and specific sentiment they contain. The bible must be believed, whatever becomes of human creeds. Confessions of Faith, in order to be received and adopted, in all their minutiæ of statements, must not only correspond, in all their multifarious parts, with themselves, but also with the bible. Is it to be expected, that such will be the fact? This would be to make the framers more than men. But the trouble does not end here. The bible reveals facts and principles; and there they stand. These are, every where and at all times, the same. But is it so with human creeds? What are they? Not merely a recital of facts and principles, copied from the bible; but they aim at something more. They undertake to explain these revealed facts and principles. And this is done by mere men; by men uninspired. Hence human creeds are always strongly tinged with the philosophy of the age in which they are framed. It is not so with the bible. It borrows nothing from the reigning philosophy, because it has nothing to explain, nothing to reconcile. It rigidly adheres to one fixed purpose, and that is, to tell men what is truth. Hence the bible, like its author, can live the same through every age. But the sphere of human creeds, (I speak of the larger creeds, and not of categorical declarations of belief in relation to a few points,) is very different. They undertake to tell us the quo modo of the facts and principles of revelation; and consequently, the popular mental philosophy of the age will be incorporated with their very structure, and disclose itself in all their details. It is on this principle, and from not distinguishing between a Confession of Faith, that embraces a whole body of divinity, and is to be adopted as containing the true "system of doctrine," and one which comprises a few prominent points, and is to be received totidem verbis, that the philosophical

!

1

errors of one age become the theological errors of another. Add to all this, the proneness of man to pay a blind homage to antiquity, especially if its main features are grand, and good, and magnificent; and we are in possession of the real secret, why some men are almost conscience-bound not to receive a new idea on the subject of theology. Hence the cry against all improvements,一 all new light, in religion. We shall never have a new BIBLE; but we are to expect improvements in the mode of understanding and explaining the bible; and new light will continue to shine upon the holy page, with greater and greater intensity of brightness, while time shall last, and not improbably, while eternity rolls on its unwasting ages.

The question relative to the animus imponentis, may now be considered as settled, at least, so far as the intention or purpose is concerned. And who is the imposer of the confession, in the Presbyterian church, but the general assembly? And who but this body, has a right to decide upon the orthodoxy of its ministers? And this decision has been given again and again. It was the assembly, that directed the terms of subscription or adoption, and required the officers of the church to receive the Confessions of Faith in no other manner, than "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures." If any man receives and adopts the confession, in any other manner, he does something, that the imposer has not required. Ministers have, for a series of years, been received by the presbyteries, from the Congregational churches of New-England, and this reception has been sanctioned by the general assembly, the imposer of the creed, and the final judge in this case: and now, when a large proportion of its ministers are from this origin, it is too late to raise a question on this subject. Indeed the ASSEMBLY has never made any complaint. This authorized judge is satisfied with the orthodoxy of its ministers. Who, then, are these "Act and Testimony" men, that usurp the prerogatives of another, and shoulder aside the only legitimate authority, that they themselves may exercise dominion over the church, and measure its orthodoxy by their own private judgment, contrary to the first principles of the constitution? They are a few ministers and ruling elders, who believe more, and in this sense, may be considered more orthodox, than the imposer of the creed requires. These are the men who undertake, without any shadow of a claim, and unsolicited by the church, to stand forth as the conservators of the general assembly, and to become, with regard to orthodoxy and heresy, judge, and jury, and sole dictators, in every case. There is an anti-presbyterial bearing in this thing, which ought not to be looked for from any men who have not actually passed the Rubicon, and stand high and dry on the ground of secession. Taken in connection with the institutions