is this Son of man? (34). Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth (35). While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light ” (36).

(h) The neglect, the misuse, and the abuse of the last discourse of Jesus, chaps. xiii.-xvii., in the Confession of Faith, are so great that we have not the time or patience to discuss them.

The most characteristic features of the Gospel of John are overlooked in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

VII. The Confession and the Psalter.

A study of the proof-texts from the Old Testament reveals a worse state of affairs. I shall briefly refer to the citations from the Psalter. There are 102 citations from the Pentateuch, 64 from the other historical books, 98 from the Psalter, 55 from the other poetical books, and 112 from the Prophets, making 431 from the entire Old Testament against 667 from the Pauline epistles, and 495 from the rest of the New Testament. Judges, Jonah, Obadaiah, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah are not used at all; Ruth, Nahum, and Haggai but once each; Numbers, Esther, Lamentations, Joel, and Zechariah but twice each; and many of the most important passages for the Being and Attributes of God, the doctrine of Creation, the doctrine of Redemption, and the Middle State, are overlooked and neglected.

I. The Psalter is cited many times, but without any comprehensive study of its theology.

(a) It seems almost incredible that the doctrine of the Being and Attributes of God should be neglected in Pss. xxxvi. 5-9, lxxxv., lxxxix. 1-18, ciii. (used only in ver. 13), cxxxix.

(b) We are not surprised that the doctrine of the Creation is so inadequate in the Confession, when we see that there has been no use made of Pss. viii. and civ. (used only in ver. 24).

(c) The following choice Psalms, familiar in the devotions of Christendom, are not used at all: Pss. i., iii., xi., xx., xxi., xxiii., xxv., xxvii., xlii., xliii., xlvi., xlviii., lxiii., lxvii., lxviii., lxix., lxxx., lxxxiv., lxxxvii., xci., xcv.-xcix., cxviii., cxxxvi., cxlviii.

(d) The doctrine of the Future Life is overlooked in Pss. xvi., xvii., xlix.

(e) The only portions of the fifteen Pilgrim Psalms that are used are: cxxii. 9, cxxx. 3-4, cxxxii. 2−5.

The comparison makes it clear that the doctrine of the Psalter is not in the Confession.

Our study of the proof-texts of the Westminster Confession makes it evident that the Confession and the Scriptures are not in agreement. The principal fault of the Confession is its omissions. The faults that have been made in the misuse and abuse of the proof-texts may be overcome by removing those texts and substituting others in their place. If such cannot be found to prove the statements of the Confession, then let the statements that cannot be sustained by Scripture be blotted out. Revision is practicable at all these points. But it will be clear to any one who has followed this study that there are so many omissions of important doctrines of Holy Scripture, that there is such a disproportionate use of the darker and gloomier side of the Bible, and such a neglect of the brighter and more gracious side, and that there is such a difference between the Confession and the preaching of the pulpit and the reading of the Bible in our homes, that something more than revision will be required to meet the

necessities of the case, and that we must set our faces towards a new creed as the only adequate solution of the difficulties of the situation.

My beloved teacher in Systematic Theology, the late Henry B. Smith, gave the key-note to the Revision movement when he said: "What Reformed Theology has got to do is to Christologize predestination and decrees; regeneration and sanctification; the doctrine of the church; and the whole of eschatology." * The reader of this paper sees that Henry B. Smith is right. It is just in the field of Christology that the Westminster Confession is sadly defective. The Presbyterian Church - yes, the Christian world demands a creed that shall give expression to the words of Jesus, and the teachings of Peter, James, and John. The great apostle to the Gentiles will not be ignored; but Presbyterianism has advanced from the earlier Paulinism to the later, and is no longer content to sacrifice the richer doctrine of his later epistles for the less mature doctrine of his earlier writings.

*Presbyterian Review, 1884, p. 562.

IX.

A NEW CREED.

BY THE REV. CHARLES L. THOMPSON, D.D.

THE Presbyterian Church is asserting again the right which Presbyterians have always been swift to maintain; viz. the right to sit in judgment on any human declaration and bring it to the bar of "the law and the testimony." It will be a sad day when that right is seriously resisted. In defence of it, Presbyterians have been willing to die. There is only one sacred book. All councils and assemblies have erred. It is of the very genius of our church to hold them to account. The right of the examination of our standards for purposes of revision or restatement is not a new claim. It belongs to us by right of all our history.

Let it be granted there should be no examination of standards without good reason. It is believed by very many that such a reason does exist. That reason may be broadly expressed thus: The Confession of Faith no longer adequately expresses the faith of our church. There is no other explanation of the broad debate in the midst of which we find ourselves. It is the same conviction that for the past ten years, and more, has been agitating the mind and directing the action of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, the Established Church of Scotland, and the Presbyterian Church of England. This conviction is partly due to a change of position.

Every creed gets some color from its atmosphere. Every intellectual atmosphere has refracting power. We look back to the discussions of the Westminster Assembly, and while we see the general outlines of truth as they saw them, the refraction of the centuries has thrown those truths somewhat out of line and position. The battle front of that day is not the battle front of this day. They were called upon to enthrone and defend the sovereignty of God against the sovereignty of the Pope and the divine right of kings. The points for stress and emphasis now are, first, the existence of God as against an infidelity that denies Him, and secondly, the goodness and love of God as against a science that admits into its estimate of nature only an implacable law, whether that law be personal in God or impersonal in nature. We need not try to say the sovereignty of God. We cannot say it louder than nature says it. We need to say that sovereignty is wise, good, and loving.

Again, it is not only a change of emphasis that is needed. The debate is not due entirely to a change of position. Refraction breaking the line of vision does not account for the whole of it. There are some theological changes. Many are not satisfied with some expressions of the Confession of Faith; not because they are obscure or doubtful; not because their grammar or rhetoric could be improved; not because changes of time have wrought changes in the meaning or force of language. There is a good deal of disbelief of the plain and historic meaning of some of the passages. For example, there is no quarrel about divine sovereignty, general or in election. But when that sovereignty is pushed into the philosophic inferences of the third chapter in which the Confession goes on to give the reasons in God's mind for His sovereignty in election, then there is a pretty wide dissent. So also "elect