Presbyteries is not the Westminster Confession in its historic sense, is not the term of subscription in its histori cal meaning. It is the system of doctrine held by the majority of the ministers, and the term of subscription as interpreted by them. It is in general the systems of doctrine of American dogmaticians, with such measure of departure therefrom as the majority of a Presbytery may

deem it wise to allow.

The Westminster Confession was framed by divines who had no thought of requiring subscription to it. Antony Tuckney, one of the most influential Westminster divines, tells us: "In the Assemblie I gave my vote with others that the Confession of Faith put out by Authoritie should not be either required to be sworn or subscribed to; we having been burnt in the hand in that kind before, but so as not to be publickly preached or written against.'

ܙܙ

The Westminster Directory of ordination does not require subscription to the Confession. The dissenting brethren representing Congregationalism delayed the organization of the Presbyterian Church of England so long that it became impossible to construct it. If those who dissented from the doctrinal articles had prolonged the debates, the Confession would never have been composed. The Assembly would have been forced to a shorter and simpler creed, or they would have gone to their homes without agreement. Subscription was never used in the Presbyterian Church in England. Subscrip tion was not used in the Presbyterian Church of Ireland at the time when Francis Makemie came to assist New England divines in laying the foundations of the American Presbyterian Church. Subscription was imposed on

*"Eight Letters of Dr. Antony Tuckney and Dr. Benjamin Whichcote," p. 76. London, 1753.

the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1693, by Parliament, in the interest of breadth and toleration. The revolution of 1688 transformed the Episcopal Church of Scotland into a Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The term of subscription was designed to protect those of the Episcopal minority who were willing to conform, and to protect them from the intolerance of the Presbyterian majority. Terms of subscription devised in the interest of comprehension and liberty were afterwards used as means of bondage, torture, and exclusion. The American Presbyterian Church in 1729 adopted the Westminster standards in a catholic spirit.* They adopted, not the whole doctrine, but the system of doctrine; not all the articles, but the essential and necessary articles. At the time of the adoption of the Confession, they allowed exceptions to the doctrine of two different chapters,† showing in concrete cases that they used articles in a broad sense, and that we are justified in rejecting not only clauses, but sections of chapters, so far as these are not essential to the Westminster system. This historical interpretation of the terms of subscription is the law of the American Presbyterian Church, and gives the rule for the action of its Presbyteries.

The term adopted in 1788 is as follows: "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?" This is not so clear as it ought to be. It might be made more definite by inserting its historic interpretation into it. By using the phrases of the Adopting Act, the implicit meaning may be made explicit in some such way as this: "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Con

Briggs's "American Presbyterianism," pp. 216 seq.

+ Chaps. xx, and xxiii,

fession, as being in its essential and necessary articles the doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?" If the term could be thus amended, young men and elders would know what they were subscribing to. They would know that it was not the system of Turretin, or Charles Hodge, or H. B. Smith, or W. G. T. Shedd, but the Westminster System, and that the essential and necessary articles of that system are the only ones to which they are bound. The terms of subscription and Presbyterial examinations have been too often used as bars of authority to exclude from the church, when they ought to be pledges of liberty to invite men into the church and make them feel at home therein, within the limits of the essential and necessary articles of the Westminster system.

The first step in revision, therefore, should be to revise the terms of subscription, and make them definite, so that the subscriber would know that he was subscribing to the essential and necessary articles of the Westminster system. The second step should then be to define what these essential and necessary articles are. This may be done in the new creed. The new creed should (1) set forth the essential and necessary articles of the Confession, and omit all unessential and unnecessary articles; (2) give adequate expression to those doctrines that have risen into prominence since the Westminster Confession was composed. The new creed would thus be of the nature of a declaratory act in the form of a devotional and a congregational creed. It would give relief not only at two or three points, as does the Declaratory Act of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, but it would give relief at all points, for it would be as full and explicit as the Pres byterian Church of our day deems it wise to express its faith.

In our opinion it would be best not to touch the Westminster Confession, but to give our strength to the con

It is evident, however, that

struction of a new creed. there are statements in the Confession that are so offensive to many of our best ministers, elders, and people, that there is serious danger of losing them from the church. It is the duty of a Christian Church to take stumblingblocks out of the way. Our Saviour calls those children of Gehenna who strove to put barriers in the way of entering his kingdom. There are other synagogues of

Satan than the Church of Rome, there are other Antichrists than the Pope, there are other idolaters than Romanists. There are those who make an idol of the Westminster Confession. There are those in the Presbyterian Church who have the antichristian spirit of intolerance and persecution. Even a Presbyterian church may become a synagogue of Satan by excluding those who belong to Jesus Christ. The Presbyterian Church was not organized for the sake of conserving the Confession. The Confession was made by the church and for the church. It has been revised in the past. It will be revised again and again, if necessary, to relieve tender consciences. God forbid that it should ever be a yoke of bondage and a staff for oppression; therefore remove the offensive statements. This may be done for the most part by excision. Some of us shrink from the work of insertion and reconstruction. But in Christ's name let us go forward and give our young men and elders the relief they demand. We believe that the revision movement is born of God. It will be guided by the Holy Spirit. It is a great step toward a better future. It is a preparation for a new reformation of the church. It is in the direction of Christian harmony, catholicity, and unity. Jesus Christ is at the head of this movement; we shall do well if with open minds and hearts we look for His word and follow faithfully His call.

II.

DOGMATIC CONFESSIONALISM VERSUS

*

REVISION.

BY PROF. LLEWELLYN J. EVANS, D.D.

THE case against Revision of the Westminster Confession has been stated and argued by three of the leading theologians of the Presbyterian Church, — by Dr. Shedd, in an article published some time ago in the New York Evangelist; by Dr. DeWitt, of Chicago, in the Presbyterian Review, who, however, it should be noted, has since pronounced in favor of a supplementary declaration; and by Dr. Patton, in the paper read by him before the Presbyterian Social Union of New York, and published in The Independent of December 5th. What has been left unsaid against Revision by this distinguished combination is presumably not worth saying. What they have said is presumably the strongest and the best that can be said in favor of leaving our noble confessional monument untouched. Speaking generically, and with some individual qualifications, their protest may be viewed as the protest of dogma ; hence at once its strength and its weakness. A comparative analysis of this protest may have its uses for the discussion.

Such an analysis thoroughly carried out would disclose

* This has been republished in a pamphlet entitled The Proposed Revision of the Westminster Standards, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons.