The Presbyterian Standards (1896)

The aim of the following pages is to give a simple, connected exposition of the entire Westminster Standards. The Shorter Catechism is made the basis of the exposition, but the contents of the Larger Catechism and the Confession of Faith are carefully incorporated at every point. In addition, certain topics not included in the Catechisms are embraced in the Confession. Brief explanations of these topics are also made, so that the whole ground of the Standards is thereby covered.

It is not claimed that anything really new is presented in these chapters. From the nature of the case there could scarcely be. There are excellent treatises on the Confession by Hodge, Mitchell and others; while Paterson, Fisher and others have given us excellent expositions of the Shorter Catechism. But we are not aware of any book which follows closely the order of topics found in the Standards, and which at the same time weaves into a single exposition the contents of the three documents of which the Westminster symbols are composed.

It will be readily observed that in making this compend the language of the Standards has often been closely followed, and that it has at times been quoted more or less literally. At other times their statements have been expanded or condensed, explained or simplified, in order to present a somewhat compact and readable outline. Quotation marks are not used anywhere, since it is to be understood that the whole exposition is so closely conformed to the Standards as to be at times a reproduction of their form as well as of their contents.

It is the conviction of many earnest minds that there is need at the present day of careful instruction in the great doctrines of the Christian faith and life. No one who is even slightly acquainted with the movements of thought at the present time in the sphere of religious inquiry can fail to realize that there is diligent investigation, much unrest, and some scepticism. Modern scientific methods have been carried into the field of theology and applied to the subject of Christian doctrine and duty. The result is, that in certain quarters we are solemnly assured that the old ways of looking at religious questions must be changed, and that former statements of the system of doctrine must be modified, if not abandoned. We are far from saying that this earnest activity of thought upon matters pertaining to the Christian faith is altogether evil, but we are convinced that it calls for careful caution and rigorous reflection upon the various problems with which the religious teacher must engage himself at the present time. Hard work by devoted and scholarly men is absolutely necessary in interpreting and defending the faith once delivered to the saints.

In these circumstances it is important that Presbyterians should be well instructed in the contents of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, wherein their creed is clearly and fully exhibited. It may be too often true that even Presbyterians are not fully informed in regard to what their own creed contains. In proportion as this is true, it must prove a source of weakness; and a diligent study of the Standards should be undertaken at once in order to remedy this. It is hoped that this book may, in some measure, foster and further this study.

That other branches of the church of Christ are often sadly ignorant of Presbyterian doctrine and practice, and because of this ignorance often misconstrue and caricature Presbyterianism, must be confessed. Such ignorance and misconstruction are the main causes of the erroneous impressions of the Presbyterian system which so often prevail in other churches. It is hoped that an outline like this may be found of some service in removing part of this ignorance and correcting a few of these misconstructions, for some may read this outline who would not peruse the Standards themselves with any care.

It may be proper to say that, whilst all through this exposition care is taken to explain the various teachings of the Standards, equal care is exercised not to explain away anything which they contain. It is assumed that the system of doctrine which they exhibit is generic and consistent Calvinism, and due diligence is exercised to present this system in its entirety and proper proportions. That there are difficulties inherent in the very nature of the case is not denied, nor is any attempt made to evade these difficulties. From time to time in the course of the exposition of this consistent and scriptural system, it will be suggested that the same and more serious difficulties press even more fatally against every other system. Hence, the Calvinistic system is seen to commend itself to thoughtful minds as the sound philosophy of nature and providence, and as the true interpretation of the Scriptures and of religious experience. This system has a philosophic completeness, a scriptural soundness, and an experimental accuracy which afford it strong logical confirmation, and give it secure rational stability. It may be safely said that no other system can justify so fully this high claim, for even those who profess no sympathy with the Calvinistic system have never yet been able to present a better one for our acceptance.

It is humbly hoped that Bible class and Sabbath-school teachers may find this book of some value to them in their important work. It may give them in a simple, systematic form a useful summary of the doctrines and practices as well as of the ethics and polity of the Presbyterian Church. In connection with the International Series of Lessons, where doctrinal teaching is not usually made prominent, the need of some such book as this may be felt.

For the members of Young Peoples’ Societies this outline of Presbyterian belief may be found of some service in supplying that doctrinal teaching which, with God’s blessing, is so important for advance in the Christian life and for effective service in the Master’s name. In addition, the various office-bearers of the church often desire to be instructed in the doctrines and practices of the church they seek to serve. This book has also been prepared with this important end in view, and the hope is cherished that not a few of these earnest men may be helped by what its pages contain.

Two introductory chapters are added for those who may care to read them. One of these gives a brief history of the chief creeds of the Christian church, and the other seeks to explain the nature and uses of such creeds. These chapters are intended to prepare the way for a more intelligent and sympathetic study of the Westminster Standards, which constitute the creed of the Presbyterian churches. An index has also been added for purposes of speedy reference to the contents of the volume.

This book is sent forth with the earnest prayer that it may be of some service to those who are seeking to advance Christ’s kingdom on the earth. May the Lord bless its contents to his own glory and the good of the church.

Francis R. Beattie.

Louisville, Ky.

The proposed exposition of the Presbyterian Standards has been completed. A closing chapter may be devoted to some remarks based upon this exposition. Some general features of the contents of the Standards as a whole may be signalized now, in a more intelligent way than was possible prior to the exposition. A very brief summary of these contents may be first given.

At the outset, a chapter was devoted to a brief history of the creeds of the Christian church, and another to the nature and uses of religious creeds. Then the topics were taken up according to the general order of the Shorter Catechism, and the contents of the Larger Catechism and Confession of Faith were carefully woven into the discussion throughout. In addition, some topics set forth in the Confession alone were also explained, so as to make the exposition complete. Then the several topics of Christian doctrine were unfolded in an orderly way. The doctrine of Holy Scripture came naturally first, then God and his attributes followed, together with an explanation of the Trinity. The decrees and their execution came next in order, to be followed by the outline of the covenant of works, and man’s failure and fall in that covenant relation, together with an exposition of original sin. Then the covenant of grace came into view, and this led to an exposition of the person and work of the mediator of that covenant, under the three official relations of prophet, priest, and king, together with an outline of his humiliation and exaltation. This led to the nature and free agency of man, and to the important matter of effectual calling, and union with Christ. Then came the benefits of Christ in justification, adoption, and sanctification, together with faith and repentance. This was followed, very properly, by some explanation of good works, perseverance, and assurance. Next came the law of God and Christian liberty, to be followed by the communion of saints and religious worship. The means of grace was the topic next explained, and this led to an exposition of the ten commandments, and of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper at some length. After this a variety of topics, expounded chiefly in the Larger Catechism and Confession, were explained in regard to the church, her censures, her synods and councils, and her relation to the state. The exposition concluded with some explanations of death, the intermediate state, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment.

The first general remark to be made is the obvious one that the Standards, taken as a whole, are exceedingly comprehensive in their scope. They set forth with great fulness the teaching of the Scriptures in regard to the three great departments of the Christian religion. First, A very comprehensive statement of the doctrines of the Scriptures is given. These relate to God and his plan and its execution, to man and his fallen moral state, to Christ and his redeeming work, and to the results of that work both for this life and for that which is to come. Secondly, A very complete and detailed code of morals or Christian ethics is unfolded. The Scriptures are thereby regarded not only as a rule of faith, setting forth the doctrines to be believed, but also as a rule of life, unfolding the principles or laws which are to guide men in all they think and say and do. The summary of this rule is the ten commandments, and therein man’s duty to God and to his fellowmen is explained with much care, both on the positive and negative sides. And, Thirdly, The general principles of the government, discipline, and worship of the church are exhibited. This department of religious truth is not so fully wrought out in the Standards as the other two, yet many important matters in harmony with the Presbyterian system are propounded and enforced. The discussion of the sacraments is unusually complete, and is one of the great excellencies of the Standards in comparison with other creeds. In this way it appears that doctrine, ethics, and polity are all embraced in the Standards. Matters of faith, duty, and worship are all explained.

In the second place, the Standards constitute a definite creed with a catholic spirit. That there is definiteness about the creed is evident from the exposition made. Some have found fault with the clear-cut form in which the doctrines are expressed, and with the minute way in which the rules for the conduct of life are set forth. Some have even been displeased with the general way in which matters of polity, especially in regard to the relations between church and state, are defined in the Standards. It is freely admitted that the doctrines are definite, that the ethical system is strict, and that the doctrine of the church is lofty and pure; but these features may be justly claimed to be excellencies rather than defects, so long as it can be shown that they are founded on and agreeable to the word of God, as we believe them to be.

Then, on the other hand, it is equally evident that the spirit of the Standards is of the broadest and most charitable nature. They give lofty views of God; they present honest descriptions of sin; they unfold a full, free gospel; they outline a high ideal of life and destiny; they exhibit a very exalted conception of the church of Christ; and yet all through there breathes the spirit of true freedom and a large liberty. The doctrine of the invisible church, and of the oneness of all who are members of that phase of the church which is the body of Christ, lays the basis for the communion of saints, and of the standing of all these members in Christ, no matter by what name they may be known. He that is true to the spirit of the Standards may have strong convictions in matters of religion, but he can never be a bigot, or persecute, for religion’s sake, any true believer in Christ. The doctrine of the sacraments, especially of the Lord’s supper, and the conditions of its observance, exhibits the same catholicity. All who love the Lord Jesus Christ, and who trust and obey him, are made welcome at the Lord’s table. He that is true to the teaching and spirit of the Standards in this connection can never be an advocate of close communion, nor exhibit towards his brethren in Christ the temper of the Pharisee. Such is the catholic spirit of the Standards.

A third general remark is to the effect that the application of the contents of the Standards to individual, domestic and national life produces the highest and most beneficent results. The individual man who is consciously a freeman in Christ, and who enjoys the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free, can never be a coward or a slave; and he whose life is framed according to the ethical rules of the Standards will be found glorifying God in his body, soul and spirit as his reasonable service.

In the case of the home, he that follows the teaching of the Standards in regard to the duties of the domestic circle, whether it be those of parents or those of children, will find that the home life is properly regulated. Hence it is that wherever this teaching has prevailed, and regulated domestic life, that life is seen at its very best. Nowhere is the home so sacred and its life so pure as in those communities in which the doctrines of the Standards have been believed, and their ethical teaching observed in the family circle. History and observation abundantly confirm this position.

In regard to national life, the same thing is true on a larger scale. The teaching of the Standards in regard to civil government balances in a fitting manner the largest degree of individual liberty, and the necessary measure of control requisite for free yet stable national life and action. The form of church polity which the Standards exhibit has the same balanced structure, so that religious and national life, each in its own sphere, has the same stable adjustment. Those whose spirit is tempered by the teaching of the Standards cannot long be the subjects of oppression, nor will they, if in the place of authority and power, be the instruments of tyranny. History abundantly confirms this on both sides. Presbyterians, as a matter of fact, have always been the friends of freedom and the foes of oppression. Again and again they have fought the world’s battle for religious freedom and civil liberty. This is the result not merely of the doctrines and ethics of the system which the Standards unfold, but also of the clear manner in which the provinces of church and state are marked out. The sphere of each is plainly prescribed, and the true basis of the nature and ends of civil government is laid down, so that neither is allowed to usurp the functions or invade the sphere of the other. Hence it is that those branches of the church which have been moulded by the true reformed doctrine contained in the Standards, and which have been permeated with its spirit, have led the van in the world’s onward progress in intelligence, morality and self-government. They have been the pioneers in all that goes to lift up mankind to its divine ideal, and to supply it with a lofty motive to live for the glory of God and the welfare of men the world over.

In the fourth place, a few things may be properly said now in regard to the general type of doctrine which the Standards exhibit. Speaking generally, it may be described as typical Calvinism, using the term Calvinism in its historical rather than in its personal sense. The type of doctrine in the Standards is neither high Calvinism nor low Calvinism. It is generic, consistent, well-balanced Calvinism. Therein there is no special effort to reconcile seeming contradictions, which lie in the nature of things, but the utmost care is taken to exhibit in proper proportions the complete teaching of the Scriptures, alike in regard to the human and divine factors which enter into the system. This is what is meant by consistent, well-balanced Calvinism.

In regard to the doctrine of election, which is the divine sovereignty operative in the sphere of man’s redemption, the doctrine of the Standards is sublapsarian rather than supralapsarian. Men are not, in the order of thought, elected and then created, but viewed as already created and fallen, and then elected or passed by. The order of the facts in the Catechisms entirely confirms this view, while the Confession, though it states the whole doctrine of the decrees in a single chapter before it sets forth the doctrine of creation, is not supralapsarian in its type of doctrine. As a creed statement it simply states the whole doctrine of the decrees in a single chapter, but does not thereby intend to adopt the supralapsarian order of the various factors.

In reference to the matter of our race relation to Adam and his sin and fall, the Standards are not absolutely committed to any one of several theories in regard to the facts. The fact that sin, guilt, and misery have come upon the whole race by reason of its connection with our first parents and their apostasy is plainly asserted, yet the Standards may be harmonized with either of several theories in regard to the fact. While we are clearly of the opinion that what is termed the immediate imputation theory is most consistent with the contents of the Standards, and especially with the covenant principle upon which they are constructed, yet we would be far from maintaining that the theory of mediate imputation, of generic unity, or of concurrence is to be regarded as heresy.

So, in like manner, broad middle ground is taken in the Standards in regard to the atonement. The fact that the sufferings and death of Christ are sacrificial and vicarious, and a satisfaction to the divine justice, is emphasized in various ways in different parts of the Standards, but they are not absolutely committed to any single theory in regard to that important scriptural fact. This being the case, there is some room for diversity of opinion in regard to the precise nature of the atonement, as a sacrifice for sin, and as a propitiation to the divine justice and an expiation for human guilt. In regard to the design or extent of the atonement, the doctrine of the Standards is more definite. So far as the efficacy of the death of Christ and the application of its benefits are concerned, the Standards always confine these to the elect. For them alone Christ efficaciously died and made full satisfaction. Still, even here, there is nothing to hinder the view that, in addition to the sure benefits of salvation secured to the elect by the death of Christ, there are also benefits of various kinds which come even to the non-elect, whose final condemnation is, nevertheless, grounded upon their wilful sin and continued impenitence.

So, also, in regard to the doctrines of grace in the recovery of the sinner, the Standards assert constantly the necessity and efficacy of sovereign grace to renew and recover the sinner. Yet, at the same time, the mode in which the Standards describe the operation of that grace shows clearly that it works in no mere mechanical way, but in entire harmony with the mental and moral powers of man. This grace operates so as to make men both able and willing to receive and obey the gospel. Here, too, the Standards take middle ground between historically extreme opinions. In regard to perseverance and assurance, the same statement is true. Careful middle ground is held in all these important matters of doctrine and experience.

In regard to the much-debated question of the second advent of Christ, while we understand the Standards to teach the postmillennial view in a general way, and that the framers of the Standards intended to teach this view, still we admit that, from the way in which the Standards state their doctrine, premillennial views may not be condemned as seriously contra-confessional. The debate concerning this topic was not really broached in the Westminster Assembly in a formal way, so that the Standards are content to teach in a positive way the postmillennial view, and to remain silent in regard to the premillennial doctrine. Premillennialism is extra-confessional rather than contra-confessional. At the same time, we are constrained to add that in our own judgment the teaching of the Standards is more in harmony with the Scripture than premillennialism is. Many good men hold the latter doctrine. Some Scriptures seem to teach or favor it, but many other Scriptures teach the opposite doctrine, and we believe the doctrine of the Standards best exhibits the teaching of the whole Scripture upon this point.

In regard to ethics, some may be inclined to regard the teachings of the Standards as Puritan in their nature and requirements. Yet it may be successfully maintained that the Standards hold a consistent middle position between legalism and license. The experience of the great ethical principles set forth in the Standards, and the operations of the spirit of Christian liberty which they inculcate, secure this well-balanced result in life. The legitimate scope of the freedom of the Christian man, and the clear statement of the will of Christ set forth in the Standards, together conduce to this end. The spirit of ready obedience to the will of Christ as the rule of life and conversation is generated, so that a free and vigorous Christian life and experience is the result.

The polity of the Standards is generic Calvinism, for Calvinism is a polity as well as a doctrinal system. The polity is broad and comprehensive in its nature, securing stable government, and the liberty of the people in their balanced and harmonious relations.

In the fifth place, it is interesting to make inquiry in regard to the constructive principle of the Standards. In the interests of theology this is an important inquiry. The subjects treated of in the Standards are not formally classified into heads or divisions. The Catechisms have an implicit classification of the topics into two general divisions. The one relates to what man is to believe concerning God, and the other pertains to the duty which God requires of man. The Confession has no formal classification at all, but in its statement goes on through doctrine, duty, worship, and polity, chapter by chapter, without any division of topics.

The inquiry now raised may be considered from a twofold point of view: First, A general view of the principle upon which the entire Standards are constructed may be taken. Here what may be termed the theocentric principle rules. Everything is from God, is subject to God, and is for the glory of God. The absolute sovereignty of God in creation, in providence, and in grace, is the fundamental idea of the Standards. He is sovereign in the sphere of natural or physical government, and in the realm of moral government, as well as in the domain of his spiritual redemptive government. Thus the sovereignty of God, rightly regarded and applied, is the root idea of the generic Calvinism of the Standards, and it supplies their constructive principle. The first question in the Catechisms strikes the key-note, and the entire contents of the Standards are in harmony with this view. God is the ruler of nature, and he is the Lord of the head, the heart, the conscience, and the life of all men. He is also King of kings and Lord of lords, as well as the king and head of his church. The theocentric principle is the constructive principle of the Standards as a whole, and it gives great majesty and remarkable completeness to the doctrines, ethics, and polity which they contain.

Secondly, A narrower or special view of the constructive principle of the Standards may be taken. This raises the question of the central principle of the redemptive scheme which they unfold. In general, this is the Christo centric idea or principle. Redemption centres in, and flows from, Christ. The incarnation is in order to redemption, and Christ is the sum and substance of redemption. If the question be further raised as to what particular form of the Christo centric scheme the Standards exhibit, the answer is to the effect that they set forth the federal or covenant idea, in its general broad outlines. The federal principle in its general outline, rather than in definite detail, is adopted in the Standards. Both the Adamic and the Christic relations are construed in the Standards under the federal principle. Adam was the natural root and the federal or representative head of the race, and his failure in that covenant relation brought guilt and depravity upon the whole human race. And Christ, the second Adam, is the federal or representative head of his elect people, and by his obedience, death, and intercession he obtains for them, and applies to them, all the redemptive benefits which are secured for his seed by the provisions of the covenant of grace. This, in general, is the federal principle. It is applied in the Standards alike to the first Adam and to Christ, the second Adam. Both hold covenant relations, and both represent and act for others. The first Adam acted for the race, the second for the covenant seed. This twofold covenant idea is that according to which the Standards construct their redemptive scheme. It explains the facts of sin in which the race is involved through Adam, and it accounts for the facts of redemption which come through Jesus Christ, the mediator of the covenant. The Standards, therefore, while Christo centric in regard to their redemptive scheme, at the same time represent what may be termed the generic federal phase of that scheme. Whatever theologians come finally to think of this scheme, one thing may be safely said, and that is, that there has not yet been presented any other scheme which is more entirely scriptural, which is more consistent and comprehensive, and which more adequately accounts for all the facts of sin and redemption, than that type of the federal theology represented by the Standards.

In the sixth place, it is proper to emphasize the ethical system of the Standards, especially as it is found in the Catechisms. In most treatises on theology so much prominence is given to doctrine that the ethical side of religion is often left in the background. Indeed, the whole department of Christian ethics is often relegated to a different department altogether, and receives treatment apart from theology. The Standards do not so regard this topic, nor do they so treat it, but they deal with the practical as well as with the doctrinal side of religion. This is a very important matter, and it deserves careful consideration at the hands of those who are drawing up treatises on theology. Then, too, it is evident that no attempt to formulate a code of Christian ethics apart from the ten commandments, especially as interpreted by Christ, can succeed. The Standards in this connection deserve high commendation. The manner in which the ten commands are expounded in the Standards is fitted to develop strong and sturdy Christian character, wherein virtue and righteousness shall be the ruling principles. Moreover, the ethical system therein unfolded fits men to fulfil their duties in all the relations of life in the very best way, whether it be in the home, in the state, or in the church. The importance of teaching children these things, and of expounding them from the pulpit, and enforcing them in all legitimate ways, is evident in this connection. Even theological instruction given to young ministers should not overlook the importance of this branch in its teachings.

In the seventh place, a remark in regard to the finality of the Standards ought to be made in this connection. Highly as they are to be admired and regarded, and valuable and useful as they are as a matter of fact, still the position should not be dogmatically taken that they are a finality. They contain the most complete and scriptural outline of Christian doctrine to be found in any of the great creeds; and we are inclined to think that none of our modern theologians have made any notable or valuable additions to the system of the Standards, yet no one should hold that they are perfect in form and contents. It may even be confessed that the more one studies the Standards the more one will admire their logical consistency and scriptural completeness, and the more one will marvel at the insight of the men who framed them into Holy Scripture, and into the philosophical soundness of the principles which underlie the doctrinal system; yet at the same time it may be held that the Standards, being the productions of the hands of godly and learned men, who were illuminated by the Spirit, though not inspired, cannot be regarded as infallible. They are the product of an assembly or council of the church, and, as the Standards themselves say, such councils are liable to err; so that the Standards, even by their own claim, are not to be regarded as perfect or necessarily final. And while the Holy Spirit does dwell in the church, and is promised to keep and lead it aright, yet this promise does not mean that the church is inspired. If the church may not claim inspiration and infallibility, then the Standards, being the product of the church, cannot be infallible.

The Standards, therefore, are not to be placed on a par with the Scriptures, much less are they to be put above the inspired word of God. They are not necessarily a finality, as the word of God is a finality. The Standards express for the time being the general outline of divine truth, which the church, taught by the Holy Ghost, finds in the Scriptures. The Spirit may lead into new views of the truths of God’s word and of their relations and connections, and he may enable the church more fully to understand the mind of the Lord as revealed in the Scriptures. When this result has been clearly reached, the time may have come for the revision of the Standards, either by omission, addition, or change. But, in the meantime, till that stage is actually reached, the Standards constitute for the church the definite doctrinal system under which it lives and does its work, as its interpretation of the teaching of Holy Scripture. But this does not hinder the church from holding the door open, or at least unlocked, for new light to shine in from the lamp of revelation, and if such light comes, the Standards may be modified in order more fully to express the contents of Scripture. That the time is now at hand for such a revision or readjustment can scarcely be maintained. But to assert that such a time shall never come may not be wise. What, in our judgment, is much needed in many quarters is a more diligent study of the contents of the Standards, and a careful observation, in the light of the Scripture proofs, of the scriptural and comprehensive nature of the Catechisms and Confession alike. If such study and observation be made, the result will, in all probability, be that the supposed need for revision will be very much less sensibly felt than it was prior thereto. The simple point contended for here is, that all creeds and confessions are fallible; that Holy Scripture alone is the supreme rule of faith and life; that the Holy Spirit who first gave the Scriptures dwells in the church; that the Spirit may lead the church in the future, as he has in the past, into new and larger views of the truth contained in the Scriptures; and that these new and larger views may, if deemed necessary, be incorporated by the church in a creed statement. The Scripture, as the supreme rule, is complete, infallible, and final, and can in no way be added to, but the church may, in coming ages, be led into a fuller knowledge of the will of God and the mind of the Spirit therein contained. This is virtually the view the Standards themselves take, when they confess that synods and councils of the church may err, and have erred.

In the last place, the expression of an opinion may be ventured in regard to the bearing of the Standards upon the question of a closer union among the various branches of the church of Christ. The opinion ventured is to the effect that if the various branches of Protestantism are ever to be brought together, it must be on the broad middle ground represented by the general teaching which the Standards exhibit in regard to doctrine, worship, ethics and polity. This may seem a bold and foolhardy assertion of an ill-grounded opinion, but we are inclined to think that a good case can be made out for it. A few hints may suggest the line of reasoning in its support.

In the matter of doctrine, history shows that the choice has always been between extremes, the one honoring God, and the other exalting man. As to the Trinity, it has been between definite Trinitarianism and Socinianism. As to Christ’s person and work, it has been between Calvinism and Arminianism. As to man, it has been between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. And so with all the doctrines of grace, the choice lies between a purely natural theory and a supernatural one. Now, consistent generic Calvinism has always honored God, and held fast by a true scriptural supernaturalism, and if ever the churches are to come together without loss of scriptural doctrine and spiritual force, they must take their stand on this doctrinal basis. In our judgment this ground cannot be deserted, even if the price should be a divided Protestantism. In such a case union might be weakness, and not strength. Doctrinal union on the basis of generic Calvinism would be immense gain of strength.

In regard to polity, perhaps a still better case can be made out for the essential principles of the Presbyterian system as the common meeting-place for all branches of Protestantism. The Standards clearly hold a middle position in this sphere, between Episcopacy, with its orders in the ministry, and Independency, with its denial of the corporate idea of the visible church. The Standards undoubtedly hold the middle ground here; and, so far as the unification of Protestantism is concerned on the side of polity, the principles of the Standards, call them Presbyterian, or by any other name, supply the middle meeting-place. Presbyterianism, as a spiritual republic, avoids the dangers of hierarchical pretension which arise from the prelatic system, and it avoids the dangers of separatism and isolation which are sure to flow from Independency. Other features in Presbyterian polity need not be dwelt on at length.

In the sphere of ethics, too, the same claim can be made good, that the position of the Standards in regard to life and conduct is a safe middle one. They hold the balance between asceticism and epicureanism, between legalism and license. They set forth principles of action rather than minute prohibitions for the direction of the conduct of the Christian man, and yet the statement of these principles is such as to render loose living impossible. The men who have made a mark upon their age for moral good have nearly always been men whose lives were under the dominion of the redemptive and ethical system contained in the generic Calvinism of the Standards. This is another valid plea for unity among Protestants on the ethical basis of the Westminster Standards.

And, finally, in regard to worship and discipline, a good case may also be made out for union upon the basis of the Standards. Simplicity and spirituality of worship are emphasized in the Standards, and they present a scheme of discipline in outline which secures the purity of the church wherever it is administered. The evils of ritualism are avoided on the one hand, and everything is done decently and in order on the other. Spirituality of worship and the preaching of pure scriptural doctrine in all its fulness is what men need, both for this life and for that which is to come. This position the Standards hold, and so supply another plea for the unity of Protestantism on the basis they provide. Thus outlined, this plea is left to speak further for itself.

The exposition of the Standards is now complete, together with the inferences made in this concluding chapter. It is hoped that in no respect has injustice been done to their contents, and that the word and Spirit of God have not been dishonored. If an increased interest in, knowledge of, and devotion to, the system of divine and saving truth exhibited in the Standards is produced by these pages of simple exposition, their aim will have been attained.

Two hundred and fifty years have passed away since the Westminster Assembly met and did its noble work. During these years the world has seen wonderful changes, and the human race has, in various ways, made remarkable progress. Civil liberty has in many lands been planted on a sure foundation, intellectual activity has gained much splendid renown, commercial energy has conquered many an unexplored region, and missionary zeal has reached out to the ends of the earth. How much of all this is due to the silent and salutary operation of the Reformed doctrine, polity and ethics can scarcely be estimated. The verdict of history tells the splendid story. And to-day, the world over, there are many millions of people who accept the system of Reformed doctrine and Presbyterian polity of which the Standards are such a complete exposition. Generic Calvinism is not dying out, nor shall it be allowed to die. Its noble history, often bathed in tears and baptized with blood; its deep philosophy of the facts of nature, of providence, and of grace; and its absolute submission to the will of God as made known in the Scriptures, guarantee its vitality and efficiency till time shall be no more, and grace be fully crowned in glory.

Before the exposition of the doctrines contained in the Westminster Catechisms and Confession of Faith is entered on, some account of the origin and contents of the leading doctrinal symbols of the Christian church in its various branches may be of interest and value. In particular, the history of the Westminster Assembly, and of the work which it did, as exhibited by the Catechisms and Confession, is in a measure necessary to the intelligent exposition of the doctrinal system which they unfold.

In this connection it is interesting to notice the modes by which the great creeds have usually been produced. Historically, there seem to have been three chief methods according to which they have come into existence. First, In some cases creeds, or statements of Christian doctrine, seem to have been formed as an attempt to express, at certain periods, the mind of the Christian community in regard to the doctrines contained in the sacred Scriptures. It is likely that the Apostles’ Creed and some later doctrinal symbols came into existence in this way. Secondly, In other cases certain summaries of Christian doctrine seem to have been prepared for purposes of religious instruction. These catechetical statements of religious truth evidently arose from a desire to have a simple, orderly outline of the elements of the Christian system for purposes of instruction in holy things. Such catechisms were usually intended for the young. Thirdly, In most cases the great historical creeds were forged in the fires of controversy. The great credal statements of divine truth made in patristic times nearly all originated in this way. The elaborate symbolic documents of the Reformation period very generally had the same violent origin. In proof of this we need but recall the circumstances under which the Nicene Creed, the Augsburg Confession, and the Canons of Dort were formulated. It is proper to add that, although these three modes of creed formation are to be observed in the history of the church, yet as a matter of fact they ought not to be entirely separated, inasmuch as more than one of these purposes may, to a certain extent, be served by any single creed, confession, or catechism.

In giving a brief description of the most important religious creeds, those symbols other than the Westminster Standards will be first described in a very general way, and then a somewhat more detailed account of the origin of the Westminster Catechisms and Confession will be given.

I. The Creeds other than the Westminster Standards.

In describing these creeds they may be arranged under three heads, following the order of their historical sequence. These three heads represent the ancient, mediæval, and modern periods respectively.

1. A Description of the Ancient Creeds.

In the New Testament age the germs of a creed, or confession of faith, may be seen in the personal confessions of Peter and Thomas. In the early apostolic age these germs were doubtless expanded in various ways, and thus the earliest Christian creeds were formulated. The creeds to be considered under this head are those which came into existence during the period when the church remained undivided. On this account these doctrinal symbols are known as the ecumenical creeds. At the present day they are generally regarded as the precious heritage of all branches of Christendom. Mention is now to be made of the more important of these summaries of religious truth.

(a), The Apostles’ Creed.

This ancient statement of the leading facts or doctrines of the Christian system has usually been held in high esteem. Though not inspired, it has a place beside the ten commandments and the Lord’s Prayer in the literature of the early apostolic age. Though it bears the name of the apostles, there is little reason to believe that it was drawn up, as we now have it, by them. Still less is there ground for believing the old tradition that each of its significant clauses was produced by one of the apostles, and that the whole was formed by putting these clauses together. This creed appears in several different forms, and has always been held in greater reverence by the Western church than by the Eastern, since the division between them. In early times it was used in connection with the rite of baptism, and it is found incorporated in nearly every subsequent creed. At the present day many of those who advocate a comprehensive reunion of divided Christendom propose this creed as a doctrinal basis for the unified church of Christ.

(b), The Nicene Creed.

This important symbol is the product of the first General Council of the Christian church, and like many other ancient creeds has passed through several forms. It has always been regarded with favor by the Eastern church. In its original form it dates from the year 325 A. D. In its Nicene-Constantinopolitan form it comes to us from the second General Council, held at Constantinople in the year 381 A. D. It received its final form and general recognition at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451 A. D. As it now exists, the great difference between its Eastern and Western form is the presence of the word filioque (and the Son) in the latter, and its absence from the former. It seems pretty clear that this word was not in its original form, since the first distinct trace of it is found in the proceedings of the third Council of Toledo, in the year 589 A. D. In these great historical statements of religious truth the doctrine of the Trinity was stated in the Nicene Creed in such a way as to lay emphasis upon the deity of the second person, and then the person of Christ is further defined in the creeds of Constantinople and Chalcedon.

(c), The Athanasian Creed.

The origin of this creed is almost as obscure as that of the Apostles’ Creed. Since about the ninth century it has been popularly ascribed to Athanasius, but there is no good reason to believe that it came from his hand, or that it existed till long after his time. Indeed, it seems to presuppose the great trinitarian and christological creeds already mentioned. To a large extent it repeats their contents, and adds some of the views of Augustine concerning the incarnation of Christ. In addition, it contains some strong damnatory clauses quite unlike anything in the creeds which precede it. This creed was held in high esteem in the Latin or Western churches, and in some of the Reformed creeds it received marked approval. This is specially the case in the Lutheran Form of Concord and in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.

The three great ecumenical ancient creeds have been described. The most important of these is the Nicene symbol in its various forms. The next period in the history of the church is one very prolific in the production of creeds, confessions, and catechisms.

2. The Mediæval Creeds.

Under this head we place some creeds which might very properly be classed as ancient. But as they arose after Christendom began to divide into its eastern and western branches, it may be best to put them with the mediæval creeds. These creeds may be naturally divided into two classes, as represented by the Eastern, or Greek church, and by the Western, or Roman church. In both cases the final statements were not reached till after the Reformation, still the explanations to be made may be very properly ranked under the two heads just mentioned.

(a), The Eastern or Greek Creeds.

Three of the great creeds of the early church have already been explained, and four others are to be considered in connection with the doctrinal products of the Eastern church. After the division between the east and the west, the eastern branch in the course of time came to be known as the Greek church, but its adherents are now to be found in all the old eastern lands, and throughout the Russian empire, where it is the established religion. A great many creeds and confessions might be mentioned here, but only brief summaries can be made. The four great creeds above referred to were produced at four celebrated councils, viz.: Ephesus, 431 A. D., Second Constantinople, 553 A. D., Third Constantinople, 682 A. D., Second Nice, 787 A. D.

In addition to the seven ecumenical creeds, excluding the filioque clause, the following may be mentioned as important, viz.: The Orthodox Confession, by Peter Mogilas, 1643 A. D., The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672 A. D. The latter is a very important document. Mention may also be made of the Russian Catechisms, published 1839 A. D.

There are also some less important confessions of a somewhat local or private nature which need scarcely be named. There are also some interesting statements of doctrine made in reply to some approaches for sympathy and union made by the Lutheran branch of the Reformation. So far these approaches have been in vain, for the Greek church remains immovable, or indifferent to the overtures made by the Lutherans.

The creed of the Synod of Jerusalem contains eighteen articles, and is a full statement of the doctrines of the Greek church in Russia at the present day. The two chief catechisms used in Russia at present are that of Platon, issued in 1813 A. D., and that of Philaret, published in its final form 1839, as above noted.

Attempts to come to a doctrinal agreement with the Greek church, whether made by the Roman, the Lutheran, or the Reformed branches of Christendom, have all failed. What may be the result of the efforts of the present pope remains to be seen.

(b), The Western or Roman Creeds.

This great branch of Christendom accepts the historic ecumenical, or council creeds, including the filioque clause respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit. In addition, the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, published in 1564 A. D., hold a high place among the Roman creeds. They were projected specially against the doctrines of the Reformation, and are cast in the form of anathemas. This council sat for twenty years, and its decisions, both as to doctrine and discipline, were intended to check the progress of the Lutheran and Reformed doctrines.

The Professio Fidei Tridentinæ is an outcome of the same council. It consists of the Nicene Creed and eleven other articles. The Roman Catechism also grew out of this great council, and was issued in 1566. It was intended for the religious instruction of the people, and it is made up of four parts, treating of the Apostles’ Creed, of the Sacraments, of the Decalogue, and of the Lord’s Prayer.

Other catechisms by Canisius and Belarmine are also in use among Romanists. Then the bulls of the popes, issued from time to time, and the decrees of recent councils in regard to the immaculate conception, passed in 1854, and of the papal infallibility, passed in 1870, are also of importance in this connection. There have also grown out of the controversies between Jansenist and Jesuit, and between Ultramontane and Gallican, other statements of doctrine and practice which have also their value as parts of the Romish creed. The Vatican Council of 1870 has much importance in this regard, as it virtually clothed the pope with power to make religious creeds, and to settle the doctrines of the church. Against this extreme action the old Catholics have always made their stand.

(c), Modern Reformation Creeds.

Here the field is very extensive, for the Reformation, both in its Lutheran and Reformed branches, was very fruitful in the production of creeds and confessions. A brief sketch of the chief of these, with the exception of the Westminster Standards, will be given in this section.

(a), The Lutheran Creeds and Catechisms.

As very important among these, the ancient ecumenical creeds are to be included. These have already been described, so that the discussion of the creed products of Lutheranism may be at once begun.

The Augsburg Confession, drawn up in 1530, rightly stands first. It was first called an Apology, and it was prepared chiefly by the hand of Melancthon, no doubt with the full approval, and perhaps by the assistance of Luther himself. As a statement of Reformation doctrine it is of very great importance. It consists of two parts. The first is positive, or dogmatic. The second part is largely negative, rejecting the main tenets of Romanism in seven articles.

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession followed soon after, appearing in 1531. It was prepared by Melancthon in order to defend the Confession from the assaults which the Romish theologians had made upon it. It is a splendid production, and in some respects it is judged by many to be superior to the Confession itself. As a complete refutation of the Romish theologians it was entirely successful.

The Catechisms of Luther, issued in 1529, are of much importance in their bearing upon religious instruction. They are the heralds of many such outlines of Christian doctrine produced by the Reformation, and intended for catechetical purposes. These Catechisms are two in number. They are called the Larger and the Smaller, and in many respects they resemble the Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, which were issued a hundred years later on. No description of these Catechisms can be given. The fact that they stand at the head of the catechetical creeds is emphasized.

The Articles of Smalcald may be next mentioned, for they were drawn up in 1537. Melancthon’s hand again appeared in these articles, although others were also prominent in drafting them. They consist of three parts, and are directed more definitely against Romish doctrines than was the Augsburg Confession of a few years before.

The Form of Concord is the great Lutheran creed to which the Lutheran churches the world over adhere with more or less strictness. It was matured in 1577, and its great purpose was to bring peace and concord to the Protestant cause after a long period of bitter controversy. Much of this controversy was about the Lord’s supper, and concerning the ability of man to coöperate with divine grace in the experience of redemption in the soul. Augustus, Elector of Saxony, was active in the movement to frame the Formula Concordiæ. Andrea, Chemnitz, and Selnecher were the theologians who drew it up. It is composed of two parts, both of which treat of the same points. There are in all twelve articles in the Formula, and they contain comprehensive statements upon such topics as original sin, free-will, justification, good works, the law and the gospel, the Lord’s supper, and the person of Christ. After a good deal of diplomacy and discussion, this statement was generally accepted by the Lutheran branch of the Reformation. While in many respects a good statement of doctrine, it exhibits at several points a decided toning down of the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession, especially in regard to what is known as synergism. Two other catechisms, called the Saxon and the Wurtemberg, were drawn up about 1550, but they never obtained recognition as of authority in the church.

(β), The Reformed Calvinistic Creeds.

The field here is even more extensive than among the Lutherans. In addition to the ancient creeds there are many symbols which we can do little more than mention in this connection. Dr. Schaff states that the number of Reformed creeds is about thirty. On the continent of Europe there are two classes of these creeds, one of Zwinglian and the other of Calvinistic type. Then the Thirty-nine Articles in a measure stand by themselves, though they are nominally Calvinistic.

The early Swiss creeds are connected with the name of Zwingle. His Sixty-seven Articles were issued in 1572 at Zurich. The Bernese Theses, ten in number, were issued by Zwingle, Ecolampadius, Bucer, and others, as a refutation of the Romish assault upon the Sixty-seven Articles. The contents of these Theses are compact and convincing. Zwingle, in 1530, also sent a Confession of Faith to the Augsburg Diet, addressed to Charles V., but it received scanty courtesy there. From that time and stage in the Reformation, Luther and Zwingle unfortunately drifted apart. The last doctrinal statement made by Zwingle was an Exposition of the Christian Faith to Francis I. Of Zwingle’s doctrinal views, as distinct from those of Luther and of Calvin, nothing definite can now be said. The chief subject of contention between them was the Lord’s supper.

The First and Second Confession of Basle were framed in 1534, and form the transition symbol in the passage from the creeds of Zwingle to those of Calvin, whose advent they precede and herald. They are simple and orthodox in form, evangelical and temperate in spirit, and consist of twelve articles.

The First Helvetic or Swiss Confession, dating from 1536, is a much more important document, and is to be really identified with the Second Confession of Basle above named. Its authors were Bucer and Capito, though others seem to have been associated with them in the work. Luther was so pleased with it that he sent letters of approval. This is the first of the Reformed creeds which obtained what may be called national authority.

The Second Helvetic or Swiss Confession, dating from 1562–1566, is the last, and Schaff says the best, of all the Zwinglian Creeds. It is the work of Henry Bullinger, who was in correspondence with leading Reformers everywhere. This is a creed of much value, and it is more largely recognized than any of the continental creeds, except, perhaps, the Heidelberg Catechism. It is a well-matured product, and consists of thirty chapters. It deals with all the doctrines and ordinances of the church in a very clear and comprehensive manner. In many respects the Westminster Confession of Faith seems to follow this creed. In this connection the Consensus of Geneva, 1552, the Consensus Formula, 1675, the Gallican Confession, 1559, the French Confession, 1572, and the Belgic Confession, 1561, can only be mentioned.

The Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, dealt with the rising Arminian controversy. Arminius, 1560–1609, and Episcopius, 1583–1644, were the chief promoters of the Arminian views. The debate in the Synod gathered about five points, viz.: unconditional election, original sin, particular redemption, invincible grace, and final perseverance. On all of these points the Calvinistic views were confirmed, and they have been ever since that time known as the five points of Calvinism. The Arminians drew up a remonstrance against the conclusions of the Synod, in which they set forth opposing views, hence they have been known as the Remonstrants ever since.

The Heidelberg Catechism is the great creed of the Reformed Church in Germany, and, indeed, of that church everywhere throughout the world. It dates from the year 1563, and was drawn up by Ursinus and Olivianus, who were called to the task by the elector, Frederick II., who was a truly good man. Many editions of it have been issued, and it has been translated into many different tongues. This Catechism is divided into three parts, which treat of the sin and misery of man, of redemption by Christ, and of the Christian life. It will be observed that the order of topics is about the same as that found in the Epistle to the Romans. In the second part there is a full explanation of the Apostles’ Creed. This Catechism is admirable in many respects, and especially for purposes of religious instruction.

The Waldensian Catechism, whose date is 1498, and the Bohemian Catechism, made out in 1521, are interesting because they are so early, the former, indeed, being a prereformation document. Minor Reformed Confessions, such as that of Sigismund, 1614; of Anhalt, 1581; of Nassau, 1578; of Bremen, 1598; of Hesse, 1607, can only be named. Of the symbols of Hungary and Poland nothing can be said.

The Church of England Articles deserve some more adequate notice. As a matter of fact, they were a gradual growth. At first they consisted of forty-two articles, but they were afterwards reduced to thirty-nine, whence the title, Thirty-nine Articles. These Articles, with slight modifications, constitute the doctrinal symbols of the Anglican churches everywhere. No history of their production can be given here. The Reformation in England is not easily understood, especially as connected with Henry VIII. First of all, ten articles were formulated in 1536. In 1538 thirteen articles were issued, and these became the basis of the forty-two, which are sometimes called the Articles of Edward VI. Under Elizabeth these Articles were revised and reduced to thirty-nine, in 1562, and they were ratified by Parliament in 1571. These are known as the Articles of Elizabeth, and they have remained substantially the same ever since.

A comparison of these Articles with the continental creeds is a very interesting and instructive task, as they represent various types of Calvinism. These Articles have been revised by the Episcopal churches in America, to meet the changed conditions of church and state in this country. The Church of England Catechisms, a larger and a smaller one, as also the Lambeth Articles, of 1595, nine in number, deserve mention in passing. These Articles are decidedly Calvinistic in their contents. The Irish Articles, drawn by Usher in 1615, are also strictly Calvinistic, and they are of much interest in relation to the Westminster Standards, for they exhibit in a large measure the same type of doctrine. The Reformed Episcopal Church in this country in 1875 changed the Articles in many important respects, and reduced their number to thirty-five.

The Methodist churches are usually Arminian in doctrine. The Articles of Religion, twenty-five in number, Wesley’s Sermons and Notes, together with the Book of Discipline and Catechisms, constitute the standards of the Methodist churches in general the world over. The stage has now been reached where the passage may properly be made to the history of the Westminster Standards, the creed of the Presbyterian churches almost everywhere.

II. The Westminster Catechisms and Confession.

Prior to the Assembly which met in Westminster Abbey, London, doctrinal standards of Calvinistic type and Presbyterian in polity had been formulated in Scotland. Among these the National Covenant of 1581, and its renewal in 1638–1639, may be mentioned. The latter marks the second Scottish Reformation. The solemn League and Covenant was drawn up and signed in 1643, and it forms the stepping-stone to the Westminster Assembly. The reasons for formulating these leagues were in a measure to defend both civil and religious liberty. They were testimonies against error as well as confessions of faith.

There were native Scottish catechisms prior to those of the Westminster Assembly. Two such Catechisms were made out by John Gray, 1512–1600, about the time of Knox. The larger appeared in 1581, and the smaller in 1591. Latin catechisms, one by Andrew Simpson and another by John Davidson, were in use prior to 1640.

The Westminster Doctrinal Standards and Directory of Worship arose out of the Puritan conflict in England. Episcopacy of various types was on the one side, and Presbyterianism with Independency was on the other. The conflict was partly civil and partly religious, and the real cause of the struggle lay in the fact that the Church of England, as established after the Reformation, was not thoroughly reformed. There were many earnest spirits who desired to see the Reformation completed. This was the early Puritan element. The struggle was long and violent.

In July, 1643, Parliament issued instructions to have an Assembly called at Westminster Abbey, in London, on July the first, of that year, to effect the complete reformation of the Church of England, in its liturgy, discipline and government, according to the word of God, and in harmony with the Reformed churches in Scotland and on the continent. The members of the Assembly were named, and their number was one hundred and fifty-one. There were one hundred and twenty-one divines and thirty laymen, ten of the latter being lords and twenty commoners.

The work of the Assembly was difficult, for there were really four parties in the body. There were some strict Episcopalians, a number of able Independents, several Erastians, and a large body of Presbyterians. In matters of doctrine proper there was not much difference of opinion. There were no Pelagians and really no Arminians, so that the type of doctrine which prevailed was well-defined Calvinism. Dr. Twisse, the moderator, was a supralapsarian, but the sublapsarians were greatly in the majority in the Assembly. It was concerning matters of government and discipline that the diversity of view soon appeared. Hence it is that upon these matters the Westminster Standards do not give such clear statements as they do upon points of doctrine; nor were the respective provinces of the church and civil authority at first clearly defined. The Episcopalians, as a matter of fact, never took much part in the discussions. The Independents and Erastians really withdrew before the Discipline was finished, so that the Presbyterian system was finally agreed upon, but without the support of any but the Presbyterians. A little less strictness on their part at that time might have made England permanently, as she was for a short time nominally, Presbyterian.

The Assembly held one thousand one hundred and sixty-three regular sessions, from July 1, 1643, till February 22, 1649. It was never formally dissolved, but simply vanished with the Long Parliament, which, under Cromwell, had brought it into existence. No account of the civil features of the struggle can be given here.

The first task the Assembly undertook was to revise the Thirty-nine Articles, somewhat in the line of the Lambeth and Irish Articles, which were distinctly Calvinistic. This task was given up by the direction of Parliament in October, 1643, and the work on a new Confession was then begun. By means of committees and sub-committees the work was pushed on, so that in two years and three months, with many breaks in the work, it was completed about the close of the year 1646, and reported to Parliament in 1647.

The Scripture texts were added in April, 1647. In regard to the Catechisms, the Larger was prepared first and the Shorter soon after. Dr. Tuckney had much to do with framing both of them, and they were completed towards the close of the year 1647. The Scottish General Assembly approved of them in July, 1647. These Catechisms, together with Luther’s and the Heidelberg Catechism, are likely to be enduring instruments of catechetical instruction in the church.

It would be interesting to follow the action of the English Parliament in regard to these Standards. They were carefully considered by both Houses of Parliament, and some slight changes were made. The House of Lords agreed to the Confession on June 3, 1648, and the Commons on June 20 of the same year. The English Parliament twice endorsed the Confession as to its doctrinal articles, but it was inclined to an Erastian position in regard to matters of government and discipline. When the monarchy was restored, the Confession shared the fate of Presbyterian polity in England, and Scotland was afterwards to become the heroic scene of its life and triumphs.

With some slight changes, made necessary by the different conditions of the country, these Standards were adopted by all the Presbyterian churches in America, and in other parts of the world, as people sought new homes in foreign lands. The Congregational churches in New England also adopted these Standards “for substance of doctrine,” but their adherence to this type of doctrine has loosened during the past century in this country.

Early in this century the Cumberland Presbyterian Church originated. It modified the doctrine of the Confession in regard to predestination, so as to become virtually Arminian, while it retains a Presbyterian polity. It is really an Arminian Presbyterian Church, just as the Welsh Church is a Calvinistic Methodist Church.

Finally, the great body of the regular Baptists, in America especially, while they do not formally accept the Confession and the Catechisms, yet they hold and teach the Calvinistic doctrines which they contain in such a systematic and scriptural form.

At this point the historical sketch is concluded. The next chapter is also to be introductory, and will seek to explain the nature, and show the important uses, of religious creeds and confessions.

Before entering on the formal exposition of the Westminster Standards, which form the creed of the Presbyterian Church, a short chapter explaining the nature and uses of religious creeds may also serve a useful purpose. It is all the more necessary to make some such explanation at the present day, when it is to be observed that from many quarters the cry comes to abolish all definite creeds, and thus give larger liberty of religious thought and action. It is assumed by some who object to religious creeds of any kind that they hamper the spirit of free inquiry, and hinder unbiased research concerning religious problems. Hence they are an evil to be abolished as soon as possible. Such views and claims are doubtless largely the result of misapprehension, so that a simple explanation of the nature and function of religious creeds, or ecclesiastical symbols, may do something to remove this misapprehension, and show that creeds in their proper place are important and useful.

I. The Nature of a Religious Creed.

A creed may be defined as a brief and orderly statement of the system of divine truth contained in the sacred Scriptures. It is the meaning which one or more persons may take of the system of religious truth and life which is found in the Bible. In other words, a creed is that interpretation of the contents of the Scriptures, in relation to life and experience, to which certain persons may agree as revealed authoritative truth. The creed thus becomes an expression of religious belief and life based on the Bible. From this point of view a creed is a confession of faith, which means that acceptance of, and submission to, the creed is confessed. A creed and a confession are really the same thing from different points of view. The more technical term applied to a creed or confession is symbol. This term first denotes a sign or mark. It next means a signal or watchword. Then in its religious sense it signifies a Christian creed or confession of faith. As such it is that summary of religious truth which is set forth as the official doctrinal statement of belief and practice by any branch of the Christian church. The word symbol thus becomes a third term to denote the same thing. The word catechism is also used in this connection, and in many cases catechisms are regarded as creeds or confessions. This is the case with the Presbyterian and some of the Reformed confessions. A catechism is a summary of religious truth used for purposes of religious instruction. Where catechisms are regarded as parts of the creed they may be defined as creeds framed by question and answer, and so fitted for use in catechetical instruction. The Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms are of this nature, and as they form part of the standards of Presbyterianism, they must have a proper place in this exposition.

A very important question which arises in connection with the subject of creeds is that of their relation to the Scriptures. As it is at this point that much of the misunderstanding concerning creeds and confessions has arisen, it may be well to explain this relation with some care. First of all, let it be distinctly understood that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be regarded as the infallible rule of faith and life. It alone sets forth a revelation from God which is distinctly inspired, and hence of infallible truth and divine authority. The supreme standard in religion, therefore, is holy Scripture. The Scriptures are the standards in the highest sense, and to them the appeal must always be made. This position is held as firmly by those who have a formal written creed as it is by those who profess to have no other religious standard than the Bible. The divine creed is the Bible, and the ecclesiastical creed is the church’s interpretation of this divine creed. Such being the case, the creed is derived from, depends on, and is subordinate to, the Bible. The creed, therefore, cannot take the place of the Bible, much less can it be put above the Scriptures. The Scriptures, as the inspired word of God, rightly sit upon the throne in all matters pertaining to religious belief, conduct and worship. They cannot abdicate in favor of, nor be supplanted by, any summary of their contents, no matter how true and complete it may be. The Bible is the fixed, unchanging and infallible rule, while the creed may be regarded as the secondary, subordinate, temporary standard of faith and life. Nor is the latter to be divorced from the former, for the creed derives its meaning and value only from the Scriptures, whose contents it professes to exhibit. Hence, the true view of the relation of the creed to the Bible may be expressed by the phrase, the Scriptures as interpreted by the standards. The Bible is the infallible rule, the creed is the accepted interpretation of that rule in systematic form. Thus the real standard is not the creed in itself considered, but the Scriptures as interpreted by the creed. If this intimate relation and dependence of the creed upon the Bible be kept clearly in mind, some confusion, and perhaps some mistakes, would be avoided.

It may be well to add, that while the creed in the sense above explained is taken to be a written creed, yet the same thing is virtually true of an unwritten creed. This fact is often overlooked, and the objection to a written creed sometimes comes from those who have a very definite and sometimes a rather narrow creed, though unwritten. The creed, as we have seen, is the meaning of the Scriptures accepted by any body of Christians, and it may be written or unwritten. The fact that it is written does not alter the case, for the unwritten creed may be as well defined and as firmly held as any written confession can be. It is well understood that some honored branches of the church have no written creed, but profess to take the Bible pure and simple as their standard. This claim sounds well, and it certainly gives the Bible the place of honor which it deserves. But a little reflection will show that some of these churches do not honor the Scriptures any more than those which have written creeds in the sense explained; and some of those churches which have no written creed, but rest upon the Bible alone, have an unwritten creed which is just as rigid as any written creed can possibly be. This is evident from the fact that when a minister seeks ordination in such a church, he must accept its credal interpretation of the doctrines, of the ordinances, and of the polity which it understands the Scriptures to teach. This is further seen to be the case also in the fact that in such branches of the church which have no written creed, the conditions of membership are much more rigid than in the Presbyterian Church, with its elaborate written one. It is clear, therefore, that an unwritten creed is exposed to all the objections which lie against one that is written, and at the same time the latter has many advantages over the former, as will be shown later on in this chapter.

Another important question naturally arises from the inquiry concerning the permanency of a creed. Can a creed once accepted be amended? The answer to this question appears from what has just been said about the relation of the creed to the Bible. From the view already taken of that relation, it is clear that the way is open for the church at any time, in accordance with her own chosen methods, to revise or modify her credal interpretation of the Scriptures. She dare not undertake to revise or amend the Scriptures, although even here room must be left for the textual critic to provide us with as correct a text of the Scriptures as it is possible to obtain, and for the legitimate work of the higher critic to shed what light he can upon the origin and structure of the Bible. Leaving a place for the proper work of the textual and the higher critic, the position is still maintained that the church has no right to revise her divine religious standard, which is holy Scripture. But the church may revise her credal interpretation of the Scriptures. In other words, creed revision is not to be denied as a right pertaining to the church. But such creed revision must be in accordance with the Scriptures themselves, and in order to set forth their meaning more clearly and completely. No other reason than this exists for creed revision. The reason sometimes given, to the effect that the church should revise her creed in order to bring it into harmony with the life and the thought of the church in a new age is not valid, unless it can also be shown that the creed is not in harmony with the Scriptures. In any case the need for creed revision should be really urgent before it is undertaken. Recent attempts in regard to the Westminster Standards cannot be regarded as successful. The aim of such revision, if undertaken, should be to express more clearly and fully the teachings of Scripture, rather than to bring the creed into harmony with the thought and life of the church. The thought and life of the church is to be determined by the Scriptures, as the rule and norm thereof, and by the Holy Spirit, who applies the truth to the members of the church from age to age. Thus the creed, as the interpretation of the Scriptures, becomes the norm of the life of the church under the tuition of the Holy Spirit. But the creed can never, in the first instance, consist in an interpretation of the life of the church, however clearly that life may in turn reflect the contents of the Scriptures as interpreted in the Standards.

As to the proper length of a creed as an interpretation of the Scriptures, opinions will differ. Some think that a very short and simple creed best suits the purpose. Others prefer a much more extended creed or confession of faith. Here, of course, each church must decide for itself. It may be admitted that there are some things in favor of a short and simple creed, and at the same time be maintained that a compact and complete statement of religious truth, especially for the purpose of doctrinal instruction, may have many advantages. It may be said that some things might be omitted from the Westminster Standards without affecting the substance of their doctrine; still, the strong and complete outline of doctrine, and the clear and logical form in which it is presented in these historic Standards, have no doubt had much to do with making Presbyterians what they are the world over, as an intellectual and moral force. If the doctrinal area covered by the creed statement of any church be narrow, the danger of a decrease in intelligence and moral power will surely threaten that church. Hence a comprehensive creed has some important advantages which exhort to hesitation before the demand for a short creed is acceded to. If a shorter creed would comprehend a greater number of Christians in one fold, it might fail to secure those clear and definite views in regard to religious truth which are found so necessary to give it strong vitality, and to make it a real and lasting power. What was gained in extension might be lost in intension.

II. The Uses of Religious Creeds.

In what remains of this chapter some of the chief uses of religious creeds will be indicated. From what has been said concerning the nature or function of religious creeds, it was hinted that creeds, confessions, and catechisms are valuable and useful. This hint must now be expanded, and it is hoped that the explanations now to be made shall elicit greater interest in the exposition of the Westminster Standards which the next chapter begins. Under four heads the main uses of creeds and confessions may be summed up.

In the first place, a creed provides a well-defined bond of union as to doctrine, rite, and polity for those who belong to any branch of the church. The creed thus forms an intelligent basis for all those who are associated in any one Christian communion. Especially does it secure a definite system to which all the office-bearers of any branch of the church profess agreement. Without some such common basis or bond it would be almost impossible to secure general harmony of opinion and action. The Bible is such an extensive book that the task of each one for himself would be too great, and the prospect of harmony would be exceedingly small. Then, without a written creed it would be very difficult to examine any one who presented himself as a candidate for the ministry. But with a definite written creed the examination becomes comparatively easy, and can be intelligently attended to, both by the church court and the candidate. So, when a man takes upon himself the solemn vows of ordination, both he and they who ordain him have a definite system of religious truth to which it is understood that the vow relates. The Scriptures as interpreted by the Standards, the Standards as founded on and agreeable to the word of God, become the form according to which the ordination vow is presented. This affords a common systematic interpretation of the contents of the Scriptures, to which the office-bearers are committed, and which produces a given type of life and teaching in any church communion.

Here it may be well to add that the subscription to the creed in the Presbyterian Church is required only from the office-bearers. For membership in this church, all that is required is an intelligent and credible profession of faith in Christ, and a sincere promise to obey and serve him in life. This fact is not always understood by Presbyterians themselves, and many in other communions are not even aware of this fact. Of course, those who become members in the Presbyterian church may expect to receive the teaching of those who have accepted the doctrine of the Confession and Catechisms, but even then their private judgment is in no way denied an opportunity for exercise. But for the officers of the church, the Standards are of the very highest value in providing a compact and comprehensive outline of Scripture truth which they are to maintain, promulgate and defend.

In the second place, a creed is of much value in enabling the church to deal in a satisfactory way with cases of heresy. The church which has no written creed apart from the Scriptures is at a disadvantage in such cases. It has no generally accepted statement, in written form, of the meaning it takes of the Scriptures, by which to test the truth or error of any opinions which may be alleged to be heretical. The written creed supplies as fully as possible just such a test. Moreover, it is also the test to which the accused party gave his assent at some earlier time. By this once-accepted test, which is still binding upon him, the views of the accused are to be judged. This test is not the creed, apart altogether from the Scriptures, but the Scriptures as interpreted in the creed.

At this point objection is sometimes made to the effect that this view virtually puts the creed above the Bible, and renders an appeal to the Bible impossible in the case; but this is not so, for the appeal is to the Scriptures, as their meaning is expressed in the Standards, so that the appeal is as directly to the Bible as it can be, even where there is no written creed. If at any time it should appear that the creed does not correctly express the meaning of the Bible, then there is a proper and regular way, by means of the revision already spoken of, to bring them into harmony; but when a case of trial for heresy is actually entered on, it does not lie in the power of the accused to make the objection alluded to, for the reason that the creed represents the doctrine of the church to which he belongs, and which doctrine he himself had accepted. This does not imply that creed revision is inadmissible; it simply means that a trial for heresy is not the proper way or time to revise the creed. As has been stated, the church may at any proper time seek to bring her creed into closer harmony with the Scriptures, but the party accused of heresy is not the one to plead for this revision, when he is placed on trial by the church for his views. He is to be fairly tried according to the creed interpretation of the Scriptures to which he had subscribed, under which he had been serving the church, and which for the time being is the church’s view of the Scriptures. The accused is judged by the Scriptures as interpreted in the creed, and the church, not the individual, is the party to give the final decision as to whether any controverted views are in harmony or not with the meaning of the Scriptures set forth in the creed. There can surely be no injustice in this.

But, further, if any office-bearer of the church finds that his views are not in accord with those taught in the Standards, he may withdraw from the church, and hold and even teach his views elsewhere. His remaining in the church is a voluntary matter, and the church simply protects herself when she says that if a man wishes to remain in the church he must conform to the opinions and practices of the church. Nor can there be injustice or hardship in this connection.

In the third place, a creed serves to exhibit to other branches of the church the views of doctrine, polity, discipline, ritual and worship held or observed by any particular branch of it. The Westminster Standards are very valuable in this respect. Those who are in communion with other churches may learn from these Standards what the Presbyterian Church believes and teaches. By this means misconception can be avoided. In regard to those branches of the church which have no written creed, it is exceedingly difficult to obtain any clear knowledge of the concensus of teaching in those churches. The result of this is lack of definiteness and loss of force.

Now, while dead uniformity is a thing not to be desired, and is not here advocated, still a definite written creed may combine that degree of uniformity and flexibility which shall produce the best results. For those within the church there is unity and flexibility, and for those without the church there is a full exhibit of the teaching of the church, so that all who read may understand. If, as is sometimes the case, the Presbyterian Church is charged with holding views which it does not, then it is easy to show that the charge is unfounded, by a reference to the Standards. Thus it appears that the idea of a well-ordered doctrinal system, of a fully-organized form of government, and of a high ideal of life, such as is usually associated with the Presbyterian church, is of great use in showing to other churches what the Presbyterian Church believes and teaches. In like manner this is true of all those churches which have a definite written creed, and live in conformity with it.

In the fourth place, one of the most practical uses of a creed remains to be considered, and with a brief notice of it this chapter concludes. The creed, confession, or catechism always provides a valuable compend of Christian doctrine for religious instruction. A good catechism is of immense use for the instruction of the young, and for the indoctrination of those in more advanced years. It is in this connection that catechisms, which are merely creeds in catechetical form, have value. As a mere confession of faith, a creed may be the best form in which to have the Standards stated in, but even a creed is a very useful instrument of instruction. But catechisms like the Shorter Catechism are of the utmost value for this important purpose. Churches which have no doctrinal symbols, or catechetical creeds, find difficulty in this connection. They have not a form of sound words in which to sum up the teaching of Scripture regarding the doctrines and duties of our holy religion. It behooves the Presbyterian Church not to neglect her duty and privilege in this respect, with such excellent instruments of instruction in her hands. She should diligently instruct her children and young people especially, and not neglect to teach constantly those in more advanced years. It is only by doing so that the people will grow to be strong, intelligent, and robust Christians, able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, and qualified to adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things.

These are some of the main uses of creeds and confessions in general, and of the Presbyterian Standards in particular. Other minor uses might have been mentioned and enforced, but what has been said may suffice to give the reader some idea of the value of creeds, and perhaps remove some of the prejudice which not a few sincere persons have in regard to creeds of any kind except the Bible. In the next chapter the formal exposition of the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, which consist of the Catechisms and Confession, will be begun.