n short, the language of an orthodox believer, in subscribing his ecclesiastical creed, is simply of the following import: "While the Socinian professes to believe the Bible, and to understand it as teaching mere humanity of Christ; while the Arian professes to receive the same Bible, and to find in it the Savior represented as the most exalted of all creatures, but still a creature; while the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian make a similar profession of their general belief in the Scriptures, and interpret them as teaching a doctrine far more favorable to human nature, and far less honorable to the grace of God, than they appear to me really to teach; I beg the privilege of declaring, for myself, that, while I believe with all my heart that the Bible is the word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and manners, and the only ultimate test in all controversies; it plainly teaches, as I read and believe, the deplorable and total depravity of human nature; the essential divinity of the Savior; a Trinity of persons in the Godhead; justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ; and regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, as indispensable to prepare the soul for heaven. These I believe to be the radical truths which God has revealed in his word; and while they are denied by some, and frittered away and perverted by others who profess to believe that blessed word, I am verily persuaded they are the fundamental principles of the plan of salvation."
Now, I ask, is there in all this language, anything dishonorable to the Bible? Anything that tends to supersede its authority; or to introduce a rule, or a tribunal of paramount authority? Is there not, on the contrary, in the whole language and spirit of such a declaration, an acknowledgment of God's word as of ultimate and supreme authority; and an expression of belief in certain doctrines, simply and only because they are believed to be revealed in that word? Truly, if this is dishonoring the Scriptures, or setting up a standard above them, there is an end of all meaning either of words or actions.
Still, however, it may be asked, what right has any man, or set of men, to interpose their authority and undertake to deal out the sense of Scripture for others? Is it not both impious in itself, and an improper assumption over the minds of our fellow men?
Upon the principle of this objection, it not only follows, that no minister of the gospel ought ever do more in the pulpit than simply to read or repeat the very words of Scripture; but it is equally evident that he must read or repeat Scripture to his hearers only in the languages in which they were given to the Church. For, as has been often observed, it cannot be said that the words of any translation of the Bible are the very words of the Holy Spirit. They are only the words which uninspired men have chosen, in which to express, as nearly as they were able, the sense of the original. If, therefore, the objection before us is admitted, no man is at liberty to teach the great truths of revelation in any other way than by literally repeating the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, in the hearing of the people.
Another objection often urged against subscription to creeds and confessions is that it is unfriendly to free inquiry. "When a man," say the enemies of creeds, "has once subscribed a public formulary, and his ecclesiastical stand with a church which requires it, he must continue so to believe to the end of his life or resign his place; new light in abundance may offer itself to his view; but he must close his eyes against it. Now, can it be right," say they, "for anyone voluntarily to place himself in circumstances of so much temptation; willingly to place himself within the reach of strong inducements to tamper with conscience, and to resist conviction?"
In answer to this objection, my first remark is that when a man takes on himself the solemn and highly responsible office of a public instructor of others, we must presume that he has examined the most important of the various creeds (called Christian) with all the deliberation, sincerity, and prayer, of which he is capable, and that he has made up his mind with respect to the leading doctrines of Scripture. To suppose anyone capable of entering in the duties of the ministerial office while he is wavering and unsettled, and liable to be "carried about by every wind of doctrine," is to suppose him both weak and criminal to a very great degree. I know, indeed, that some ardent opposers of creeds consider a state of entire indecision, with regard even to leading theological doctrines, as the most laudable and desirable state of mind. They wish every man not only to feel himself a learner to the end of life, which is undoubtably right, but also, if possible, to keep himself in that equilibrium of mind with respect to the most important doctrinal opinions, which shall amount to a perfect indifference whether he retains or relinquishes his present sentiments. This they eulogize, as "openness to conviction," "freedom from prejudice," etc. Without stopping to combat this sentiment at large, I hesitate not to pronounce it unreasonable in itself, contrary to Scripture, and an enemy to all Christian stability and comfort. We know what is said in the word of God, of those who are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." I repeat it; we must suppose him who undertakes to be a teacher of others to be himself, as the apostle expresses it, "grounded and settled in the faith." We ought to be considered, then, as having all the security that the nature of the case admits, that he who comes forward as one of the lights and leaders of a religious community is firm in the principles which he has professed, and will not be very apt, essentially, to alter his creed. But further, the same objection might be urged, with quite as much force, against a man's making any public declaration of his sentiments, either by preaching, or by writing, and printing; lest he should afterwards obtain more light, and yet be tempted to adhere, contrary to his conscience, to what he had before so publicly espoused.
Upon this principle, we must go further, and adopt the doctrine, equally absurd and heathenish, that no parent ought ever to instruct his child in what he deems the most precious truths of the gospel, lest he should fill his mind with prejudices, and present an obstacle to free and unshackled inquiry afterwards.
Surely no man in his senses judges or acts thus. Especially, no Christian allows himself thus to reason or act. There is no station of life in which its occupant does not find some peculiar temptation. But if he is a man of right spirit, he will meet it with Christian integrity, and overcome it with Christian courage.
