Questions on Chapter 9.

lead directly to anarchy and confusion. To what absurd consequences must we be led, when we plant ourselves upon an unsound position! QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 9.

QUESTION 1. What two positions of Independency are here considered?

2. What is the first proof of the first position, and how is it shown to be insufficient?

3. Upon what other scriptures are arguments founded for this position, and how are they answered?

4. What is the second position of Independency here discussed?

5. What is the first argument founded upon, and how is it answered?

6. Upon what is the second argument founded, and how is it answered?

7. The third argument, and how answered?

8. What is the fourth argument, and how answered?

9. What is the fifth argument, and how is it answered?

CHAPTER 10. — WRITTEN CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND

CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.

IT has been the practice of the Christian Church in all ages to adopt written symbols, creeds, forms of discipline, or confessions of faith, setting forth an outline of the belief and practice of her communicants. There have not been wanting, however, especially in modern times, persons, calling themselves Christians, who have repudiated and denounced all such written formulas as unauthorized, sinful, and pernicious. A brief chapter on this subject is rendered necessary, more by the zeal and pertinacity with which creeds and confessions of faith have been opposed than by any conviction that the arguments by which that opposition has been maintained possess in themselves much force, or even plausibility.

We are persuaded that the prejudice against creeds, in the abstract, has generally arisen from a superficial examination of the subject and an erroneous conception of the nature and design of creeds. This prejudice has no doubt been greatly aggravated by the abuse of creeds, of which the history of the Church furnishes us some painful examples and illustrations. But as it is admitted that the best things in the world may be abused or perverted, and that the abuse can furnish no good reason against the proper use of any thing whatever, it necessarily follows that it is palpably illogical to argue against the use of creeds from their abuse. For an uninspired man or set of men to compose a creed, and attempt to enforce it upon others, whether it accords with their belief as to the teachings of the word of God or not, is certainly a usurpation. This would be “lording it over God’s heritage,” which the Bible condemns. It would be a renunciation of that great and hallowed principle — that “the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants.” It would be an unwarranted and flagrant intrusion upon that liberty of conscience everywhere recognized in Scripture.

I. The PROPRIETY and UTILITY of Church-creeds, disciplines, or confessions of faith, may be shown from the following considerations:

1. It will not be disputed that the New Testament guarantees to every Christian the right, and enjoins upon him the duty, of “searching the Scriptures,” and judging for himself what they teach.

If this proposition be true, it necessarily follows that every one possesses also the right to communicate to others an abstract or summary of his belief in reference to what the Scriptures teach; and if he may make such communication at all, he may print it in a book and spread it before the world, so that all men may see and know the “reason of the hope that is in him.” The book thus published is the author’s creed, or an outline of his belief; and that he had the right thus to embody and set forth his faith no one can dispute, provided only that he do not attempt to enforce it upon others.

Now, if an individual Christian may thus adopt, write out, and publish his own creed, why not a Church or an association of Christians? And if they may thus adopt and publish their creed, what harm can there be in subscribing to such a creed, and voluntarily engaging to conform to and support the same? Were it the fact that an individual Christian, or a denomination of Christians, were endeavoring to coerce subscription to articles of faith, or obedience to a form of discipline, upon persons who had not voluntarily adopted those articles, and promised conformity to those rules of discipline, the case would be materially altered. Such a procedure would be spiritual tyranny of the most despicable character. But where, we ask, is this the case? where has it ever been the case among Protestants? In all these organizations none are required to become members, except on the voluntary principle. If we frame an outline of our faith and rules of discipline, all of which we believe to be “taught of God, even in his written word,” and if these articles and rules are enforced upon none but such as of their own free will and accord adopt them, where is any infringement of liberty of conscience? where is any element of spiritual tyranny? While the voluntary principle, both in uniting with and withdrawing from the Church, is sacredly preserved, neither liberty of conscience can be trampled down, nor the reign of spiritual despotism inaugurated; hence we think it clear that all Christians and all Churches are fully authorized to embody their creed or discipline in a book, thus exhibiting an outline-draft of those fundamental principles which they believe to be taught in God’s word.

2. Next, it may easily be shown that there must be an agreement among those united in Church association, as to the fundamentals of faith, and the general principles and form of discipline, or Christian union, harmony, and fellowship, and the great ends of Church organization, cannot be secured. Without this agreement, how can the regular and orderly public worship of God be maintained? how can the word of God and the sacraments and discipline of the Church be duly and harmoniously administered?

(1) A creed or discipline is necessary for the orderly conducting of the public worship of God.

It is a common-sense position that a creed, or formula of discipline, may be just as authoritative and binding, and consequently as potent for good or evil, when only understood and orally sanctioned, as when written; therefore it would be entirely yielding the point in dispute for the no-creed party to say: “We will adopt no written creed, but we will in some way come to a verbal understanding as to the essential articles of faith and rules of order.” Is it not as plain as any thing can be that the essential element of a creed consists not in the form or shape in which it is expressed, but in its subject-matter or substance. If you promise to pay your friend a given amount, is that promise any the less real or binding because it was not written, but only verbal? Upon the same principle, is not a creed or rule as really such, and as authoritative, when it has been explained and agreed to, as though written down and formally adopted? The unlawfulness of the creed, if any such quality there be, consists not in the fact that it has been written, but that it has been expressed in uninspired language, and adopted. Surely no sane person could even dream that there is any spiritual virus in the mere ink, paper, or materials of a book, rendering that sinful and pernicious, if reduced to a written form, which would be perfectly right and harmless if only uttered by the voice, and verbally adopted? If it be unlawful to write an article of faith or a rule of discipline in a book, and for a Church to adopt it in that form, how can it be lawful for the same Church to adopt the same article and rule when verbally expressed? The position that there is so essential a difference between the written and verbal form of expressing the same thing, that the one is right while the other is sinful, is too puerile to be seriously discussed. Hence it follows that the opposers of all human creeds, to render their practice consistent with their theory, must be able to conduct the public worship of God, and all the services, ordinances, and discipline of the Church, in a decent, orderly, and edifying manner, independent of any preagreement whatever on the subject. Now, let us contemplate how great would be the confusion resulting from an attempt practically to carry out this principle. In the same congregation, where there is no prearrangement or understanding tending to a different result, we may suppose persons collected together, representing every shade of belief among the diversified orders throughout the Christian world.

Public worship is to be attended to; but how shall it be conducted? Some might be in favor of a liturgy, while others would prefer the extemporaneous plan. How is the matter to be settled, when each is persuaded that he gets his views from the Bible? It is obvious there must be a general agreement on the question before they can proceed harmoniously; but by whatever form or process this agreement is reached — whether by vote of the whole society or otherwise — that agreement, so far as it extends, is virtually the adoption of a creed. If we come to the question of Church-music, there might be still greater diversity of sentiment. Some might think the deep-toned organ an essential appendage to this service; others might oppose this, but contend for a well-trained choir; while others might prefer only the human voice, but strenuously object to the singing of any thing but Rouse’s version of the Psalms; others would plead for congregational singing, including hymns and spiritual songs, conscientiously opposing all such appurtenances as instrumental music or choir-singing, as not authorized by the New Testament; but, last of all, some, brought up under Quaker influence, might oppose all music but what is silent, urging the apostolic precept, “Make melody in your heart, to the Lord.” How, we ask, is all this discord to be harmonized? Each professes to be guided by the Scriptures. There must, of course, be some agreement on the subject, but however that may be brought about, it will be in effect the adoption of a creed.

(2) Without some prearrangement, how is the regular preaching of the word to be secured?

Some might contend that the Christian ministry is not a distinct order, but that the right to preach and to administer the sacraments pertains as much to one person as to another, and that no appointment or consecration, in any form, is requisite; others might think that these prerogatives and duties pertain to particular persons selected and appointed by vote of the Church without any formal ordination; while others might hold that no man ought to administer the sacraments until he has been ordained by “the laying on of the hands of the presbytery;” and others still might contend that ordination by a bishop, in a regular line of succession from the apostles, is essential to a valid ministry and valid sacraments.

Now, as all these conflicting sentiments are strenuously maintained by persons of different denominations, all professing to be governed by the New Testament, how are these questions to be regulated without some agreed plan to settle the interpretation of the Scriptures in reference to the points in hand? And if the matter be thus settled, would not that settlement be the adoption of a creed?

If it be said that when any such matter comes before the Church, they will decide it by vote — if this position be taken, then we reply, What if some object to that mode of decision as not in accordance with the New Testament? Then if a vote be proposed to settle that dispute, it too might be objected to on a similar ground; and so on they might proceed in an endless series of propositions to vote, and objections.

But if the ground be taken that when once it has been decided by vote what the New Testament does teach on a given point, then it is settled, and ought not to be disturbed by farther agitation, and that would be the same as the adoption of a creed or rule of discipline; and it might as well be written in a book, and preserved in permanent form, subject to the examination of all, as to be recorded by the secretary in the Minutes of Church-proceedings.

If it be said that any such decision is only applicable to the case then in hand, and is no rule for the control of future action, then it follows that it is a creed or rule of human device and adoption. It is none the less a creed or rule for the time being, and in application to the case in hand, because it is limited to that particular time and case. All that can be gained by this maneuvering is, that, instead of having one established creed or rule alike applicable to all similar cases, a new creed or rule must be adopted in every new case and by every new vote.

The truth is, there must be agreement as to the order and method of proceeding, or, in other words, as to what are the teachings of the New Testament on the subject, or there can be no order or government whatever. If government exists, it must be administered. If it be administered, it must be administered by some person or persons, according to some rule and in some form; and those administrators must be recognized by the parties governed as the law-interpreting and the law-administering power, according to the New Testament; and whenever, and by whatever form, whether written or oral, that recognition is made, a creed or Church-rule, whether we admit it or not, is adopted. And who cannot see that it is better to have an established rule for all similar cases, than to adopt a new rule, or be compelled to re-adopt an old one with every new case?

(3) Again, look at the inconvenience and confusion that must ensue from the no-creed principle, were the attempt made to carry it out in reference to the ordinances.

Suppose there were several applicants knocking at the door for baptism and admission for Church-membership. Each has examined the New Testament for himself, but one is satisfied that the ordinance should be administered by pouring, another can only be satisfied with sprinkling, another is sure there is no baptism but immersion, another still deems all wrong but himself — he reads, and understands his New Testament to teach that he must be dipped three times, first “in the name of the Father,” then “in the name of the Son,” and then “in the name of the Holy Ghost.” Now, how is this matter to be settled? It is a case of importance, and one too that, again and again, has come up in the history of the no-creed party. We reply, it cannot be settled at all, except by a renunciation of the principles of that party. The two great principles of which they boast are: first, “no human creed;” secondly, “liberty of conscience to all.” How beautifully are these hallowed principles exhibited in their dealings with these candidates for baptism and Church-membership! Do they admit them to baptism in the form which alone can satisfy the conscience of the candidate? Far from it. The honest candidate, at the very threshold of this no-creed organization, learns that all he has heard about “the New Testament alone,” and “every one his own interpreter,” was but empty parade. According to the history of this matter, there is no baptism allowed to the candidate, unless he will be immersed. The poor applicant will see now that he has been deceived. He finds that liberty of conscience means not his conscience, but that of the administrator — that is, he may read the New Testament, and be governed by it alone, till he seeks admission into a no-creed Church; but that very moment he meets a demonstration that the law with this party is not the New Testament alone (allowing each to be his own interpreter), but the New Testament as they, the no-creed party, interpret it. Here is a faithful picture of the practical workings of the system.

The no-creed party generally adopt the principle that there is no baptism but immersion; hence they allow baptism in no other form, nor will they admit to fellowship, as a member in their communion, any unimmersed person. Though he be as pious as John Fletcher, and though John Wesley or John Knox may have baptized him, by pouring or sprinkling, on his profession of faith, still, as he has not been governed by the New Testament as they, the no-creed party, see proper to interpret it, they say to him: “Stand back, ‘we are holier than thou.’ Measure yourself on our Procrustean bedstead, and be cut off or stretched till you fit it, and then, but not till then, you can enter our inclosure as a member.” If this be not the adoption, practically, of a creed or discipline of the most rigid, narrow, exclusive, and intolerant kind, let some one show us the reason why!

(4) Once more, look at the difficulty that must arise in the operation of the no-creed principle in reference to the observance of the Sabbath and of the Lord’s-supper.

Some may contend for keeping the “Lord’s-day,” and others may argue that Saturday should be kept as the Sabbath. As to the “Lord’s-supper,” some may advocate its administration on every “Lord’s-day;” some may think the New Testament leaves the question unsettled, and that once a month is sufficient; some may contend that it should always be attended to in the evening, after our Lord’s example; others may think, as there is no express precept, the morning may be a suitable time for the Supper. A great many such questions may arise, out of which confusion must result; according to the maxim, no rule but the New Testament. But if any agreement or understanding be arrived at that any rule is to be observed beyond what is written in the New Testament, that very moment the principle of the party is given up, and a creed is virtually adopted. It matters not whether one rule or five hundred be adopted, or whether they be written or unwritten, the principle is the same and, in spite of prejudice and of every thing else, the logical consequences must be the same.

(5) Similar difficulties would arise upon the no-creed plan in all matters of Church-discipline. This has been sorely felt by the party. Instances are known to have occurred in which one Church has tried and expelled a minister, and a neighboring Church of the same no-creed party has taken up and acted on the same case, and acquitted the accused. Thus the minister stood on the records of one Church as expelled, and on the records of a neighboring Church of the same faith and order as a minister in good standing. Where there is no agreed basis of organization and government, or where (as St. Paul says it is with the heathen) all “are a law unto themselves,” such instances of disorder are the inevitable result. II. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

1. Those who oppose written creeds urge it against them that the adoption of them implies a lack of proper respect for and appreciation of the word of God, and is a substitution of human creeds for the Scriptures. In reply to this objection, we remark that it rests entirely on an erroneous basis. We know full well that the no-creed party have ostentatiously assumed to be, par excellence, the New Testament Church. “The book! the book!” they exclaim, “we are governed by ‘the book,’ while the sects are governed by human creeds, confessions of faith, and disciplines. While the sects are constituted on articles and rules of their own devising, we, the Christian Church, are constituted on the New Testament alone.” One might infer from the assumptions thus exhibited that these opponents of creeds were the only class of Christians who profess to be governed by the Scriptures, or even to look upon the inspired volume as the great constitutional chart and authoritative standard of the Church, whether for faith or practice. But how different is this from the facts in the case! We know of no Protestant Church, claiming to be Christian, that does not revere the Bible as the only infallible standard in reference to religion. One article of the Methodist creed declares: “The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” This is but a sample of the profession of all Protestant denominations in reference to their faith in the Scriptures. Is this substituting a human creed for the New Testament? Does this resemble exalting a creed, or human form of discipline, above the Scriptures? Rather, is it not, in the most emphatic language, recognizing God’s word as the supreme, the only, authoritative, and infallible standard, both in reference to faith and practice?

The correct idea of a creed is, not that it is intended as a substitute for God’s book, or something superior, or even equal to it, but merely that it is a brief and plain abstract or summary of the most important doctrines and duties which the denomination setting it forth believe to be plainly taught in the Holy Scriptures. And it is because they believe that these doctrines and duties are thus taught in God’s word that they have subscribed to them, and promised adherence to the same while they continue members of that denomination, and their belief in those things remains unchanged. Thus any one uniting with that Church is not supposed to subscribe to its creed because he has united with the Church, but to have united with the Church because he already believes in its creed. Being a member does not cause his belief in the creed, but his belief in the creed causes him to become a member.

He who reads the Bible, and thinks for himself, must have his belief in reference to the fundamental doctrines and important duties of Christianity. If he keeps this belief to himself, it is his mental creed; if he tells it to others, it is his spoken creed; if he writes it in a book, it is his written creed. Does any suppose that because John Knox, John Wesley, Andrew Fuller, Alexander Campbell, and others, have each and all of them derived a creed, as best as they could, from God’s inspired book, and published it to the world, that in that publication they have shown any disrespect to the Scriptures? or that they intended to substitute their printed belief for the Scriptures? or that they considered the Bible an imperfect standard of faith, and had set forth a better? No one can dream a conclusion so silly. Why, then, should it be thought that because a denomination or collection of Christians have done the very same thing — published in a book called their Creed what they honestly believe the Bible to teach — they should be charged with the sin of having attempted to substitute a code of their own devising for the Scriptures of infallible truth? In all the vast range of inconsequent reasoning, absurd conclusions, and groundless allegations, it would be difficult to find any thing to excel this attempt to fasten upon all written creeds the sin of aiming to be a substitute for the inspired Scriptures.

Indeed, it requires but little reflection to perceive that the objection here urged against written creeds would apply with equal force against all preaching and the publication of all religious books. Why, it might just as well be asked, instead of all this preaching, and writing, and printing, do we not simply have the Scriptures read to the congregations, and no religious book but the Bible printed? for to preach on religion, except in Bible phrase, is attempting to substitute for the Scriptures something of our own. Who does not see the absurdity to which the position leads?

2. But it is argued that the adoption of a creed is useless, unless it expresses Bible truth in a better form than the inspired language has expressed it; and to presume that the creed can do this is to assume that the creed-makers are wiser than inspiration.

One of the main designs of a written creed is to furnish all concerned with a brief outline of the belief of the denominations as to the teachings of the Bible. It is a fact which none will dispute that, in reference to the teachings of the Scriptures on many important subjects, there is great diversity of sentiment among professed Christians; hence it follows that for a denomination simply to announce to the world that they believe the Bible, would be, as to the point in hand, perfectly evasive and unsatisfactory. It would prove that they were neither atheists nor deists, but would scarcely do more. Whether they are Antinomians, Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians, Socinians, Universalists, German Rationalists, or what, among all the conflicting beliefs of those who profess to believe the Bible, may be their distinctive tenets, no one could tell. If all believers in the Bible explained it alike, the case would be different; but while the multitudinous classes of errorists all claim to take their faith from the Bible, something tangible, brief, clear, and unambiguous, such as a creed may supply, is indispensable to show to the world what the denomination understand the Bible to teach. This same no-creed party are just as ready as others to explain, in private conversation or public sermons, all the peculiar angles of their distinctive belief. Why not print it in a book, and call it their creed? Or if the term creed is so offensive, then call it their sense of what the Scriptures teach? If merely explaining our belief in reference to what the Scriptures teach does not imply that we consider ourselves wiser than inspiration, neither should printing that explanation in a book, and calling it a creed, be so construed. Again, a written creed furnishes a much fairer ordeal for comparing our doctrines with Scripture, and thus testing their correctness, than can be had if we decline committing our views to writing. If we doubt the correctness of our faith, and fear it will not bear rigid criticism, and yet wish to keep it in countenance and out of the crucible as much as possible, it may be a successful policy to acknowledge no written creed. Words merely spoken are easily forgotten, liable to be misunderstood or misrepresented, and are not so readily brought to a strict and critical analysis; but when recorded in a book, they may be closely scanned and criticised, and, if erroneous or absurd, their imperfections may be readily detected and exposed. Again, creeds may be necessary and useful, without implying that those who make them consider them superior to the Scriptures. The Bible is a very comprehensive book, embracing an extensive range on a great variety of subjects. It embodies a fund of instruction on themes the most important and sublime, and in some instances profoundly mysterious. That portions of its contents are “hard to be understood” is no disparagement, but rather adds dignity and grandeur to that inimitable volume. Of course it must be expected that men will differ in opinion in reference to the interpretation of the Scriptures.

But there is much less diversity of sentiment in reference to the meaning of a creed. For illustration, the no-creed party have very generally adopted an article (whether oral or written is not material so far as principle is concerned) declaring, “There is no baptism but immersion.” Now, it is clear there can be no controversy as to the meaning of this article; but it is equally certain that there is controversy in reference to what the Scriptures teach on the subject. But does it therefore follow that the framers of that article have excelled the inspired writers? The opponents of creeds surely will not answer this question in the affirmative, but, unless they do, they relinquish the principle of the objection under consideration. Again, the Bible only gives an outline of Church affairs, leaving much of the detail to be carried out by the Churches, as expediency and circumstances may dictate. These details of organization and government, though in themselves of comparatively minor importance, and though the particular form in which they are adopted is of small consequence, yet such is their nature that attention to them, in some shape, is indispensable to Church order and decorum. For illustration, the Bible enjoins administration of Church discipline and ordinances, but does not specify the precise form in which officers are to be selected for this work; if by the whole Church, whether by viva voce vote, by the lifting up of hands, or by ballot, is not declared; nor does the Bible determine the order of administering the Lord’s-supper, whether it shall be administered once a month, every week, or every day; nor is the precise order specified in which the public worship is to be conducted, whether reading the Scriptures, singing, prayer, and preaching, are all to be included as parts of the service, and, if so, in what order they are to succeed each other; these, and numerous other details, though not specifically settled in Scripture, are all necessary to be understood and agreed upon in a well ordered Church. But whether these details be settled by a mere verbal understanding preserved in the memory, or by vote of a Church-meeting recorded by a secretary, or by a record printed in a book and called a creed, these are mere circumstances which cannot affect the principle involved. Whatever be the form which the proceeding may assume, it proves that there are rules and regulations which Churches may, and must, adopt beyond what is written in the New Testament, without claiming a wisdom superior to that of the inspired apostles; and of course the objection is seen to be untenable and fallacious.

Several other objections have been made against creeds, but they are all easily shown to be futile.

3. Creeds are opposed on the ground that there is no express Bible command authorizing them. If it be wrong to make, or to adopt, a creed because there is no express Bible command for it, then it is wrong to write and publish a religious book. The one is as destitute of an express command as the other.

If it be said that the propriety of publishing religious books is established by all such general precepts as require us to do all the good we can — if the shift be made to this position, then the objection to creeds founded on the absence of any express command is relinquished; for if the right to publish a book can rest on inferential Bible basis, so may the authority for creeds.

4. Creeds are opposed on the ground that they are productive of heresies and schisms.

This has often been asserted, but never has been and never can be proved. That creeds should necessarily be productive of heresy or schism, is a position not only unsustained by evidence, but in itself unphilosophical. It confounds the distinction between cause and effect, or rather puts the one for the other. Creeds do not produce diversity of sentiment, but diversity of sentiment produces creeds. If all were agreed what the Scriptures teach, there would be no necessity for human creeds; they could not originate. Heresies in the Church arose first, and creeds were framed and adopted to detect, expose, and check those heresies; and that they have been efficient instruments in the accomplishment of this work, the history of the Church has clearly evinced.

Creeds were first called symbols, because they were viewed as signs, marks, or notes, of profession at baptism. The oldest of these is styled “The Apostles’ Creed,” because it was supposed to have originated at, or near, the apostles’ day, if not to be in part derived from them. This noble symbol of Christian faith, originating at so early a date, and sounding on through all succeeding ages from the lips of the millions of God’s people, has done more for the prevention and suppression of heresy and schism, and for the promotion of Christian unity and concord, than all that has ever been uttered and written against creeds. Indeed, the legitimate tendency of creeds is directly the reverse of what the objection supposes. The Nicene Creed, in the fourth century, was framed for the suppression of the Arian heresy. About the close of the same century an addition was made to the creed, condemning the heresy of Macedonius, and affirming the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in the middle of the fifth century, by other additions to the creed, the heresies of Nestorius and Eutychius were condemned. At Nice, the creed was made to assert the proper divinity of Christ; at Constantinople, that of the Holy Ghost; at Ephesus, that the divine and the human natures in Christ are united in one person; and at Chalcedon, that both natures remain distinct, and that the humanity is not lost or absorbed in the divinity.

The creeds, thus settled at so early a day, have exerted a powerful influence in all subsequent ages in preserving the great body of the Church from schism and from heresy in relation to those fundamental doctrines. The great truth is, that those who object to creeds cannot sustain their objections without contradicting their own positions, and condemning their own practices. Whether they admit it or not, they, in effect and reality, have adopted a human creed. That they are not governed by the New Testament, or by the Bible alone, may easily be demonstrated. True, they acknowledge no creed but the Bible; but those who subscribe to creeds make the same profession. Wherein, then, is the difference? Let us scan this question closely. Where, we ask, is the real, the practical difference? The creed-party say they are governed by the Bible alone, but honestly admit that they mean the Bible as they understand its teachings; and they adopt a creed as an exhibit, so far as it goes, of what they understand the Bible to teach. Here all is plain and open, as it should be; no one is deceived, deluded, or mystified; all may read, examine, understand, and test their positions.

But how is it with the no-creed party? They too say they are governed by the Bible alone. They admit no qualification. “The Bible alone,” say they, “and not the Bible as interpreted by any man or set of men.” But when we come to view the application and practical workings of this no-creed theory, as has been shown, its standard is not the Bible alone, allowing each one to interpret the book for himself, but the Bible as they, the no-creed party, have agreed or may agree to interpret it. Now, we demand, if this be the true statement of the facts in the case, which none can deny, how is it possible to reconcile the theory with the practice of the no-creed party? Their theory is this — we are governed by the Bible alone; their practice is this — we are governed by the Bible as we interpret it. Now, there is but one possible way of reconciling these two propositions; and that is, to admit that the no-creed party are endued with infallibility as Bible interpreters. If there be one single point in which they interpret the Bible incorrectly, and they are governed by that interpretation (which they of course will be), then in that case they are not governed by the Bible alone. The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that they must either claim the infallibility assumed by the Pope, or relinquish their cherished boast that they are governed by the Bible alone in any higher sense than those who subscribe to written creeds.

There is an imposing aspect and a fragrance of liberality about the phrase, “The Bible, and the Bible alone;” but let us not be ensnared by illusive charms, let us look at the reality of things; the substance, and not the shadow, can alone satisfy, the thinking mind.

What, we ask, is a law without an expounding and executive power? Mere law in the abstract is as powerless for government, whether of Church or state, as a web of gossamer. The constitution and laws of our country are only efficacious as expounded by the courts and enforced by the executive; just so, the Scriptures can only be available for the government of the Church as interpreted and administered by some recognized power. To aver that we are governed by the New Testament, or by the Bible, amounts to nothing, unless we can determine what are the teachings of that book. The creed defines the agreed sense of those teachings, and recognizes the proper officers for administering the law and the method of proceeding therein.

Those who acknowledge no creed but the Bible must, in the nature of things, adopt some method of settling the meaning of Scripture, and of carrying out the law, otherwise they can have no government whatever. This they unquestionably have done; and disguise it as they may, they are governed, not by “the Bible alone,” but by their interpretation of the Bible, and this interpretation, however it may be arrived at, and settled, or agreed to, is, de facto, their creed. Hence the conclusion of the whole matter is, that the opposition to written creeds either starts upon an erroneous basis, assuming that creeds are intended to coerce obedience upon those who have not voluntarily adopted them, and thus interfere with liberty of conscience, or it involves the no-creed party in the inconsistency of warring against creeds by the use of arguments fatal to their own position and contradictory to their own practice.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 10.

QUESTION 1. Whence has the prejudice against written creeds generally originated?

2. How is this prejudice shown to be unwarranted?

3. What is the first argument for the propriety and utility of creeds?

4. How is it shown that creeds do not infringe upon the liberty of conscience?

5. What is the second argument for creeds?

6. Why is a creed necessary for the orderly conducting of public worship?

7. Why is it necessary in reference to the regular preaching of the word of God?

8. Why is it necessary in reference to the administration of the ordinances?

9. Why is it necessary in reference to the Sabbath and the Lord’s-supper?

10. Why, in reference to Church-discipline?

11. What is the first objection to creeds, and how is it answered?

12. The second, and how is it answered?

13. The third, and how is it answered?

14. How is it shown that those who object to creeds, in endeavoring to sustain those objections, involve themselves in self-contradiction’?

15. What is stated as the conclusion of the whole matter?