Presbyterian Church

You are currently browsing articles tagged Presbyterian Church.

July 12: The League of Faith

12 July, 2013 in July 2013 by archivist | No comments

Just What Purpose Did They Serve, Really?

Recently in another post, mention was made of an organization called The League of Faith. This group seems largely forgotten now, some eighty years later, but it was a conservative renewal group established to work within the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.  The history of this organization was played out in two stages, as described in Chapter 14 of The Presbyterian Conflict.

League_1931_buswellThe League of Faith was originally organized in 1931, and was centered around the leadership of the Rev. Dr. Walter D. Buchanan, D.D. An initial membership of 150 included such prominent conservatives as J. Gresham Machen, Samuel G. Craig, Paul Woolley, Clarence E. Macartney, and many others. Judging from records preserved at the PCA Historical Center, the Rev. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. was another founding member of the League, at witnessed in the Certificate of Membership pictured at right.

The objects of the League, as listed in Article 2 of its Constitution, were as follows:

1. To maintain loyalty to the Bible as the Word of God in opposition to denials of its full truthfulness.
2. To maintain the Reformed or Calvinistic system of doctrine as it is set forth in the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as it appears in 1931 in opposition to all plans of church union which would either break down that system or relegate it to a secondary place.
3. To oppose changes in the historic formula of creed subscription required of candidates for the ministry and the eldership.
4. To oppose the attack made by the document commonly called the “Auburn Affirmation” upon the doctrinal pronouncement of the General Assembly of 1923, and to insist, in opposition to that affirmation, that the full truth of the Scriptures, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Substitutionary Atonement, the bodily Resurrection and Miracles of our Lord are essential doctrines of the Word of God and our Standards.
5. To warn men everywhere that salvation is to be obtained not by human merit or human effort to please God, but only through the redeeming work of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He is offered to us in the Gospel.
6. To encourage the vigorous defense and joyous propagation of the Gospel in its fullness as it is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith on the basis of Holy Scripture.

But apparently the organization never actually did anything. It met regularly, and its members talked, but no plan of action was ever adopted, much less acted upon.

Finally, as noted in The Presbyterian Conflict, “When the members of the Independent Board were suspended from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church in the USA and the Presbyterian Church of America was organized in 1936, the League was reorganized and continued by a group of ministers led by Dr. C. E. Macartney, who were imbued with the idea that the Presbyterian Church in the USA was still fundamentally sound.”

It was this 1936 reorganization of the League that we find documented in a news clipping in one of the Rev. Henry Welbon’s scrapbooks. The newspaper was The Philadelphia Record, and the brief coverage of the League’s reorganization was described in this way:

CLERGYMEN FORM LEAGUE OF FAITH

Conservative clergymen within the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. have formed a league of Faith, with Dr. Clarence E. Macartney, of Pittsburgh, as their president.

More than 1000 attended recent organization meetings in New York. They declared that liberals and Modernists now dominate the Presbyterian Church although they represent but a small portion of its membership.

Dr. Macartney was elected Moderator of the Presbyterian Church more than a decade ago and was a leader in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy with Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, of New York. Dr. Macartney was then pastor of the Arch Street Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia.

Dr. Samuel G. Craig, Dr. David DeForrest Burrell, and Rev. John H. McComb are vice presidents of the new league.

Then in 1937, just four short years before the United States entered the Second World War, the League subsequently led a successful fight in opposition to a proposed amendment to the 23d chapter of Westminster Confession of Faith, an amendment which would have put the Presbyterian Church on record as opposing all wars as sinful and unchristian. This appears to have been the League’s one victory, and eventually the organization simply disappeared off the pages of history.

We Might Wonder:
While the Presbyterian Church was but one of many denominations, what might have been the effect of such an amendment to the Confession, particularly at such a crucial moment in the nation’s history? Would other denominations have followed suite with similar pronouncements? Would the United States conceivably have then been kept out of the War, or perhaps delayed its involvement till some months or years later? Was the League of Faith a providence from God? Did their humble efforts leave this nation ready to enter the War at just the right time? This is all dangerous territory for any historian. Had that amendment been adopted, the rest of our national history might not have changed in the least. It is all too speculative, and we cannot read history in that way. In the end, we can only affirm with the Scriptures that God is indeed sovereign over human history. Nothing happens that is outside His plan, and everything is working toward the glorious culmination that He has in store for His elect children. But all too often . . . the Lord works in the most unexpected ways.

Tags: , , , , ,

July 8: William Stuart Red

8 July, 2013 in July 2013 by archivist | No comments

Looking ahead to the 42nd General Assembly of the PCA, which will meet in Houston, Texas in 2014, we revisit today a post from this day last year.

A Historian for a Historical Devotional

redWmStuart

“It was a grief to him that Presbyterians did not feel, or perhaps realize, the importance of preserving their precious documents.”

The Presbyterian minister was convinced that when young men were called into the ministry, and then left the state of Texas for their religious training, most of them never returned to the Lone Star State.  So there was obviously one solution, namely, begin a theological seminary in Texas.  And he did, even giving the land for it, and today Austin Theological Seminary (a seminary of the PCUSA) is in existence today.

This Texas minister was William Stuart Red. Born in 1857, though some say 1860, in Washington County, Texas, he attended for a while a university in Tennessee before transferring to Austin College in Austin, Texas.  He then studied at Princeton Seminary for one year before transferring to Columbia Theological Seminary in 1884-85.  Finally, he returned back to the Lone Star State to Austin School of Theology and graduated from there in 1886.  After some further study in Germany and Scotland, he returned for licensure and ordination as a Presbyterian minister in the Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1887.

texarkanaNatlBankHe was the pastor at six Presbyterian churches in Texas.  Beyond his care for the churches, he was also interested in a central depository for Presbyterian and Reformed history.  So, along with the Rev. Samuel Terry, Rev. Red gave funds for the creation of the Historical Foundation of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches at Montreat, North Carolina.

Before he died on July 8, 1933, his project after retirement from the ministry was the History of the Presbyterian Church in Texas.  His family finished up the 500 page book after his death from papers he had written.  Our PCA Historical Center has a copy of it in St. Louis, Missouri.

Pictured above left, the original location of the archives for the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (aka, Southern Presbyterian Church), before it was relocated to Montreat, North Carolina.

Words to Live By:
He seemed to be larger than life, but then aren’t all Texans?  Yet it is important to remember that his love for the state of Texas was grounded in Christian Presbyterianism in Texas.  Paul’s haunting question in the New Testament was “How shall they hear without a preacher?”  Rev. Red wanted Presbyterian preachers to train and serve their Lord and God so that his fellow Texans could hear the unsearchable riches of God’s grace.  That is true for all of our states.  Pray for where God has placed you on this day that the everlasting good news of eternal life might impact your state.

For Further Reading:
Dr. Red’s magnum opus, A History of the Presbyterian Church in Texas, is not currently available in digital format, and print copies are somewhat scarce, the book having been published in 1936. Another, earlier work by Dr. Red is available on the Internet: Texas Colonists and Religion, 1821-1836: A Centennial Tribute to the Texas patriots who shed their blook that we might enjoy civil and religious liberty. (1924).

A Further Note on William Stuart Red (from the Introduction to A History of the Presbyterian Church in Texas) :

God in His providence took the Reverend W. S. Red, D.D., from his earthly labors before he had completed this last task, so very dear to his heart—the writing of the history of his Church in Texas.

Mr. Red from early youth had exhibited an abiding interest in the “beginnings” of his Church. This is not surprising when his early environment is considered. He was born of pioneering parents, staunchly Presbyterian with a long Presbyterian heritage, who took a leading part in the work of the Church in Texas. His father came to Texas in 1844, during the days of the Republic. He was an elder in the historic Prospect Church and a charter member of the Board of Trustees of Austin College. His mother was a pioneer in the education of women, being associated with Dr. Miller in founding one of the first Presbyterian schools for young women. His uncle, Dr. Miller, took part in the organization of the Synod of Texas (PCUS), being its first Stated Clerk. His early childhood was spent in the shadow of the “Cradle of Presbyterianism,” old Chriesman’s school house. He spoke of passing this historic place, when, as a boy, he made his regular horseback trips to mill.

Mr. Red devoted practically his whole life to gathering this material. Many weary hours were spent in the basement of the old Main Building at the University, delving into the Austin and Bexar Archives. This was years before a library had been built or an archivist had catalogued these papers.

It was a grief to him that Presbyterians did not feel, or perhaps realize, the importance of preserving their precious documents. Consequently, he was a prime mover in securing for our Church the Historical Foundation, as is shown from [Foundation director] Dr. Tenney’s letter: “The service your husband has rendered all along through these years, from 1903, has been very great; but strange to say, in such a manner as that his name does not get into it . . . He does not concern himself with the outward reward and glory here; his zeal is for the Kingdom, yet just because of this we who appreciate his unselfish and sacrificial service feel that his name should be associated with his service.” [Letter to Mrs. Red from Dr. S. M. Tenney, dated January 25, 1927.]

Tags: , , ,

July 4: John Breckinridge

4 July, 2013 in July 2013 by archivist | No comments

breckinridgeJohnLord, Give Us Giants!

He was one of those men whom you wish had written more. His son, R. J. Breckinridge, was a prolific writer, but John only left us a handful of published works. John Breckinridge was born in Cabell’s Dale, near Lexington, Kentucky, July 4, 1797. John’s father, the Honorable John Breckinridge, had served as Attorney General during the Jefferson administration, but died when John was only nine years old.

Raised by his widowed mother and an older brother, John attended the College of New Jersey, graduating in 1818, but decided against the legal profession in order to prepare for the ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary, attending there from 1819-22. Upon graduation, he was appointed to serve as chaplain in the U.S. Congress, 1822-23, and following that term, was then ordained by the Presbytery of West Lexington on September 10, 1823 and installed as pastor of the Second (McChord) Church in Lexington, Kentucky. This church he served until called in 1826 by the Second Presbyterian Church, in Baltimore, Maryland.

Leaving the pulpit ministry, Rev. Breckinridge served from 1831 to 1836 as Corresponding Secretary for the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.  From 1836 to 1838, he was Professor of Pastoral Theology and Missionary Instruction at the Princeton Theological Seminary. His wife, Margaret, was the daughter of Dr. Samuel Miller, and she died in 1838. Perhaps her death prompted his resignation from the Princeton faculty, nor did John survive her by many years.  His last significant service was as Secretary and General Agent for the PCUSA Board of Foreign Missions, from 1838 to 1840. Leaving that post, he served only briefly as stated supply for a church in New Orleans, Louisiana before declining health forced his retirement, and he died on the same spot where he had been born, in Cabell’s Dale, Kentucky, on August 4, 1841, at the age of forty-four. One of the last things that he said before his death was—”I am a poor sinner who have worked hard, and had constantly before my mind one great object—the conversion of the world.”

During Rev. Breckinridge’s years with the Board of Education, he oversaw the publication of a series of Annuals, volumes comprised of collected essays. These volumes appear to be quite rare and the PCA Historical Center was blessed to locate a copy of the fourth volume, published in 1835. The full title of this work isThe Annual of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States: A New Year’s Offering for 1835.

Rev. Breckinridge writes a brief introduction for this volume, the larger portion of which follows [emphasis added]:—

ADDRESS TO THE CANDIDATES OF THE BOARD. (1834)

. . . In the present crisis of all things, human and divine, it is unspeakably important for American youth to know what heaven and earth expect from them. Candidates for such an office, in such an age, and such a country, can no longer be ordinary men. The position is one full of peril to themselves, and of calamity to the church and world,—if not occupied to the entire measure of its advantages and its distinction. The very highest attainments in piety, are now absolutely indispensable. He, who aims below this standing, cannot be a Christian in any age; but in this great conjecture, no man is fit to be minister who does not reach it.

It has often been said, this is an age of action. Those who are already in the field, and will not be efficient, must die off in their fearful lethargy. But to bring new sluggards into the ministry, and especially to put the treasure of the church in requisition, in order to do it, were indeed the gratuity of sin and folly,—”the superfluity of naughtiness.” “He that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame.” The harvest of the earth is ripe; and its boundless fields wave before us, and call on us to thrust in the sickle and reap. We must have more enterprise, more self-devotion, more of the foreign missionary spirit, or our Boards of Education will sink into contempt. Unless our young men awake, and arise to the greatness of their destiny and office, the world will outrun the church in enterprise, intrepidity, and public spirit. The church is now passing into the relation of great institutions and little men. May the days of men, yea, of giants, in God’s service, revisit the earth in your consecrated persons! Let it not be our shame, and the world’s affliction, that we have contributed to bring you into the sacred office.

With mingled hope, and fears, and with many supplications, and tears, and labors for you, I am your friend and fellow-servant,

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE,

EDUCATION ROOMS,
Philadelphia, Nov. 20th, 1834.

PUBLISHED WORKS BY THE REV. JOHN BRECKINRIDGE (with links to digital editions):—

“Introductory address” to Volume 1 (1832) of the series, The Annual of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.

An address, delivered July 15, 1835, before the Eucleian and Philomathean societies of the University of the city of New York (1836).

Controversy between the Rev. John Hughes, of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Rev. John Breckinridge, of the Presbyterian Church : relative to the existing differences in the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions (1833).

Also authored by John Hughes [1797-1864], and John Breckinridge:—

A discussion of the question, Is the Roman Catholic religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty? And of the question, Is the Presbyterian religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty? (1836).

RELATED:

A Memorial of Mrs. Margaret Breckinridge (1839) – by Archibald Alexander.

 

 

[emphasis added]

Tags: , , , , , ,

July 3: Bolters Reply to Presbytery

3 July, 2013 in July 2013 by archivist | 1 comment

Today’s post provides a good example of  press coverage of the modernist controversy during the 1930s. On July 3d, 1936, the following news item appeared in the Wilmington, Delaware newspaper. The Rev. Harold S. Laird has been mentioned before on TDPH, but today we also have the added names of Doctors Roy and Bertha Byram, as well as the Rev. Robert H. Graham. The Byrams went on to serve as medical missionaries in Manchuria and were imprisoned by the Japanese during WW2. Rev. Graham, who was born in 1905, remained a pastor with the PCofA/OPC and passed away on February 27, 1993.  At this time, I do not have birth and death dates available for the Byrams. This article also mentions a few lesser known conservative groups, The League of Faith (a PCUSA renewal group), and The Elder’s Testimony, both of which will have to be discussed at some later date.

“Bolters” appears to have been an apparently derogatory term used to describe those leaving the PCUSA in the 1930s. The term may have been one chosen by journalists, or it may have simply been picked up by them, as they heard it used by PCUSA loyalists. The term appears in a number of the news clippings preserved in the Welbon Collection. While it is a somewhat descriptive term, I suppose the intended implication was that these men, women and churches were leaving rashly and without having properly thought the matter through.

BOLTERS REPLY TO PRESBYTERY

Fundamentalist Pastors In­sist They are Loyal But Hit Rule of Few

Declare Issue is Doctrinal, Deplore Conferring Author­ity on Small Group

Fundamentalist ministers of the Presbytery of New Castle, including those who have renounced its author­ity and that of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., yesterday announced here a statement, which they had adopted in answer to a recent one by the Presbytery setting forth its doctrinal beliefs and stand in the fundamentalist–modernist controversy.

Harold Samuel LairdThe Rev. Harold S. Laird, formerly of First and Central Presbyterian Church, recently suspended by Presbytery for continuing to refuse to resign membership on the outlawed Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions; and Dr. Roy M. Byram, who recently resigned from the Presbyterian Board  of Foreign Missions to join the independent one, and accept appointment to Manchukuo, with his wife, also a medical missionary, attended the meeting of fundamentalists in Pittsburgh, where the statement was drafted. The Drs. Byram formerly were supported on the mission field at Kankei, Korea, by First and Cen­tral Church.

Loyalty Is Affirmed

byramThe fundamentalist statement, endorsed here by that group, follows:

“As loyal Presbyterians, loyal in the Lord to our beloved Church and her standards, and desirous of being loyal to her boards and agencies, we believe that the issue which is troubling the peace of the Church is primarily doctrinal and are convinced that doctrines not in accord with her standards are being tolerated and even fostered by boards and agencies of the Church.

“Believing heartily in the great educational and evangelistic mis­sion of the Church, we hold that voluntary giving only is acceptable to the Lord, and that conscientious scruples should be respected in the case of all who are loyal to the con­stitution of the Church.

Church Held Democratic

“We believe that the Presbyterian Church is a democratic and repre­sentative church, and we hold that the concentration of authority and power in the hands of a few, the making of boards and agencies the masters, and not the servants, of the people, the attributing to adminis­trative acts of casual majorities of the General Assembly of supra-constitutional authority, is all contrary to the constitution, destructive of true Presbyterianism, and should be resisted.

“We deplore the severe treatment which has been meted out to men of our communion conspicuous for their loyalty to the doctrines of our Church and for zeal for its purity, and we call upon all to work and pray for the healing of a breach in our communion that has brought shame and sorrow upon the Church.

Three Proposals Made

“Believing that the supreme need of the Church is return to full loyalty to her historic standards, we make the following proposals:

“1. We request the national com­mittee of the Elders’ Testimony and the League of Faith to issue from time to time statements to the eld­ers and ministers of the church in­forming them regarding the great doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues that are now before the church, especially with a view to exposing the invasion of unbelief, and the tyranny of organization.

“2. We recommend that The Presbyterian and Christianity To­day be urged to become the chan­nels for this militant testimony.

“3. That copies of these resolutions be sent to the League of Faith and the National Committee of the Elders’ Testimony, with the request that they take the necessary steps to call a national convention in the autumn for the purpose of furthering the ends herein expressed, and that should no steps be taken by those two organizations, a meeting of this group be called by its chairman and its secretary in the autumn.”

Forest Church Defers Action

Forest Presbyterian Church, Mid­dletown, whose pastor, the Rev. Robert H. Graham, has already join­ed the Presbyterian Church of  America, and which had indicated that it probably would also seek admission, has decided to continue in its independent status for at least a month longer.

It has been expected that Forest Church would follow Eastlake Church here in joining the new church.

This action was taken at a congregational meeting Wednesday night, when, according to Mr. Graham. a large number of the members who believe that they should remain loyal to the Presbytery of New Castle, attended than at the earlier meeting. He said the vote Wednes­day night did not indicate strong opposition to joining the new church, but that those in favor felt it might be wiser to defer action.

Mr. Graham is one of five min­isters suspended by the Presbytery in connection with their renuncia­tion of its authority and other of­fenses of which the Presbytery ac­cuses them in connection with the fundamentalist–modernist dispute here and nationally. Four, of whom Mr. Graham is one, were given temporary suspension, pending trial, while Mr. Laird was suspended indefinitely. He was tried and con­victed on charges of disobedience to the government and discipline of the church.

The Rev. Dr. John W. Christie, a member of Presbytery’s permanent committee on National Missions, to which was delegated the task of supplying the pulpits of churches of the temporarily suspended ministers and all others where there are no pas­tors, visited Middletown yesterday afternoon and last night. He con­ferred with officers and members of the Forest Church who have re­mained loyal to Presbytery.

[transcript of a news clipping from The Wilmington Morning News, 3 July 1936. This clipping is preserved in Scrapbook No. 3, page 279, in the Henry G. Welbon Manuscript Collection.]

Tags: , , , , , ,

July 2: An Important Lecture

2 July, 2013 in July 2013 by archivist | No comments

It was on this day, July 2d, in 1824, that the Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller delivered what was termed an Introductory Lecture, at the opening summer session of the Princeton Theological Seminary. The title and subject of his lecture was THE UTILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. Dr. Miller had by this time been serving as a Professor at Princeton for over a decade. He was settled both in his theology and in his views of what the students must learn as they prepared for ministry in the Presbyterian Church. So, as this was his Introductory Lecture, we should most likely understand this message as one which Dr. Miller considered particularly foundational both for the  Seminary curriculum and for the future ministry of the Princeton graduates.

After presenting Dr. Miller’s opening remarks, his seven main points in support of creeds and confessions will be provided, though in their barest form and without supporting arguments, since space is limited. Much of the rest of the work will then be skipped, and we will jump to Miller’s concluding comments. If you would like to read the entire work [it’s not long—only 84 pages], there will be a link at the end of this post.

 

Neagle-Sartain portraitThe character and situation of one who is preparing for the sacred office are interesting beyond the power of language to express. Such a one, like the Master whom he professes to love and serve, is “set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34). In all that he is, and in all that he does, the temporal and eternal welfare not only of himself, but of thousands, may be involved. On every side he is beset with perils. Whatever may be his talents and learning, if he has not genuine piety, he will probably be a curse instead of a blessing to the church. But this is not the only danger to which he is exposed. He may have unfeigned piety, as well as talents and learning; and yet, from habitual indiscretion; from a defect in that sobriety of mind, which is so precious to all men, but especially to every one who occupies a public station; from a fondness for novelty and innovation, or from that love of distinction which is so natural to men; after all, instead of edifying the “body of Christ,” he may become a disturber of its peace, and a corrupter of its purity; so that we might almost say, whatever may be the result with respect to himself, “it had been good for the church if he had never been born.”

Hence it is, that every part of the character of him who is coming forward to the holy ministry; his opinions; his temper; his attainments; his infirmities; and above all, his character as a practical Christian;—are of inestimable importance to the ecclesiastical community of which he is destined to be a minister. Nothing that pertains to him is uninteresting. If it were possible for him, strictly speaking, to “live to himself,” or to “die to himself,” the case would be different. But it is not possible. His defects as well as his excellencies, his gifts and graces, as well as the weak points of his character, must and will all have their appropriate effect on everything that he touches.

Can you wonder, then, that employed to conduct the education of candidates for this high and holy office, we see ourselves placed under a solemn, nay, an awful responsibility? Can you wonder that, having advanced a little before you in our experience in relation to this office, we cherish the deepest solicitude at every step you take? Can you wonder, that we daily exhort you to “take heed to yourselves and your doctrine,” and that we cease not to entreat you, and to pray for you that you give all diligence to approve yourselves to God and his church able and faithful servants? Independently of all official obligation, did we not feel and act thus, we should manifest an insensibility to the interests of the church, as well as to your true welfare, equally inexcusable and degrading.

It is in consequence of this deep solicitude for your improvement in every kind of ministerial furniture, that we not only endeavor to conduct the regular course of your instruction in such a manner as we think best adapted to promote the great end of all your studies; but that we also seize the opportunity which the general Lecture (introductory to each session) affords us, of calling your attention to a series of subjects which do not fall within the ordinary course of our instruction.

A subject of this nature will engage our attention on the present occasion: namely, the importance of creeds and confessions for maintaining the unity and purity of the visible church.

This is a subject which, though it properly belongs to the department of Church Government, has always been, for want of time, omitted in the Lectures usually delivered on that division of our studies. And I am induced now to call your attention to it, because, as I said, it properly belongs to the department committed to me; because it is in itself a subject highly interesting and important; because it has been for a number of years past, and still is, the object of much severe animadversion on the part of latitudinarians and heretics; and because, though abundantly justified by reason, scripture, and universal experience, the spontaneous feelings of many, especially under the free government which it is our happiness to enjoy, rise up in arms against what they deem, and are sometimes pleased to call, the excessive “rigor” and even “tyranny” of exacting subscription to articles of faith.

It is my design, first, to offer some remarks on the utility and importance of written creeds; and secondly, to obviate some of the more common and plausible objections which have been urged against them by their adversaries.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CREEDS

I. By a creed, or confession of faith, I mean an exhibition, in human language, of those great doctrines which are believed by the framers of it to be taught in the holy scriptures; and which are drawn out in regular order, for the purpose of ascertaining how far those who wish to unite in church fellowship are really agreed in the fundamental principles of Christianity. Creeds and confessions do not claim to be in themselves laws of Christ’s house, or legislative enactments, by which any set of opinions are constituted truths, and which require, on that account, to be received as truths among the members of his family. They only profess to be summaries, extracted from the scriptures, of a few of those great gospel doctrines which are taught by Christ himself; and which those who make the summary in each particular case concur in deeming important, and agree to make the test of their religious union. They have no idea that, in forming this summary, they make anything truth that was not truth before; or that they thereby contract an obligation to believe what they were not bound by the authority of Christ to believe before. But they simply consider it as a list of the leading truths which the Bible teaches, which, of course, all men ought to believe, because the Bible does teach them; and which a certain portion of the visible church catholic agree in considering as a formula, by means of which they may know and understand one another.

Now, I affirm that the adoption of such a creed is not only lawful and expedient, but also indispensably necessary to the harmony and purity of the visible church. For the establishment of this position, let me request your attention to the following considerations.

1. Without a creed explicitly adopted, it is not easy to see how the ministers and members of any particular church, and more especially a large denomination of Christians, can maintain unity among themselves.

2. The necessity and importance of creeds and confessions appear from the consideration, that one great design of establishing a church in our world was that she might be, in all ages, a depository, a guardian, and a witness of the truth.

miller_1824_creeds3. The adoption and publication of a creed is a tribute to truth and candor, which every Christian church owes to the other churches, and to the world around her.

4. Another argument in favour of creeds, publicly adopted and maintained, is that they are friendly to the study of Christian doctrine, and, of course, to the prevalence of Christian knowledge.

5. It is an argument of no small weight, in favor of creeds, that the experience of all ages has found them indispensably necessary.

6. A further argument in favor of creeds and Confessions may be drawn from the remarkable fact that their most zealous opposers have generally been latitudinarians and heretics.

7. The only further argument in support of creeds on which I shall dwell is that their most zealous opposers do themselves virtually employ them in all ecclesiastical proceedings.

Concluding Comment:

The church is still “in the wilderness”; and every age has its appropriate trials. Among those of the present day is a spirit of restless innovation, a disposition to consider everything that is new as of course an improvement. Happy are they who, taking the word of God for their guide, and walking in “the footsteps of the flock,” continually seek the purity, the peace, and the edification of the Master’s family; who, listening with more respect to the unerring Oracle, and to the sober lessons of Christian experience, than to the delusions of fashionable error, hold on their way, “turning neither to the right hand nor the left,” and considering it as their highest honor and happiness to be employed as humble, peaceful instruments in building up that “kingdom which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost!.” May God grant to each of us this best of all honors! And to his name be the praise, forever! Amen!

To read the entire work by Dr. Miller, click here.

Tags: , , , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »