L the gospel, were about to judge of the qualifications of a minister, they could obtain no definite idea of his opinions, merely from his. assent to scripture phrases. As circumstances are, it is absolute ly impossible, by the use of scripture phrases only, to declare our faith to others. This is not charging any imperfection upon the word of God. For confes sions of faith, strictly speaking, are not designed to give an account of what the Holy Ghost says concerning any articles of faith, but of what we believe. And when we would determine, whether any particular terms are proper to be used in creeds; the question is, whether they will ex. press, with sufficient clearness, the real belief of those who assent to them. As scripture phrases, however clear and determinate in themselves, have become of an ambiguous signification, they are not suited to the purpose of confessions. And to say that no confessions should be composed or assented to in any language, but that of Scripture, is to say, we must be entirely uncertain, whether those, with whom we join in church fellowship, and those whom we elect for ministers, believe the doctrines of our religion, or not. It follows from this unreasonable notion, that we should never make an explicit confession of Christ and his gospel before men. For how can we give a testimony to the faith of the gospel in a declining age, or profess our firm adherence to the truth by subscribing a proposition, which they who reject the doc trines we believe, are as ready to subscribe, as we are? What sat isfaction can thus be given to any discerning man concerning our belief? By such a subscription or assent to a scripture phrase, we impose upon our thoughtless neighbours. Unless we explain our meaning, we do nothing but conceal our sentiments. Indeed it is the very practice we are op posing, to which they resort, who mean to disguise their reli gious opinions, They form the language of Scripture into a cove ert under which they can hide, a shelter to which they can retreat from the region of light and truth. It is in vain to urge the perspi cuity of scripture language, by which we allow it is perfectly adapted to be a universal rule of faith and practice. Whatever men's speculations on the subject may be, it is, I repeat it, a well known fact, that the use of scripture phrases does not determine what a man's sentiments are, even on the most important points in religion. So that the scheme, which the adversaries of creeds undertake to found on the perfection of Scripture, is calcu lated to break down all the fences, which secure the church from danger, and to let in all manner of errors and corruptions. It affords a hiding place to the most pernicious deceivers. It tends to confound all religious socie ties, and to destroy the very be ing of church communion, which is founded on one faith, one hope, one baptism. It may be said, that creeds are liable to the same abuse as scripture phrases; that others may understand them in a different sense from what we do; and that dishonest men may please themselves with subtilties, by the help of which they fancy they can sub. scribe our confessions, while they reject the obvious sense. It is readily acknowledged, that there is no absolute security against human error and deceit; and that after all our vigilance we may be imposed upon. But this sense of danger should excite the greater caution, and engage us to use those methods which seem least liable to mistake. We already know that scripture phrases are used by different persons in a different sense. Some men think the plainest passages in favour of a particular truth ought to be so explained, as to mean quite the contrary. If after knowing this, we should consider a person's assenting to or using those passages, as a satisfactory declaration of his faith, we might justly be charged with the weakest credulity. On the contrary, we perceive that men of erroneous sentiments generally refuse to subscribe orthodox confessions. In this case they cannot so easily satisfy themselves with evasive distinctions. But if the expressions used in any creed should, in process of time, be so applied as to become ambiguous, churches might consistently make alterations, and use other expressions of a more determinate signification. For, while the Holy Scriptures are designed for a universal and perpetual rule of faith and manners; confessions of faith are of a limited nature, and must be framed with reference to the particular state of nations, to the heresies which prevail, to the various arts and subterfuges of deceivers, to the sense in which they use words, and the particular cast which By they give to their schemes. attending to such things, the enlightened friends of truth may, at every period, construct creeds, which will answer the double purpose of declaring their own sentiments, and of discovering the sentiments of others. They, who place so much dependence on a mere assent to scripture phrases, are evidently chargeable with superstition. Words in themselves, are nothing. They are arbitrary signs of our thoughts, and derive all their meaning from common usage. The words of Scripture are no more valuable, or worthy of regard, than any other words, if we abstract them from the sense or doctrine which they are designed to express. The whole value of words consists in the meaning, which the speaker or writer intends to convey by them. So far, therefore, as any words or phrases are without a determinate sense, they are worthless. He that uses them, without explanation, might as well say nothing. If scripture phrases are understood by the world in different senses, and he, who uses them, refuses to inform others in what sense he uses them, he mocks those who wish to know his sentiments. For example. A man pretends to satisfy us concerning his faith by assenting to a passage where CHRIST is called GOD; though he chooses not to tell us, whether by the word GOD he means the su preme, self-existent Being, or a metaphorical deity, as the Socinians consider it. In such a case, he does not give us the least knowledge of his belief, and might as well use a Chinese word, as the name of God. To consider, therefore, such a use of scripture phrases, as a sufficient declaration of a man's faith, is so far from consulting the glory of inspiration, that it is turning its words into so many charms and amulets; and it might as reasonably be affirmed, that a few scripture words, written on paper, will cure a man of diseases, as to affirm that they will make known a person's sentiments, when the meaning he affixes to them is disguised. The ancient Pharisees destroyed the spirit of the law, while they pretended the strictest regard to its letter. They acknowledged every part of the moral and ceremonial law, while Christ charged them with making it void. They were willing to subscribe any passages in the prophets, which related to the Messiah. But that did not denominate them believers, so long as they understood those passages in a wrong sense, and refused to apply them to Jesus of Nazareth. Those men, therefore, who would receive a person's assent to the letter or phrases of Scripture, without any explanation, as a sufficient test of his orthodoxy, build their scheme upon the maxims of the scribes, and, to say nothing worse, introduce into the Christian church the old Jewish pharisaism. The only perceivable way to avoid these absurdities is to assert, that they who adhere to scripture phrases are far from designing to use them in an uncertain sense; that, while they choose to express the doctrines of the gospel in the words of the Holy Ghost, they are willing, if desired, to explain what they believe to be the meaning of those words. But if they will do this, they yield the point in debate. To subscribe a passage of Scripture taken in such a particular sense, is the same as subscribing the expressions by which we explain its sense, or the same as making those expressions a part of our creed. In reality, we are required to receive the truths, rather than the mere words of Scripture. It is the mind of Christ, or the doctrines he taught, and not mere combinations of letters, that deserve the name of the Christian revelation. Consequently, where those doctrines are taught and received in their purity, in whatever terms they are expressed, there the Bible is honoured, as the standard of faith. Where those doctrines are denied, how tenaciously soever scripture phrases are held, there the Bible is rejected, and another rule of faith set up in its stead. But there are other consequences worthy of notice, resulting from the scheme of those who maintain, that none but scripture phrases are to be used in declarations of faith. According to their scheme, there could be no expounding of Scripture. The advantage of the best commentaries and the best preaching would be lost, and the whole course of public and private instruction would consist merely in reading the Bible. How effectually this would contravene the great design of the gospel ministry, and how fatal it would be to the cause of religion is, doubtless, as evident to our opponents, as to ourselves. If a man publishes a book containing what he believes to be the doctrines of the gospel, he does as much as to subscribe those doctrines. Whatever a gospel minister speaks concern ing religion, he may consistently subscribe. He should surely be ready to give the most solemn assent himself to every thing, which he publicly delivers, as the will of God, to the people. Can any reason be given, why a preacher should refuse to subscribe his own sermon, or any doctrine contained in it? Ought he not to maintain as great sincerity and caution, as inviolable a regard to the truth, and as close an adherence to revelation in the pulpit, as any where else. There he is under sacred obligations to hold fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, and to instruct the people in sound doctrine. He ought to speak because he believes. When he preaches any thing from the pulpit, by the words which he uses, he confesses his faith, and virtually subscribes a creed drawn up in those very terms. So that the reason, which will confine creeds to the precise phrases of Scripture, will confine sermons to them also. And if preaching must be restricted to scripture phrases, why not every kind of religious communication? According to this notion, we must never speak or write any thing on divine subjects, except in the very words of inspiration, lest we should be called upon to subscribe the sentiments, which we express. The scheme of our opponents has a very unfavourable aspect on all translations of the Bible, and seems to make it impracticable for such as are unacquainted with the Hebrew and Greek languages, ever to declare their Vol. II. No. 9. Еве the faith in the doctrines of revela- Whenever we subscribe a text as it stands in our common version, designing thereby to declare our faith in scripture words, we virtually declare that we think the true meaning of the original expressed in our translation, which, as far as this subject is concerned, is tantamount to subscribing those confessions of faith, which, in our opinion, contain the true doctrines of inspiration. Could we free the words of our language from all ambiguity, and always use them in a determinate sense; the chief controversy would be, in what way the original text should be translated. In that case, confessions of faith might be so framed, that the principal thing imported by our subscribing them would be, that we believe such and such texts ought to be so rendered, and that the interpretation given by the opposite side is erroneous. Now would not confessions of this kind be liable to all the objections, which are made against those in common use? If then we regulate ourselves wholly according to the opinion of those, who oppose confessions, we never can declare our faith, except in the Hebrew and Greek languages, in which the very phrases used by the inspired writers are found, Once more. If none but scripture expressions are to be used, it will be impossible for us to declare our faith in the clearest and most legitimate scripture consequences, or in those truths, which, though not explicitly asserted in the Scriptures, are plainly inferrible from them. In this way some truths of our religion, which are by all acknowledged to be of great importance, must be entirely set aside, or if believed, must by no means be professed. These are some of the consequences of the scheme espoused by the adversaries of creeds. Into such absurdities must they inevitably fall, so long as they regard words more than things; so long as they venerate and honour the phrases of Scripture more than the truths contained in them, and look upon empty sounds, instead of the purity of faith, as a distinguishing mark of Christianity. Only one more objection against the use of confessions will be noticed. Objection III. Whatever may be urged in favour of creeds, they have in fact been the occasion of numberless disorders in the Christian world. They have fomented division and strife, by which the church has been rent, while Christian love and piety have been lost in the contest. They have been framed to entangle conscience, and to stifle the truth. They have often been made engines of ambition, avarice, and cruelty. They have promoted a blind, malignant zeal, and led to the fiercest and most bloody persecutions. And in general they are very prejudicial to Christian love and candour. In reply, it may be observed, that the principal evils mentioned in this objection took place, when creeds were armed with the sword, with blood and torture. But what have these evils to do with that authority of creeds, which is perfectly consistent with the most extended rights of rational creatures, and is founded on the unalienable and essential privileges of all societies? Is the abuse of a thing to be made an argument against it? The wisest institutions, the best privileges, and the most valuable possessions are liable to abuse; and when abused, become occasions of great mischief. This is the case with the noble faculty of reason; with the privileges of human society, and with the sublimest truths of revelation. Even the grace of the Lord Jesus is often turned into licentiousness. Shall we then urge the abuse of creeds, as an argument against them? The uncharitable heats and contentions, and other mischiefs, which are mentioned in the objection, are not to be ascribed to the nature and tendency of creeds, but to the unsanctified passions of mankind. From this source, |