page 9

Part II.

The Articles of the Faith and the Future Theological College.

"It is conceivable," says Dr Gibb, "that the doctrinal basis may be the very Articles that have so deeply perturbed the spirit of your correspondents, Revs. P. B. Fraser and I. Jolly. If my friends persist in assailing these withdrawn Articles, I shall be prepared to defend every syllable of them, and to show their profound harmony with the deepest convictions of Catholic Christendom, and their entire adequacy to stand as the doctrinal basis of a United Church." With these statements before them, the Church at large cannot but be interested in these remarkable Articles, and be greatly the better of knowing something about their significance.

I do not, in view of the criticisms that follow, need to enlarge on what I said in my address before the Presbytery of Clutha, which I delivered before I had the advantage of reading any of the replies to be presently referred to.

But there is one difficulty in connection with Union of any sort that has not, I think, received sufficient consideration from many brethren whom I greatly respect, and who have voted to go on with Union. Indeed, I have not seen it so much as referred to. And this is the question of Union as it affects, or would affect, the Church's Theological Hall for training and teaching students for the ministry. Here is the crux of the whole doctrinal question, for here the doctrinal difficulties are focussed. Nothing seems so popular to the ordinary mind than a short creed, as vague as possible, on which a great multitude of ordinary people can unite. And the popular preacher who harangues about every "jot and tittle" of a "cast-iron creed" of a dead century is the hero of the hour; while the man who stands out for maintaining our standards in their integrity is looked upon as a sort of Spanish Inquisitor, who would burn babies and old women for heresy, and who knows more of metaphysics than of the "simple" gospel. There is, however, a liberalism in theology as shallow and cheap as any in politics, and as popular with the "masses," who want short cuts as to the earthly, so to the heavenly paradise. And the proposal to fling away the Westminster Confession and substitute for it a short and easy creed, understandable in the infant school and by the "man in the street," is received with the same wave of popular enthusiasm as the "masses" receive the latest political nostrum for their immediate social salvation.

The proposal to fling away the Westminster Confession is received with enthusiasm, because the "masses" forget for the moment what they owe to it, and what is its present use. page 10 It is not too much to say that the world's freedom, ecclesiastical and civil, owes more to the Westminster Confession than to any other human document. Such is the [unclear: testim] of history. It was composed during the golden age of English literature and patriotism, when words were deeds the age of Milton, Hampden, and Cromwell—by as able a assembly of scholars as ever made the Bible a study One hundred and twenty divines, eleven lords, twenty commoners, from all the counties of England and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with seven Commissioners from Scotland, sat round that table. "Their labours extended over five and a-half years, during which time they held nearly twelve hundred sessions. They met in 1643, at a period in the world's history when the human intellect, for reasons known to scholars, appears to have reached the zenith of its powers"—the era of Shakespeare and Milton and Francs Bacon—the era that produced the English Bible, and laid the foundations of British and American freedom, of those nations that are the bulwarks of freedom for the world. It is still the Confession of Faith of millions of the foremost peoples in the world. It has lately been through "revision" in the American Presbyterian Church, with its 8,000 ministers and nearly 30,000 elders, and stands in its integrity, in this twentieth century, the Confession of that Church.

Does that mean, however, that every minister is bound to "every jot and tittle of a cast-iron creed"? No; he is only "bound"—that is, he gives a voluntary and loyal assent—the love of his "mind"—to "the system of doctrine contained in the Confession." "The use of the words 'system of doctrine' in the terms of subscription precludes the idea of the necessary acceptance of every statement in the Sandards by the subscribers, but involves the acceptance of so much as is vital to the system as a whole." And that is exactly the position in our own Church. And if the Christian reader wishes to study for himself a clear and temperate statement of the "system of doctrine," he will find it in the admirable Articles of the English Presbyterian Church (see Appendix) so sadly mutilated by Dr Gibb's Committee. Where is there in these Articles the "dead hand" of the seventeenth century? I thnk it would be well worthy of consideration by our Assembly whether these same Articles should not be remitted to Presbyteries and Sessions for adoption as a "brief" and popular statement of what is meant by the "system of doctrine" in the Standards of our Church. Neatly printed and widely circulated, while they would be an effective answer to shallow attacks on the Standards of the Church, they would also be helpful to office-bearers who subscrbe to the "system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith."

That, therefore, is all that is required by adherence to the system of doctrine of our Confession. That does not mean that a man may not believe all the jots and tittles to be, like the great mountain ranges of our Confesson, well grounded on page 11 the unchangeable and infallible Word of God. He may feed both his heart and mind by that manual of theology and ethics, unsurpassed in any language in the world, the incomparable (and seldom read) Larger Catechism, the product of five years' labors of statesmen, divines, and scholars of the robustest mould. But let it be emphasised that our Church does not, and never did, ask from any of her members acceptance of any of her Standards, not even of her doctrine as a system. Her only condition of Church membership is a credible profession of faith in Christ. Calvinist and Arminian believers—whether Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, or Salva-tionist—she welcomes with equal heartiness to all the rights and benefits of her membership. Only of office-bearers, her ministers, and her theological professors, does she require subscription to her elaborate and mountainous Creed.

And why? Here is the crux of every Union movement, as I have said, at the door of the Theological College. Plainly, if theology is to be taught, it must be taught in system, with reasonable completeness and coherence. What, then, is the system to be taught in the Church's Theological College? A short creed, vague and ambiguous, for such a purpose, as a test of subscription for theological professors, is worse than useless. It is to put a premium on the most odious qualities of the human mind. The Church, in instituting a theological chair, has just as much right beforehand to say what is the system of theology to be taught as the Government in saying what shall be taught in the public schools. The conditions are known beforehand, and voluntarily accepted. As Dr Walker, historian of the Free Church, says: "A professorship in a Free Church College is not a Crown appointment, implying the conferring of a civil right, it is an appointment by a private corporation to do a certain kind of work. That work, moreover, is in its nature of paramount importance. If a mistake is made in connection with it, it is not merely one congregation which will suffer, but a whole community, and the mischief done may affect an entire generation." Again, the Free Church Assembly, by resolution, formally "admonished (its theological) professors to remember that they are not set for the propagating of their own opinions, but for the maintenance of the doctrine and truth committed to the Church"—that is, the doctrine committed to the Church appointing them and paying them, whose creed is stated with fulness and without ambiguity in her Standards. A theological chair is not a philosophical fellow-ship, but exists for effective teaching of specific doctrines Known beforehand, and agreed upon as founded on the Word of God. We cannot institute a dozen separate Theological Colleges where different doctrines or philosophical opinions are dispensed to ingenuous youth. We can have only one College, and therefore only one system of doctrine can be taught. If you have five professors, and each has a system of his own, and neither system that of the Church, what sort page 12 of a Theological Hall and Church will you have?—"a Church without a religion," as the Lord Chancellor says, and your College a theological menagerie.

Such, then, is the chief reason for a Creed of reasonable fulness, which lays down clearly the system of doctrine to be taught in the Theological College. Otherwise the theological professors to be appointed in the future may set up, each one of them, a system of his own. Therefore the Creed is first and foremost for theological professors. Once that is settled, it follows that the same Creed will suit the ministers who themselves have been students of these professors. They cannot object to the same Creed which the professors have signed. On the contrary, they will delight to give the love of both heart and mind to that same system of doctrine which they have studied with their professors and believe to be agreeable to the Word of God. Moreover, as the Creed is the doctrinal Law of the Church, and as professors are governed by that Law, clearly it is only right that ministers who are to administer that Law should themselves, like judges sworn to administer the civil law, give a loyal declaration of willingness to judge the teaching of the professors, as they judge the teaching of each other, by the common doctrinal standards which all have accepted as the Law of the Church and as in accordance with the Word of God. There remain only the elders. It is the glory of our Presbyterian polity that our Church makes no difference in her doctrinal requirements as between ministers and elders. Our Church has no ministerial caste. Elders have equal power with ministers in all her higher Courts, and rule in overwhelming numbers in her sessions. Since elders have an absolute equality both in power and numbers in the Supreme Court of the Church, it is esential, if they are to exercise that power intelligently and justly in any doctrinal question or trial which [unclear: mig] involve deposition of a professor or of a minister, that they too must subscribe to the same Creed as the professors and ministers They must be men believing the same system of doctrine if a just law is to be administered. Once make any distinction in the respective Creeds that are subscribed by professors, ministers, or elders, and there is an end of Presbyterian potty whose glory has been the equality of her ministers and elders in her highest Courts. As she has no "clerical" caste, so she has no "laymen." She has preaching, or teaching, elders and ruling elders, and both are equal in power; therefore both ought to sign the same Creed. These together are her office-bearers, the guardians of her faith, called of God, and chosen by her members to fill their respective offices. Surely then, it is reasonable that those voluntarily accepting should justify their "call," and indicate their fitness for the duties of their office by subscribing to the Creed of the Church Otherwise there can be neither order nor peace within the Church nor any progress nor permanence in her life in the community. Further, let it be greatly emphasised that the page 13 Church's Creed is upheld and subscribed to, and administered, and obeyed, and loyally defended, and loved, not because there is a mere contract to uphold and administer and obey it entered into by men, but because all have severally declared that they believe the Creed to be in accordance with the Word of God—the only rule of faith and life; because they have declared that the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government within his Church; and because they have accepted that particular Creed as the revelation of His will in His Word. While a Church, that is, any particular" Church, like ours, viewed externally and in me eye of the civil law, is a "voluntary association," like any other society of men, it is more than that. The whole authority for her Law is derived from the Lord Jesus, the Head of His Church, speaking in His Word. Hence her office-bearers are under solemn obligation to administer His Law, and professors and ministers and elders to obey it. How can that be done if the Law of the Church is expressed in ambiguous and evasive terms? When the criticisms that follow of Dr Gibb's. Articles are well considered the Church at large will be able to appreciate the soundness of Dr Gibb's claim that his Articles, or any others like them, are "entirely adequate to form the doctrinal basis of a United Church."

I am no theological or Confessional Chauvinist (though Chauvin, by the way, is the same name as Calvin!) as brethren know from all my action in negotiations for the accomplished Union of the two Presbyterian Churches of New Zealand, I have not, and never had, the remotest wish to raise unkindly suspicions about any of my brethren; but when the famous Articles of Dr Gibb's remarkable Committees were heralded as the product of the labours of the Committees of three Churches, I was somewhat staggered. When it was proposed that these same Committees were to be given carte blanche "to go on to prepare a basis of doctrine and polity, to be submitted to Presbyteries and Sessions in due course," I thought it was not a time to be silent, not in view of the considerations regarding the real use of a Creed, which I have stated above. The members of our Church have never complained of the Church's Creed, for the simple reason that they are not quired to subscribe to any written Creed, nor profess any Creed save faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Neither have our elders or managers, for they are required to subscrbe only to "the system of doctrine." Therefore the "short Creed" desiderated is required only for our future theological professors and our future ministers instructed under their care.

I thought it proper to strip Dr Gibb's new Articles of the fictitious sanction which they had acquired, and took the responsibility of giving a criticism of them in the overture I tabled in the Clutha Presbytery. At the same time, considering that our Church is no bigger than a City Presbytery of the Old Lands, yet scattered over an area equal almost to that of page 14 Great Britain, and that ours is an isolated colony, with only one religious paper, and that largely, if not entirely, at Dr. Gibb's disposal for the propagation of his views, I thought it would be of great service to the Church at large if I should send a copy of my overture containing the proposed Articles of the Faith to some leading divines of Britain and American asking them to favour me with an informing criticism of the Articles, which I could make available for the Church at large. This I did. At the same time, I did the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand the credit to say that nobody had any fear of such Articles being accepted by our Church Nevertheless, in view of eventualities, I thought an informing criticism would be greatly helpful to the Church in any future deliberations on the question of Creed revision or construction. The mention of the names of all I wrote-a very large number—would snow I wrote only divines of the highest repute, respected all over the Presbyterian world! and far beyond it. I have been greatly cheered and benefited by the replies so kindly sent me. I cannot refrain from publishing Rev. Dr Alex. Whyte's so kind and characteristic reply, a sample, as it is, of the uniform kindness of several I do not refer to, whose authors, for different reasons, did not care to give the criticism I sought. But those I publish speak for themselves. The criticisms, if read in the light of the considerations advanced above as to the real use of a Creed in connection with theological teaching, will, I am sure, prove instructive even to members of our Church not versed in theological lore. They will probably agree that the five years' labors of the Westminster divines, who were prepared to seal their Creed with their blood, have not been in vain, and that Dr Gibb's remarkable Committees have something yet to learn in the logic of Creed construction We are, it is true, anxious to lead the van in New Zealand ecclesiastically, as well as we are supposed to do politically extracting as we do sunbeams from cucumbers. We have indeed, not yet invented a new astronomy with the moon for centre of our system, and moonshine for the light thereof; but if Dr Gibb and the Premier could only arrange a "referendum" on it, there is no saying what the ballot box and the oracular voice of "the people" might reveal—a new theological heavens and a new political earth, perhaps!

I should like to prefix to the replies below a statement which, no doubt, is superfluous. In no way are the honoured brethren whose communications I am privileged to print to be associated with any views I have expressed, either as to matter or manner, in my controversy with Dr Gibb and his Committee. Needless to say, all faults of matter or manner are my own. I sought no expression of opinion on anything of personal, parochial, provincial, or even colonial dimensions. Christian truth is not a personal question nor limited by page 15 geographical boundaries; and I thought, and think, that grave questions going to the core of the Christian faith might be suitably referred to acknowledged masters in Israel.

The letter of the Rev. Principal Dykes, convener of the Committee which prepared the English Presbyterian Articles, was in reply to a communication asking what relation the Presbyterian Church of England held to the Westminster Confession, and whether the proposed new Articles could fairly be regarded as based on the English Articles. The reply of the venerable leader of the United Free Church Principal Rainy, D.D., speaks for itself. The kind and brotherly reply, characteristic of the Bishop of Durham—a Bishop of the Church Universal—will be read with great interest.

Then there follow four replies from the great American Church. Professor M'Pheeters, D.D., a well-known theological professor of the Southern Presbyterian Church, takes a keen interest in the progress of the Reformed Faith in this far-off colony. Rev. Professor Hodge, Ph.D., of Princeton, writes with equal interest and greater fulness. Rev. Dr Hodge, of Philadelphia, like Professor M'Pheeters, contents himself with a brief expression of opinion. The other from America is the reply of the Rev. Dr Warfield, Professor of Theology at Princeton, a theologian and Christian scholar unsurpassed by any other in Britain or America. When the right of Creeds to exist is being questioned, and constant attacks are being made on systematic theology by persons mostly ignorant of it, and by others who find in creeds an impregnable barrier to sentimentalism and disintegration of Divine truth, no better book could be circulated by the thousand in this colony at the present time than his little book, of less than 100 pages, entitled 'The Right of Systematic Theology,' which might have been entitled 'The Right of or Necessity for Creeds.' It was republished in Britain (T. and T. Clark), with an introduction by Professor James Orr, D.D., and a recom-mendatory note by the leading theologians of every Church in Scotland:—"Professor Warfield, of Princeton, is "well known on both sides of the Atlantic"; William Garden Blackie, D.D., LL.D.; A. H. Charteris, D.D.; George C. M. Douglas,' DD.; Robert Flint, D.D.; William H. Goold, D.D.; John Laidlaw, D.D.; Alexander Mair, D.D.; Robert Rainy, D.D.; Alexander Stuart, D.D.; James Stalker, D.D.; Norman L. Walker, D.D.; J Wardrop, D.D.

A book with such an exceptional recommendation is worth reading, and no man should speak lightly of Creeds until he has read it. The criticism of the Articles by a theologian of Dr Warfield's standing will therefore be read with great interest.

page 16

The concluding criticism I publish is one from the pen of the Rev. Dr Whitelaw,^* of Kilmarnock, one of the most distinguished divines of the United Free Church of Scotland It is most able and most informing.