it is believed that, even at the present time, a majority of the clergy in our country are not prepared to make the Bible their only rule of faith. They cannot yet relinquish the idea, that long-revered formularies or confessions of man's devising are of great importance as a safeguard against heresy, and as a means of Christian union. While, in New England, it is very certain that nearly all the clergy have dissented from at least some of the Westminster doctrines, still it seems to be wished to preserve for them a deep reverence, and to have as little as may be said or done which tends to bring these formularies into disrepute. But there have been other men besides Dr. Stiles who could not subscribe without some reserve or qualification; and many worthy men would have been excluded from important offices, had not "for substance of doctrine" or some other qualifying form of subscribing been adopted. Indeed, we believe that, but for this device, all the present worthy professors, who signed the "Statement" before us, would have been precluded from their present situations.

But to see in full the advantages which do or may result from adopting this form of subscribing, we must carefully observe the import of the phrase "for substance of doctrine." The word "substance," according to Walker, has various significations; but those which are applicable in the present case are the following, "the essential part; something real, not imaginary; something solid, not empty." There can be no doubt that the Westminster formularies, and the Saybrook Platform, contain some articles which are true and "essential," and some which are erroneous, "imaginary," and "empty." The erroneous, the "imaginary,” and the "empty" articles, form no part of the "substance of doctrine," or what is "essential." It is true, that different persons may judge differently, as to which of the articles are essential, or which "imaginary" and "empty." But it so happens that in adopting the phrase "for substance of doctrine," each subscriber is at liberty to judge for himself, what is essential," and what is "imaginary." Persons, too, of different opinions may be equally accommodated by this mode of subscribing.

"

It surely should not, and it is presumed will not, be forgotten, that this mode was adopted to secure for president, a man who was believed to be eminently qualified for the

station, and who could not have been obtained but by adopting this expedient; and the practice will probably be continued for a similar reason. As light advances in the church, a still greater number of the articles in the Confession may appear to be incorrect and imaginary. But the plan adopted will apply as long as any of the articles shall appear to be true or essential.

Our Saviour's answer to the lawyer who asked, "Which is the great commandment of the law?" may be found of great use in vindicating this mode of subscribing. The following was his answer, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. The second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The last remark seems to us about equivalent to saying, these two for substance of doctrine," are all the law and the prophets. We may add, that "for substance of doctrine" these two contained the gospel, as well as the law. This, however, has not been the common opinion of Christians in our land, while they have been contending about the doctrines of the Westminster divines. With multitudes, a belief that all Adam's posterity "sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression," and thus became totally sinful, seems to have been regarded as of more importance than obedience to the two commandments on which "hang all the law and the prophets." The same may be said in regard to other articles in the Westminster confession, and of some others which we should class with the untrue, imaginary, and empty. But it is a happy circumstance, that what Christ deemed as the substance of the law and the prophets, found a place in the Westminster formularies. If this is also in the Saybrook Platform, the New Haven professors may yet further dissent from some of the articles, and still say that they agree "for substance of doctrine." Should they by faithful study be brought to agree as fully with Moses, as the Messiah did, that "Jehovah is One," not three, they may still subscribe "for substance of doctrine," as long as they shall believe what Christ said of the two commandments. When brought fully to agree with Moses, they will, of course, regard the doctrine as but

"imaginary," which affirms that God is three distinct persons. They will no longer regard this as belonging to the "essential part,' or substance of Christian doctrine. Of course, they might repeat their form of subscribing with a good conscience.

Should the New Haven mode of subscribing become thoroughly understood, its benefits may be extended beyond the vicinity of Yale college or the boundaries of Connecticut. It may be found applicable to all the party formularies throughout the country, prevent much difficulty in churches, and become a means of salvation to the Theological Institution at Andover. If the Presbyterians of our country had but seasonably adopted this form of subscribing to their formularies, how much of contention and bitterness would have been avoided! Even now, if they would all cordially adopt this saving policy, they might yet enjoy the blessings of peace; but unless this, or some other conciliatory expedient shall be adopted, they will remain as a house divided against itself, until the two parties shall become two sects or denominations.

In regard to the Andover Institution, we have not a doubt that the time will come when its creed will occasion the same embarrassment that has been felt at New Haven, and when the New Haven policy may become necessary to save the Institution from ruin. We can hardly doubt that the present professors, and many others, would heartily rejoice, if they could see any way in which the New Haven policy could be fairly adopted at Andover, and obtain an approved establishment. Who can believe that the authors of the Andover creed were inspired men? Or that it was even probable, that they could form a creed, embracing decisions on some of the most disputed points of theology, which no subsequent inquiries could show to be incorrect? The time may be nearer than is now imagined, when it will be difficult to obtain well-qualified professors who can conscientiously subscribe the creed of that institution, unless it shall be done in some modified form.

There are still other advantages which we hope will soon result from the New Haven policy. A little impartial reflection may convince many intelligent men, that to subscribe" for substance of doctrine" to any human formulary is at best no better than for á mán to say, I regard the Bible

as containing the only perfect rule of Christian faith and practice. For unless a man explain, further than to say that he agrees with the formulary "for substance of doctrine," no one can tell, but God and himself, to what extent he agrees, or from how many of the articles he dissents. By the "substance of doctrine" must doubtless be intended the substance of Scripture doctrine; and so far as the articles. appear to him to agree with the Scriptures, he, of course, assents to them; but from his substance of Scripture doctrine he must reject every article, which he believes is contrary to the meaning of Scripture. When these facts shall have been properly considered, people will be prepared to give up the creed-making policy, and take the Bible as indeed their only rule of faith. They will be shocked at the folly and arrogance which are implied in the attempts of one generation to bind succeeding generations to think as they do, and reject the greater light which may hereafter arise on disputed questions or hypotheses. Then men will cease to form theological institutions based on a party creed, or to make donations for the support of such party purposes. Wise men will then found institutions, with a hope that their own errors will be discovered and corrected, as well as the errors of others. Truth and light will be their object, whoever may be found in error.

The advancement of light and truth should surely be the object of every theological institution; and for this reason the instructors should be as free as possible from party bias, and from all temptations to shut their eyes against the light which may arise respecting the opinions in which they had been educated, or which they adopted prior to being placed in the important offices of professors. The founders of an institution, and the donors for its support, may lawfully feel. a preference for such doctrines as they at present believe to be true and important; but they ought to be aware that they are fallible men, and that greater lights may yet arise. on disputed doctrines. Had the Andover Institution been founded on such reasonable principles, it would have been worthy of the patronage of every denomination of Christians. in the land.

It is devoutly hoped that what has occurred at New Haven, will occasion an entire abandonment of the practice of founding institutions or churches on the bases of human

creeds. We admit, however, that such creeds or articles of faith might be formed for useful purposes, as means of instruction and topics of inquiry and conversation. They might also be useful for showing to future generations, what were the prevalent opinions among their ancestors, and what the progress of light and truth from the time of these ancestors to their own. But all such creeds or formularies should be regarded as the productions of fallible men, and not as standards of faith or tests of character. Men in Christian countries, as well as the heathen, are very liable to err, and the errors of one generation are frequently transmitted for many succeeding generations. Men, however, are formed with faculties for inquiry, and they are generally favored with constantly increasing means for mental improvement. How improper then it must be for men of one age, to attempt to prescribe what shall be believed by their posterity a thousand years hence, when far greater light shall be possessed than is now enjoyed. At a former period our ancestors were all Papists; and they had a creed which they doubtless wished to entail on their posterity. But further light arose, and some in the line from them to us became Protestants, or we might probably have all been Papists at the present time. Many of the present generation have dissented from some articles which our Protestant ancestors brought with them when they emigrated to this country; and we may doubtless reasonably expect that so much more light will arise, that our posterity will discard some opinions which we now deem of great importance.

In regard to what we have said relating to two theological institutions, we may truly aver, that we have not been influenced so to speak from any hostile feeling towards the institutions, or any one of the professors of either. We sincerely respect the institutions and the professors; but the greater our respect for them is, the more sincerely we regret that they were founded on a plan, which must naturally obstruct their usefulness, and involve embarrassment and difficulty.

It is, we believe, well understood, that a majority of the clergymen who were concerned in founding the institution at Andover, and in forming its creed, had themselves dissented from so many of the doctrines of the Westminster confession, that a new creed was necessary to satisfy their own minds. This creed, however, was intended to be a

VOL. XVII. N. S. VOL. XII. NO. III.

50