not state or explain this important doctrine after the same
manner. Some suppose the atonement of Christ to consist wholly in
his obedience, others wholly in his sufferings, and others in both
his obedience and sufferings. Some hold that Christ suffered the
penalty of the law for sinners, and others that he only opened a
way in which, on condition of repentance, this penalty may be
remitted. Some think the atonement made only for the elect, while
others regard it as the propitiation for the sins of the whole
world.
“The doctrine of instantaneous regeneration by the special
operations of the Holy Spirit, is believed by all who have any
claim to be called Orthodox. But this doctrine, like the others
mentioned, is variously stated and explained. Some consider man as
entirely active in regeneration, others as entirely passive, and
others as not entirely the one or the other. Some believe there is
a holy principle implanted in regeneration, which ever afterwards
remains in the heart of the subject, while others believe the
change to consist in the commencement of holy exercises, which may
be subsequently interrupted, though not finally lost. As to the
manner in which the Spirit operates in regeneration, there is also
a difference of opinion; some holding that he changes the heart by
a direct efficiency, and others that this is done by the more
powerful presentation and impression of motives.
“Another doctrine of the Orthodox system is, that of justification
by faith in Christ. But this, also, has been differently stated
and explained. Some think the believer justified by Christ’s
righteousness, others by the influence of his sufferings and
death, and others by the joint efficacy of both his obedience and
sufferings. Some believe justification to be the same as
forgiveness, while others regard it as implying, not only
forgiveness, but also a title to eternal life.
“It is evident, from the examples here given, that, although
Orthodoxy denotes a general system of important doctrines or facts
on the subject of religion, it is not to be inferred, either by
friends or foes, that Orthodox Christians are tied up to precisely
the same views of subjects, or that there exists no diversity of
sentiment among them. There is, and always has been, a diversity
of sentiment, in regard not only to modes and forms, but to the
statement, proofs, and explanations, of the most important
doctrines. Some of them, to be sure, are little more than verbal;
but others are _real_, are fitted to excite interest, and are
entitled to very serious consideration. Still, as they are all
held in avowed consistency with that great series of facts which
go to constitute the Orthodox system, they should not be regarded
as placing their advocates beyond the proper limits of Orthodoxy.
They constitute a wide field of important discussion, over which
those who agree in holding the Head,—in holding the great
doctrines of redemption by the blood of Christ, and of
sanctification by the Holy Spirit,—may freely and fraternally
traverse. Modes and forms, the interpretation of passages, and
explanations of particular doctrines, (so long as essential
doctrines are not discarded,) may be discussed without the
interruption of brotherly affection, and without the imputation
and reproach of heresy. One person may hold that all Scripture is
given by the inspiration of _suggestion_; and another that, while
some parts are the fruit of immediate suggestion, others may more
properly be attributed to the inspiration of _superintendence_;
and neither should charge the other with denying the inspiration
of the Scriptures, or with being a heretic, or an infidel. One
person may insist that the passage in 1 John 5:7, is authentic
Scripture, and strong proof of the doctrine of the Trinity; and
another may doubt this, or deny it altogether; and neither should
be charged with intentionally corrupting the Scriptures, or with
being a Unitarian. One person may hold that God executes his
immutable and eternal decrees by a direct efficiency, and another
that he does it by the intervention of motives, and yet one be no
more an Arminian than the other.”
ANDOVER ORTHODOX CREED.
Every person appointed or elected a professor in the Theological
Institution at Andover, in the state of Massachusetts, shall, on the day
of his inauguration into office, publicly make and subscribe the following
CREED and DECLARATION:—
Creed.
“I believe that there is one, and but one, living and true GOD;
that the word of GOD, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament, is the only perfect rule of faith and practice;
that, agreeably to those Scriptures, GOD is a Spirit, infinite,
eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness,
justice, goodness, and truth; that in the Godhead are three
Persons, the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST; and that those
THREE are ONE GOD, the same in substance, equal in power and
glory; that God created man, after his own image, in knowledge,
righteousness, and holiness; that the glory of GOD is man’s chief
end, and the enjoyment of GOD his supreme happiness; that this
enjoyment is derived solely from conformity of heart to the moral
character and will of GOD; that ADAM, the federal head and
representative of the human race, was placed in a state of
probation, and that, in consequence of his disobedience, all his
descendants were constituted sinners; that, by nature, every man
is personally depraved, destitute of holiness, unlike and opposed
to GOD; and that, previously to the renewing agency of the DIVINE
SPIRIT, all his moral actions are adverse to the character and
glory of GOD; that, being morally incapable of recovering the
image of his CREATOR, which was lost in ADAM, every man is justly
exposed to eternal damnation; so that, except a man be born again,
he cannot see the kingdom of GOD; that GOD, of his mere good
pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, and
that he entered into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of
this state of sin and misery by a REDEEMER; that the only REDEEMER
of the elect is the eternal SON of GOD, who, for this purpose,
became man, and continues to be GOD and man, in two distinct
natures, and one person, forever; that CHRIST, as our Redeemer,
executeth the office of a Prophet, Priest, and King; that,
agreeably to the covenant of redemption, the SON of GOD, and he
alone, by his sufferings and death, has made atonement for the
sins of all men; that repentance, faith, and holiness, are the
personal requisites in the gospel scheme of salvation; that the
righteousness of CHRIST is the only ground of a sinner’s
justification; that this righteousness is received through faith;
and that this faith is the gift of GOD; so that our salvation is
wholly of grace; that no means whatever can change the heart of a
sinner, and make it holy; that regeneration and sanctification are
effects of the creating and renewing agency of the HOLY SPIRIT,
and that supreme love to GOD constitutes the essential difference
between saints and sinners; that, by convincing us of our sin and
misery, enlightening our minds, working faith in us, and renewing
our wills, the HOLY SPIRIT makes us partakers of the benefits of
redemption; and that the ordinary means by which these benefits
are communicated to us, are the word, sacraments, and prayer; that
repentance unto life, faith to feed upon CHRIST, love to GOD, and
new obedience, are the appropriate qualifications for the Lord’s
supper; and that a Christian church ought to admit no person to
its holy communion, before he exhibit credible evidence of his
godly sincerity; that perseverance in holiness is the only method
of making our calling and election sure, and that the final
perseverance of saints, though it is the effect of the special
operation of GOD on their hearts, necessarily implies their own
watchful diligence; that they who are effectually called, do, in
this life, partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification,
and the several benefits which do either accompany or flow from
them; that the souls of believers are, at their death, made
perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; that
their bodies, being still united to CHRIST, will, at the
resurrection, be raised up to glory, and that the saints will be
made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of GOD, to all
eternity: but that the wicked will awake to shame and everlasting
contempt, and, with devils, be plunged into the lake that burneth
with fire and brimstone forever and ever. I moreover believe that
GOD, according to the counsel of his own will, and for his own
glory, hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that all
beings, actions, and events, both in the natural and moral world,
are under his providential direction; that GOD’S decrees perfectly
consist with human liberty, GOD’S universal agency with the agency
of man, and man’s dependence with his accountability; that man has
understanding and corporeal strength to do all that GOD requires
of him; so that nothing but the sinner’s aversion to holiness
prevents his salvation; that it is the prerogative of GOD to bring
good out of evil, and that he will cause the wrath and rage of
wicked men and devils to praise him; and that all the evil which
has existed, and will forever exist, in the moral system, will
eventually be made to promote a most important purpose, under the
wise and perfect administration of that ALMIGHTY BEING, who will
cause all things to work for his own glory, and thus fulfil all
his pleasure.”
Declaration.
“And, furthermore, I do solemnly promise that I will open and
explain the Scriptures to my pupils with integrity and
faithfulness; that I will maintain and inculcate the Christian
faith, as expressed in the creed, by me now repeated, together
with all the other doctrines and duties of our holy religion, so
far as may appertain to my office, according to the best light GOD
shall give me, and in opposition, not only to Atheists and
Infidels, but to Jews, Papists, Mahometans, Arians, Pelagians,
Antinomians, Arminians, Socinians, Sabellians, Unitarians, and
Universalists, and to all heresies and errors, ancient and modern,
which may be opposed to the gospel of CHRIST, or hazardous to the
souls of men; that, by my instruction, counsel, and example, I
will endeavor to promote true piety and godliness; that I will
consult the good of this INSTITUTION, and the peace of the
churches of our Lord Jesus Christ on all occasions; and that I
will religiously conform to the constitution and laws of this
SEMINARY, and to the statutes of this foundation.”
The foregoing creed is considered a summary of what is commonly called the
ASSEMBLY’S CATECHISM.
The _Westminster Assembly_ met in London, in the reign of Charles I, A. D.
1643. It was a synod of learned divines, assembled by order of parliament,
for the purpose of settling the government, liturgy, and doctrine, of the
church of England.
NEW HAVEN ORTHODOX CREED.
Considerable anxiety existed, a few years since, in regard to the
Orthodoxy of the Rev. Dr. TAYLOR, professor of divinity at Yale College,
at New Haven, in the state of Connecticut. The following letter from Dr.
TAYLOR to the Rev. Dr. HAWES, of Hartford, contains a full exposition of
the religious views of that distinguished theologian:—
YALE COLLEGE, _Feb. 1, 1832._
“Dear Brother:
“I thank you for yours of the 23d ult., in which you express your
approbation of my preaching during the protracted meetings at
Hartford. This expression of fraternal confidence is grateful to
me, not because I ever supposed that we differed in our views of
the great doctrines of the gospel, but because, for some reason or
other, an impression has been made, to some extent, _that I am
unsound in the faith_. This impression, I feel bound to say, in my
own view, is wholly groundless and unauthorized. You think,
however, that ‘I owe it to myself, to the institution with which I
am connected, and to the Christian community, to make a frank and
full statement of my views of some of the leading doctrines of the
gospel, and that this cannot fail to relieve the minds of many,
who are now suspicious of my Orthodoxy.’
“Here I must be permitted to say, that the repeated and full
statements of my opinions, which I have already made to the
public, would seem to be sufficient to prevent or remove such
suspicions. The course you propose, however, may furnish
information to some who would desire it before they form an
opinion, as well as the means of correcting the misrepresentations
of others. I therefore readily comply with your request, and
submit to your disposal the following statement of my belief on
some of the leading doctrines of the gospel. I believe,—
“1. That there are three persons in one God,—the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost.
“2. That the eternal purposes of God extend to all actual events,
sin not excepted; or that God foreordains whatsoever comes to
pass, and so executes these purposes, as to leave the free moral
agency of man unimpaired.
“3. That all mankind, in consequence of the fall of Adam, are born
destitute of holiness, and are by nature totally depraved; in
other words, that all men, from the commencement of moral agency,
do, without the interposition of divine grace, sin, and only sin,
in all their moral conduct.
“4. That an atonement for sin has been made for all mankind by the
Lord Jesus Christ; that this atonement was necessary to magnify
the law, and to vindicate and unfold the justice of God in the
pardon of sin; and that the sinner who believes in the Lord Jesus
Christ is freely justified on the ground of his atoning sacrifice,
and on that ground alone.
“5. That the change in regeneration is a _moral_ change,
consisting in a new, holy disposition, or governing purpose of the
heart, as a permanent principle of action; in which change, the
sinner transfers the _supreme_ affection of his heart from all
inferior objects to the living God, chooses him as the portion of
his soul, and his service and glory as his supreme good, and thus,
in respect to moral character, becomes a _new man_.
“6. That this moral change is never produced in the human heart by
_moral suasion_, i. e., by the mere influence of truth and
motives, as the Pelagians affirm, but is produced by the influence
of the Holy Spirit, operating on the mind through the truth, and
in perfect consistency with the nature of moral action, and laws
of moral agency.
“7. That all men (in the words of the article of your church) may
accept of the offers of salvation freely made to them in the
gospel, but that no one will do this, except he be drawn by the
Father.
“8. That the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit in
regeneration results solely from the voluntary perverseness of the
sinner’s heart, or disinclination to serve God, which, while it
leaves him a complete moral agent, and without excuse for
neglecting his duty, suspends his actual salvation on the
sovereign will of God.
“9. That the renewing grace of God is _special_, in distinction
from that which is common, and is resisted by the sinful mind,
inasmuch as it is that which is designed to secure, and does
infallibly secure, the conversion of the sinner.
“10. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit are elected or
chosen of God from eternity, that they should be holy, not on
account of foreseen faith, or good works, but according to the
good pleasure of his will.
“11. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit, will, through
his continual influence, persevere in holiness to the end, and
obtain eternal life.
“Such is my faith in respect to some of the lending doctrines of
the gospel. These doctrines I preach; these I teach in the
theological department of this Seminary; these I have repeatedly
published to the world. With what truth or justice any regard me
as a ‘teacher of theology, introducing heresy into our churches,’
the candid can judge.
“But it may be asked, whether, after all, there are not some
points on which I differ from my brethren generally, or, at least,
from some of them. I answer,—It would be strange if any two man
should be found to agree exactly in all the minute matters of
religious opinion. With respect, however, to what is properly
considered the Orthodox or Calvinistic SYSTEM of doctrines, as
including the great FACTS of Christianity, and as opposed to, and
distinguished from, the Unitarian, Pelagian, and Arminian
_systems_, I suppose there is between the Orthodox ministry and
myself an entire agreement. In respect to comparatively minor
points, and philosophical theories, and modes of defending the
Calvinistic system of doctrines, there has always been, as you are
aware, a diversity of opinion, with freedom of discussion, among
the Calvinists in this country, especially in New England, but
which has never impaired their fellowship or mutual confidence. To
these topics of difference, greater or less importance has been
attached by different individuals. In respect to some of these,
(and, in respect to them, I suppose myself to agree with a large
majority of our Calvinistic clergy,) I will now briefly but
frankly state what I do _not_, and what I do, believe.
“I do _not_ believe that the posterity of Adam are, in the proper
sense of the language, guilty of his sin; or that the ill desert
of that sin is truly theirs; or that they are punished for that
sin. But I do believe that, by the wise and holy constitution of
God, all mankind, in consequence of Adam’s sin, become sinners by
their own act.
“I do _not_ believe that the nature of the human mind, which God
creates, is itself sinful; or that God punishes men for the nature
which he creates; or that sin pertains to any thing in the mind
which precedes all conscious mental exercise or action, and which
is neither a matter of consciousness nor of knowledge. But I do
believe that sin, universally, is no other than selfishness, or a
_preference_ of one’s self to all others,—of some inferior good to
God; that this free, voluntary preference is a permanent principle
of action in all the unconverted; and that this is sin, and all
that in the Scriptures is meant by sin. I also believe that such
is the _nature_ of the human mind, that it becomes the occasion of
universal sin in men in all the appropriate circumstances of their
existence, and that, therefore, they are truly and properly said
to be sinners _by nature_.
“I do _not_ believe that sin can be proved to be the necessary
means of the greatest good, and that, as such, God prefers it, on
the whole, to holiness in its stead; or that a God of sincerity
and truth punishes his creatures for doing that which he, on the
whole, prefers they should do, and which, as the means of good, is
the best thing they can do. But I do believe that holiness, as the
means of good, may be better than sin; that it may be true that
God, all things considered, prefers holiness to sin in all
instances in which the latter takes place, and, therefore,
sincerely desires that all men should come to repentance, though,
for wise and good reasons, he _permits_, or does not prevent, the
existence of sin. I do _not_ believe that it can be proved that an
omnipotent God would be _unable_ to secure more good by means of
the perfect and universal obedience of his creatures, if they
would render it, than by means of their sin. But I do believe that
it may involve a dishonorable limitation of his power to suppose
that he could not do it.(3)
“I do _not_ believe that the grace of God can be truly said to be
_irresistible_, in the primary, proper import of this term. But I
do believe that, in all cases, it _may be_ resisted by man as a
free moral agent, and that, when it becomes effectual to
conversion, as it infallibly does in the case of all the elect, it
is _unresisted_.
“I do _not_ believe that the grace of God is necessary, as
Arminians and some others maintain, to render man an accountable
agent, and responsible for rejecting the offers of eternal life.
But I do believe that man would be such an agent, and thus
responsible, were no such grace afforded, and that otherwise
‘grace would be no more grace.’
“I do _not_ believe that it is necessary that the sinner, in using
the means of regeneration, should commit sin in order to become
holy. But I do believe that, as a moral agent, he is qualified so
to use these means, i. e., the truth of God when present to his
mind, as to become holy at once; that he is authorized to believe
that, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, this _may be_ done;
and that, except in so doing, he cannot be truly and properly said
to _use_ the means of regeneration.
“I do _not_ believe that we are authorized to assure the sinner,
as Arminians do, and some others also, that the Holy Spirit is
always ready to convert him. But I do believe that we are
authorized to assure any sinner that it _may be true_ that the
Holy Spirit is now ready to convert him; ‘that God PERADVENTURE
will now give him repentance;’ and that thus, in view of the
possible intervention of divine influence, we remove what would
otherwise be a ground of fatal discouragement to the sinner, when
we exhort him to immediate repentance.
“I have dwelt the more on some of these particulars, because much
pains has been taken, by some individuals, to make the impression
that I have departed from the true faith respecting the influences
of the Holy Spirit, even denying his influences altogether. So far
is this from the fact, that, as you well know, no one attaches
higher importance to this doctrine than I do, preaches it more
decisively, or appreciates more highly its practical relations and
bearings. In my own view, the power of the gospel on the mind of
the sinner very much consists in the two great facts of his
complete moral agency as the basis of his obligation, of his
guilt, and of his duty;—and of his dependence on the sovereign
grace of God, resulting from his voluntary perverseness in sin.
Without the latter, we could, in my opinion, neither show the
Christian what thanks he owes his Deliverer from sin, nor awaken
the sinner to flee from the wrath to come. This doctrine seems to
be indispensable to destroy the presumptuous reliance of the
sinner on future repentance, as it shows him how fearfully he
provokes an offended God to withhold the grace on which all
depends. At the same time, one thing is indubitably certain, viz.,
that God never revealed the doctrine of the sinner’s dependence on
his Spirit, to present the sinner from doing his duty at once. God
does not call sinners to instant compliance with the terms of
life, and then assure them that such compliance is utterly out of
the question, and to be wholly despaired of. The opposite
impression, however, is not uncommon; and it is an error not less
fatal to immediate repentance, than the fond hope of repenting
hereafter. Both are to be destroyed; and he who does not preach
the gospel in that manner which tends to destroy both, preaches it
but imperfectly.