APPENDIX 1
——————
In the debates which preceded the reunion of the two branches of the American Presbyterian Church in 1870, Dr. Charles Hodge represented the Old School branch in the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, and Dr. Henry B. Smith represented the New School branch in the American Theological Review. It is a significant fact that, while the discussion began in the form of attack and defence, it resulted in the discovery that these truly representative men held precisely identical opinions as to the historical meaning and constitutional force of the formula of subscription to which all ministers and elders must assent as the condition of their ordination. In support of this they mutually cite the history and pledge the faith of their respective denominations pending the solemn covenants implied in reunion.
Dr. Hodge discussed this subject and defined the position of his branch of the Church in articles printed Oct, 1831, and Oct, 1858, and Jul, 1867. He says:[1] "The two principles which by common consent of all honest men determine the interpretation of oaths and professions of faith are, first, the plain, historical meaning of the words; and secondly, the animus imponentis—that is, the intention of the party imposing the oath or requiring the profession. The words, therefore, 'system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,' are to be taken in their plain historical sense." "Again, by the animus imponentis, in the case contemplated, is to be understood, not the mind or intention of the ordaining Presbytery. It is the mind or intention of the Church, of which the Presbytery is the organ."
The question, however, is, What is the true sense of the phrase "system of doctrine" in our ordination service? or what does the Church understand the candidate to profess when he says that "he receives and adopts the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture"? There are three different answers given to that question:
"I. It is said by some that in adopting 'the system of doctrine' the candidate is understood to adopt it, not in the form or manner in which it is presented in the Confession of Faith, but only for 'substance of doctrine'—'that by the system contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of Christianity, and nothing more.'[2] The objection to this interpretation is that—
"(1) It is not the meaning of the words employed. The two declarations, 'I adopt the system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith,' and 'I adopt the system for substance of doctrine,' are not identical. The one cannot, therefore, be substituted for the other.. . In adopting a system of doctrine the candidate adopts a series of doctrines in the specific form in which they are presented in that system. The phrase 'for substance of doctrine' is ambiguous; the phrase 'system of doctrine' has a definite sense. The system of the Reformed or Calvinistic churches is a known and admitted scheme of doctrine, and that scheme, and nothing more or less, we profess to adopt.
"(2) The second objection to this view is that it is contrary to the mind of the Church. That mind, on this point, is rendered clear beyond dispute by her repeated official declarations on the subject. The famous adopting act of the original Synod, passed in AD 1729, is in these words: 'Although the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith on other men's consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with and abhorrence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another, as Christ has received us, to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven,—yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity; and do therefore agree that all ministers of this Synod shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines in Westminster, as being, in all the essentials and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree that all Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise of the sacred functions, but what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing said Confession and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of making said declaration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential or necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidate erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapable of communion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree that none of them will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those who differ from us in extra-essential and not necessary
points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love as if they did not differ in sentiment.'
"On the afternoon of the day on which the above act was adopted, the following minute was recorded—viz.:
"'All the ministers of this Synod now present, except one, that declared himself not prepared, ... after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth [WCF 20] and twenty-third [WCF 23] chapters, concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare that they do not receive those articles in such sense as to suppose that the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.
"'The Synod, observing that unanimity, peace, and unity which appeared in all their consultations relating to the affair of the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn prayer and praises.'
"This important document teaches, first, that in our Church the terms of Christian communion are competent knowledge and a credible profession of faith and repentance; second, that the condition of ministerial communion is the adoption of the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms; third, that the only exceptions allowed to be taken were such as related to matters outside that system of doctrine, and the rejection of which left that system in its integrity.
"In AD 1730 the Synod declared 'that they understand those clauses that respect the admission of intrants or candidates in such sense as to oblige them to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms at their admission, in the same manner, and as fully as the members of the Synod did, who were then present.' In AD 1736 the Synod again says: 'The Synod has adopted, and still do adhere to, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and Directory, without variation or alteration; ... and they further declare that this was our meaning and true intent in our first adopting of said Confession.'
"When the two Synods (Old Light and New Light) were reunited in AD 1758, the first article of the terms of union was as follows: 'Both Synods having always approved and received the Westminster Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of doctrine, founded on the Word of God, we do still receive the same as the confession of our faith, and also adhere to the plan of worship and government and discipline contained in the Westminster Directory, strictly enjoining it on all our ministers and probationers for the ministry that they preach and teach according to the form of sound words in the said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.'
"(3) The third argument against this interpretation of the ordination
formula is that the phrase 'substance of doctrine' has no definite assignable meaning.
"(4) The fourth argument against it is that this system has been tried and found to produce the greatest disorder and confusion.
"II. The second interpretation of the question presented at ordination is that the person who answers that question in the affirmative does thereby profess to receive and adopt every proposition contained in that Confession as a part of his own faith.
"The objections to this view are:
"(1) It is contrary to the plain historical meaning of the words.
"(2) It is contrary to the animus imponentis, or mind of the Church." [This also Dr. Hodge proves by the history of the events attending the original adoption of the Confession.]
"(3) This principle is impracticable. It cannot be carried out without working the certain and immediate ruin of the Church. Our Confession is a large book; besides the system of doctrine common to all Reformed churches, it contains deliverances on many other topics relating to Church and State and to our social relations.
"(4) The office of the Church is purely ministerial, and should be exercised cautiously and humbly. She has no more right unduly to lower or to raise unduly the evidence which she demands of a vocation to the ministry than she has to alter the evidence of a call to grace and salvation.
"(5) There is another great evil connected with these inordinate demands. To adopt every proposition contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms is more than the vast majority of our ministers either do or can do. To make them profess to do it is a great sin. It hurts their conscience. It fosters a spirit of evasion and subterfuge.
"III. The third interpretation of the formula prescribed for the adoption of the Confession of Faith is the true via media. The Westminster Confession contains three distinct classes of doctrines: first, those common to all Christians; second, those common to all Protestants, and by which they are distinguished from Romanists; thirdly, those which are peculiar to the Reformed churches, by which they are distinguished on the one hand from Lutherans, and on the other from the Arminians and other sects of later historical origin." [All these classes of doctrines we profess to believe, as far as they constitute a "system of doctrine"—i.e. we profess to be Christians; more definitely, to be Protestants; more definitely yet, to be Calvinists.]
"(1) The first argument in favor of this interpretation of our ordination service is that it is in accordance with the literal meaning of the words; (2) that it corresponds with the known intention of the Church in requiring the adoption of the Confession" [this Dr. Hodge had already proved to be the fact by historical evidence]; "(3) it is the only interpretation consistent with a good conscience, and with the peace and union of the Church."
In the October number of the American Theological Review, AD 1867, Dr. Henry B. Smith says:
"No declaration of the New School as a body, nor of those considered
as its representatives, could be, or was, cited in favor of such a loose phrase as 'substance of doctrine,' and by many New School men it was publicly and definitely denied. We agreed to the 'system-of-doctrine' view, and agreed, also, in condemning the 'every-proposition theory' as inconsistent with the plain terms of the adopting act, and with the uniform practice of the Presbyterian Church. We disallow the phrase 'substance of doctrine,' because it is indefinite, easily misunderstood, and does not suggest the right theory. That right theory is found in a simple and honest interpretation of the ordination formula—that we receive the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. This declares that the system of the Confession is the system taught in the Bible. The system of the Confession, as everybody knows, is the Reformed or Calvinistic system, in distinction from the Lutheran, or Arminian, the Antinomian, the Pelagian and the Roman Catholic. No one can honestly and fairly subscribe the Confession who does not accept the Reformed or Calvinistic system. This is the plain sense of the adopting act of AD 1729. Everybody knows that the 'fair historical' sense of the Confession is plainly and resolutely Calvinistic.
"On this capital point of assent to the Confession, then, we conclude that there is no real difference between the Old School and the New. We are both willing to accept it as containing the Reformed system of doctrine. We cordially agree—and so, we are convinced, would our whole New School ministry and eldership—to the statement of this theory as given in the Princeton Review. Among honest and candid men there is really no doubt or question as to what subscription implies."