What is the Westminster Confession of Faith?

Under Charles I. there was no great change, but under the Commonwealth the Puritans found great relief, and divines and others met at Westminster (1643-47) and drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism, which became the standard of the Scottish Presbyterians.

The English church, we may say, is the same now as it was in the time of William. The Episcopalians are the reigning party, and number among their adherents the royal family, the principal part of the nobility, and the greatest part of the people. The foundation of the Presbyterian establishment in Scotland was also firmly laid about the same time, by an act of the Scottish Parliament which ratified the "Westminster Confession of Faith," as the creed of that church.*

Take a very respectable set of persons in Protestantism — the Presbyterians. Well now the whole of their system is founded upon Christ being the King — not Christ being the Head of the church, but Christ being King. That was the battle cry of the old covenanters, and that was the great cry at the time that the Free Church was established. It was that Christ was the King — that the crown of England was using its title against the rights of Christ. In the case about which there was so much talk some years ago, and to which I need not refer more particularly, this was the great thought. It was Christ's title of King in the church that was disputed. So you will find in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is their grand standard of doctrine. In short, they always go upon the ground of Christ being King of the church.

In this connection take Scottish Presbyterianism. It is well known that in the Scottish Establishment for at least the last twenty years the movement for creed relaxation and revision has been gathering force. This is not to be wondered at when the progress she has made on modern lines in the matter of doctrine is taken into account. There is certainly no more striking instance of the essentially revolutionary character of modern theological thought than in what has occurred within the last generation here, in its meeting with the strong, high Calvinism which is proverbially characteristic of the Church of Scotland. The Westminster Confession of Faith is, of course, that with which she is officially identified, each clergyman on ordination making profession of adherence to it in the words of a formula compiled for that express purpose. Now, it would seem an easy enough thing to substitute for the antiquated confession "a simple creed representing the best in theological thought as modified by modern contributions." But, as one has recently complained, under the Establishment they are "deprived of doctrinal autonomy." This want of the power of doctrinal initiative, much grieved over, has, up till now, been a serious check on the movement. "Advantage was taken of the abnormal political and ecclesiastical situation of 1905 to obtain from the State the right," not of altering the confession, but "of prescribing the formula of subscription" to it. This somewhat Jesuitical loophole, as some have thought it, is so far scarcely proving successful, and "as no alteration was thereby effected in the Act of 1690, on which the Establishment is based, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the relief supposed to be gained is only of a nominal nature." What else but nominal could the relief be in the nature of the case? A church has reason to be dissatisfied with that body of doctrine with which nominally it is identified. What then? Transform the nominal into the actual by revising the creed its teachers profess? Verily no; but rather substitute the nominal for the actual in the terms of their subscription to it. Whatever ingenuity the scheme may have to commend it, there is probably too strong a suspicion of careful juggling about it to give satisfactory relief to conscientious people. Apart from actual release from the doctrinal control of the State such as disestablishment would effect, it is difficult to see what can be done unless power to alter the Confession itself is secured. There is, of course, the further counsel of despair — "Would it not be better to still hold by the Confession of Faith, that if we have not uniformity of belief, we may at least have uniformity of make-believe?

No wonder the Lord says to Protestantism, "Be watchful and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God." And He calls upon them to remember how they had received and heard, and to hold fast and repent. Now, surely, it must be plain to anyone who carefully examines the Scripture, that this message would in no sense have been as applicable to the Thyatira as to the Sardis period. Such word would not have the same force when addressed to Rome as when addressed to the churches of the Reformation. What did these latter receive and hear? Clearly the great truths proclaimed so fearlessly in the days of the Reformation, and embodied for the instruction of future generations in the creeds of the 16th and 17th centuries. And, may I say, I am not one of those who waste time denouncing creeds. Credo means "I believe." Any man who believes anything has a creed. All the great creeds of Protestantism were but the carefully drawn-up declaration of the faith of those who had escaped from Romish superstition, who desired to make clear to their children what they recognized as the truth which they had received from God. We need not be surprised if we find in these creeds some statements which fuller light and knowledge would lead us to refuse or revise, but I think we may say that there is not one of these symbols which does not hold within it every fundamental truth of the Word of God. Take the Augsburg Confession of the Lutherans; the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians; the 39 Articles of the Church of England; and others too numerous to mention. Every one of them insists on the true deity of Christ and the efficacy of His atoning work on Calvary's cross. All alike declare that salvation is only through faith, apart form works.

32 Mr. Mackintosh's accuser shelters himself under the Thirty-nine Articles and the Westminster Confession. But these may be signed and appealed to, and all manner of intolerable doctrines held. Those whom the Free Church of Scotland left signed the Westminster Confession. Justification by works is preached under shelter of the Thirty-nine Articles; Puseyite altars are erected, and baptismal regeneration taught, by those who have signed them — is taught in the Westminster Confession itself. The denial of inspiration is largely spread under the safeguard of the Thirty-nine Articles; and in the Free Church the doctrine is securely promulgated, that Christ was viewed as such a leper that God did not allow Him to visit any holy place nor sleep in Jerusalem. They are a poor protection for the faith of God's elect. More error than truth is taught by those who have signed them, and error ruinous to souls.

The Westminster Confession expressly declares that the Lord's-day "is to be continued till the end of the world as the Christian sabbath." One can only grieve that godly men should be bound down to so palpable a departure from the truth of God, and forced while under its authority either, like most, to remain ignorant of scripture as to this weighty matter, or to defile their consciences if they know better, like a few.

Luther, thanks be to God, followed by the rest of the Reformers, reverted to the Hebrew Canon, detached the writings added to the Alexandrian and Latin versions from the Hebrew Books, and applied to the former the general name of Apocrypha, which, as already explained, was derived from Jerome. But the Lutheran bodies, following the example of the great Reformer, who set a high value upon some of the Apocrypha, have not been so rigorous in their rejection of these books as have been the 'Reformed' communions. No 'Puritans' have gone further than the Presbyterians in their condemnation of the Apocrypha. In the 'Westminster Confession' (art. 111) we read as follows: The Apocrypha 'are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.' Dr. Payne Smith's words bring out the essential weakness of the Apocrypha: 'All in them which is distinctive is at variance with Holy Scripture, and diverges into ideas and doctrines irreconcileable with the past and barren for the future.' ('Bible Educator,' ii. p.374.) With this compare the remarks of Taylor in his Work on Ancient Books: 'Bad imitations of the style of the Scriptures — some of the Old Testament, have been attempted … and are such as afford the most striking illustration that can be imagined of the difference in simplicity, dignity and consistency, which one should expect to find, severally, in the genuine and the spurious.' ('Transmission,' pp.186 sq.)

This is strong language to me as to the famous Confession of Faith; but the times are serious. We want the truth. We want the solid basis of scripture, of the word of God, for what we hold. Nothing else will stand in these days. Men may deny that word; but then we know what we have to do with. Men may set up conventional systems; but then popery is the strongest and will prevail, or infidel disgust throw up all, and (as I believe) devour at the end popery itself. But my business now is with the truth. Thank God, many Presbyterians love the Lord, and their traditional errors are partially dissolved in the power of grace, though, I believe, their system affects and injures their Christianity. Still every saint will cordially recognize every one in whom grace is. At any rate, that is what pleases God and is the true bond of comfort to the saint; but our question now is with a system of doctrine injurious to the saints we do love. In many parts I do not believe the Confession of Faith is really held by those who maintain it, as in the doctrine of absolute reprobation. Indeed it notoriously is not. They may talk about mysterious and deep truths when we bow. I have no objection to bowing to God on such points - it becomes us; but they do not believe what is stated in the Confession of Faith - I mean a vast number do not. And I affirm that what they do believe, the promise of life to Adam by keeping the ten commandments, is an absurd and unscriptural folly, and one which subverts his and our relations to God, fatally modifying the truth of the gospel when it is preached.

348 I have done. My object has not been to attack the Confession of Faith, nor the Moderator, but to discuss some great principles which interest every Christian individually and the whole Church of God as such. My appeal is to the word of God, aided (as we all must be to use it to profit) by the grace and Spirit of God. And I cannot but think that the traditional teaching of the Presbyterians as to doctrine and polity will be found utterly wanting when compared with the word. If any Presbyterian should read this paper, I ask a patient comparison with the word of God. They are used to come to the scriptures full of the Confession of Faith and the longer and shorter Catechisms. It is generally the first glory of their system that they are religiously brought up and carefully instructed in doctrine. But there is the danger accompanying this valuable care that they bring a complete system, already formed in the mind, to the study of the word of God. This is a great evil. "Ille bene legit," says Hilary as to scripture, "qui non affert sed refert sensum."

So also as to the theological creeds. A man may subscribe to any of the great standards of religious belief, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Westminister Confession, John Wesley's sermons, Fox and Barclay, or any other creed, and yet be wholly unconverted, dead in trespasses and sins, and on his way to that place where a single ray of hope can never break in upon the awful gloom of eternity.