He that makes or accepts a creed—a human thing, a monument of impudent folly, thus rejecting the Bible, virtually and actually, as the creed of the party to which he belongs, must assume one of the following positions, one horn of a four-horned monster:
1. The Bible, as a creed, is too short; or it does not contain enough.
2. The Bible, as a creed, is too long; or it contains more than should be found in a creed.
3. The Bible, as a creed, though it contains, as to quantity and quality of matter, neither more nor less than should be found in a creed, is not in the very best form.
4. His party is, in some way or by some means, authorized to make the addition, subtraction, or emendation demanded.
More briefly: it seems to me to intuitively certain that he who assumes that the Bible contains just what it ought, neither more nor less, and that, after all, it is now in the very best possible form for man’s good, could not make or accept a human creed. So, I conclude, the creed-maker does really assume one or more of the positions above stated.
How strange it is that any man or set of men will deliberately say and publish to the world that the Bible is the only infallible rule (creed) of faith and practice, and then, in the very same paper or volume, proceed to make a human and, of course, a fallible one. Yet this is just what creed-makers are not ashamed to do.
The mother of sects and the prime author of creeds meets the question promptly and directly. She holds that the Bible is not, in either matter or form, sufficiently adapted to man for all time, and in all exigencies and emergencies, and that consequently the church may alter or amend it at pleasure. She allows fairly, as in reason she is bound to do, that she must either make no human creed, or assume that the divine one is for some reason or some how defective. The latter she has not hesitated to do. What does the balance of the family say to this? I repeat and insist that they must assume one or more of the four positions now named. This they should do distinctly, that we might know what they propose to do, and why. Will they add to the words of the prophecy of this book? Will they take anything from this blessed, perfect, and only blood-sanctified guide, and hand me the remaining fragment, all marred, as sin once marred the Son of man? Will they sunder that which the Supreme Architect has joined together, and then offer me a mere scrap of the heaven-arranged system, deranged and cast into a human [155] mould, with interlineations, explanations, and augmentations made by themselves? Do they demand that my faith shall thus be hoisted upon human stilts, and stand in the wisdom of man and not in the power of God? Shall I, at the end of four years, be liable to lose my faith, and be compelled to receive another, as the wisdom of men may decree? Will creed-makers do all this and more? Then will God take away their part from the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things written in this book.
But I think that no Protestant creed-maker would intentionally allow himself to take either of these horns—to assume either of these positions. His position is, if I mistake not, that the Bible is not in the best possible form; that for the purposes of faith and discipline it is necessary to change the form, preserving the substance. Thus they make the third assumption, and must make the fourth also; else, though the form may be changed, or ought to be changed, it could not be done for want of authority.
May we, then, change the form of the divine record? Whence the necessity? Shall we do it to make the matter of faith and duty plainer? Then we charge the infinitely benevolent One with lack of wisdom, power, or goodness to make his messages of salvation plain. Did not God wish to make them plain so far as we are interested in knowing them? Then he is not good, so far as we can judge, and is not, therefore, God. Did God wish to make them plain, and fail? Then is his wisdom or power, one or both, limited, and hence he is not God.
Now, since we can not, must not, assume that God lacked the will, power, or wisdom to make his own creed-book, given to man to enlighten him on the questions of faith and discipline plain—plainer than any human skill could make it, I shall hence assume, with all the force of a merciless logician, that the Bible prescriptions for faith and duty are in the Bible made divinely plain; by which I mean, that they are made as plain as the omnipotent and omniscient One, moved by infinite love, could make them.
Let God’s Bible alone; only give it to us, all of it, nothing more. Give the light and love of God to man, in pure translations and revisions of his Holy Book, and then, in the glorious noon-day light of the Sun of Righteousness, point the eye of the poor wanderer to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and there is hope of saving him. But let his eye never fall upon that murky thing—a human creed.
Did it never occur to a creed-maker, when putting his pen to paper to bring order out of confusion, and to set in a plainer and more practical light that jumble and chaos of holy truth which, it would seem, God has left at loose ends, that the blessed Spirit had already done, infinitely better than he could, the very thing that he proposed [156] to do? Does he not know that God has made the narrow road from earth to heaven straighter and plainer than he can make it? That is, so plain that the wayfarer, though unlearned, may make no mistake. Does he not know that the Scriptures, given us by inspiration of God, are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (because a man of the Bible) may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work? These things, it is positively certain, the Scriptures could not do if not in the best and plainest possible form. They therefore are in that form, and hence the attempt of the creed-maker is predicated upon a false assumption.
The principle which gives to any human creed is of the nature and essence of the apostasy; and his presumption is as high and daring, who deliberately takes on single step in this fatal direction, as is his who takes a thousand.
God’s purpose has ever been to govern man by his own laws, just as given. To deny this is to give the lie to every word of God. Man’s determination has always been that he would make his own laws, creeds, or codes, and govern himself. To deny this is to give the lie to every word of history, sacred and profane, from the fall of man till now. To this perverse and lawless disposition I fear we shall be bound to trace the true history of all human creeds.
These creeds—are they from heaven or from men? If we say from heaven, they will say: Why do you not obey them? But we can not obey them all, for each contradicts the other. Nor can we know which is right without having some acknowledged standard of right by which to test them. This brings us to the Bible as the true standard, and the only true standard, by which to measure all our faith, and all our practice. Having arrived in this safe and blessed haven of rest; let me here abide till the time of his coming. I can afford to attempt no experiments here. Will the world never learn that what God teaches us is just what and all that we ought to know? That what God commands is just what and all that we ought to obey? That what God promises is just what and all that we may hope? It seems not. With these teachings, commands, and promises, nothing more, I am satisfied. But are these creeds of men, say we? Then they will beat us; as they do.
But granting for the present, what we feel to be most palpably and grievously false, that the divine arrangement is not the best, and that human skill is competent to make it better, still it remains to be shown, shown clearly, most distinctly shown, that any man or set of men is authorized to make the change. I take it to be self-evident, that if no one is authorized to change the form of God’s book it would be impious to do it; and if it were done, it would be equally sinful for any one to encourage it by joining the party who did it. In examining creeds, therefore, it is a dictate of common [157] reason that I should trace them back to their authors, and ask them, with all the sternness that the interest which I have in knowing the truth would demand, by what authority did you do this thing?
Remember, reader, the claim is the right to change the form of the Bible; for all parties hold their creeds to be the same in substance with the Bible, differing only in form. My question demands the authority for making the change. Surely no pious man will attempt such work without at least feeling that he is in some way authorized to do it.
Do they claim that the Bible commissions them? Not very distinctly nor generally. I read a number of grand commissions in the Bible. Each one designates the work to be done, and the parties who are to do it. But I fail to find the commission for making creeds, and hence find no authority for them in the Bible. The majority of creed-makers rely upon a source of authority very wide of this. They claim that their charter is to be found in the unwritten book, the book of God’s providences, that God raises up men every now and then to make creeds. Thus, for example, it is thought that God raised up Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc., to give us Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Methodism. We are not told how the Lord led these men into different and contradictory systems of faith and practice. That they were, somehow, led by the Holy Spirit (perhaps not inspired by it) is, I believe, claimed, on the score of their success. But success is no positive proof of inspiration by the Holy Spirit, nor that the work done by the successful party is of God, in any sense. Besides, we know that God is not the author of the works of all these men, nor is he the author of all the works of any one of them. Hence the fact of eminent success is not proof that God ordered any one of the works of any one of the men.
I therefore shall deny that it is in proof, and also that it is provable, that any one of these men was authorized of God to give us any one of the systems mentioned. As to the ambiguous phrase, “raised up,” I have nothing here to say; only the men were not authorized from heaven to give us the systems which they did.
I am curious to know if this claim of authority be good, or entitled to the least possible respect, how it happens that, after one set of men have been raised up and have given us a creed, another set in a few years must be raised up to make for us another very different and even contradictory creed? This process has gone on till at this date it is said we have more than thirty score of these human productions; all made, it is urged, by raised-up men. Still more wonderful is it that each of these creeds needs and receives revision every few years. These things can not be of God. Whence come they? Even of our lusts; of men who are carnal and walk as men; of men who can not endure sound doctrine. I am not advised whether these revisions are made by raised-up men or not. If they [158] are not, it is certain that they take very unwarrantable liberties with the works of those who are said to be raised up. Do you smile at these things, reader? Far better would it be should you weep. God does not raise up these men for any such purposes.
As long as I find them breeding discord and divisions as they do, and when produced fixing and stereotyping them in the forms of the various creeds of the day, I shall believe that those thus engaged are carnal, sensual, and demoniac. (1 Cor. iii., 3, 4. Gal. v., 19-21.)
But, dear reader, will you say that such expressions are unkind? Suppose I answer you that I feel that I am raised up, especially, for this very purpose, what could you say? Could you deny it? If not, then you will not chide me, I am sure. Charge me not with being unkind. You could not know the charge, if made, to be true; I can and do know it to be false. Ask rather whether what I here write is truth. We, with all our little animosities and vanities and carnalities, will soon be gone. But there is an after-thought,—after death is the judgment. Then and there you and I will be judged out of the things written in the books.
In the language of the Master, let us ask: What is written in the law? For by that law we stand or fall. Plainness of speech best befits that man who has a plain and simple story of truth to tell. In my heart, and with all my heart, I believe that the spirit which lies at the foundation and gives rise to the making of human creeds is essentially antichristian. It is hence to be, by the honest and zealous worker for God and truth, promptly and plainly deprecated. If, then, you think me at all hard, be this my apology: the sin against which I inveigh is hard.
If it be right to make and use creeds as they are used, I can not see the necessity for the enormous labor and expense employed in translating the Holy Scriptures faithfully into our own and other languages. Why not allow a few raised-up men to give us, in the form of a creed, what they conceive to be the teachings of the Bible, and thus save ourselves the immense outlay of toil and money, necessary to make faithful translations and revisions? Am I answered, that the creed might be wrong; that it is better to preserve the divine creed correctly translated, to fall back on in case we should find the human standard at any time wrong? The answer is correct; and believing that I have found all human creeds wrong, or that I have, at least, found the divine one right, I have fallen back on it; and with my brethren, good and true, hope never to fall away. On principle we stand on the Word of God alone. This legitimately demands that we should use every effort and make every possible sacrifice to obtain that word pure as the Spirit gave it. Hence my brethren are all, and must be, in favor of every enterprise, promising success, which looks in the direction of a faithful translation of God’s word. But translate and revise as you will, creed-makers will relax [159] not a whit of their efforts. Creeds will still be made, and will have, with the parties making them, all the force of divine law, and more too. So it might be expected that they would oppose all translation and revision movements; and so they do. Ask a friend of human creeds to assist in circulating Bro. Anderson’s translation, or that of the Bible Union, and his brow spontaneously lowers like a thundercloud, as he growls his answer: No.
I rejoice to know that there are a few honorable exceptions; but the rule is: the friends of translation movements to obtain God’s pure word are opposed to human creeds, and the friends of human creeds are opposed to translation movements. Thus it seems, and so I believe, that the spirit which now opposes all attempts at giving us the Word of God in the English and other languages, pure as possible, and that which gives us human creeds as bonds of union and communion, in essence are the same. Nor is either of them from God. True, the parties do, mainly, I doubt not, feel that they are doing for the best. But this changes not the character of their work—a work which the Holy Spirit never does. It is charitable to suppose that they know not what spirit they are of.
All the pseudo union movements of the present day among the sects—those claiming that they are sects and rejoicing in the fact—are, I fear, begotten by the same divisive and carnal spirit. A few days since I was visited by an agent of the American Bible Society, who requested me to solicit and take up a contribution in our church, and pay the proceeds over into their treasury. I asked him why he was opposed to giving us a revised translation of the Bible, and persisted in circulating one which he acknowledged contains many errors—known errors.
His answer was brief, truthful, and to the point. He said: “You know that in our Society several leading (influential) denominations are represented.” In this brief explanation we have, at every gap, crack, and corner, lurking, peeping, and grinning, the genuine spirit of the antichrist.
I pressed him: “Sir, what has that to do with the question? Is it true, as your answer unmistakably intimates, that your parties will not come into the pure, full, meridian light of the Sun of Righteousness, but intentionally and intelligently refuse? Do they hate or fear the noon-day light?” He had nothing further to say, was in a hurry. I bade him good-bye, promising that I would raise all the money I could for circulating the best versions of the Bible that I could find. The occupation of Demetrius, the silversmith, and of Aaron, when making the calf, were about as honorable and serviceable to the truth as that of creed-makers, as a body.
I see a paragraph in a Chicago paper, dated January 6, 1866, which illustrates the point that I have before me. The editor says that: “A movement has been set on foot . . . by the Protestant clerical [160] professions,” in the city of Chicago, to organize a union prayer meeting. These clergymen issue a call upon the good people of that city, the first words of which are as follows: “Cheering indications of the Holy Spirit’s presence are manifest in our city!” This document is signed by thirteen D.Ds. and by twenty-two not so commissioned. Thus we find that, in the opinion of thirty-five commissioned and non-commissioned clergymen of the city of Chicago, the Holy Spirit has actually made its appearance in that place! Do they mean that the Holy Spirit has not been there much of late, and that hence his appearance is a thing a little remarkable? This may be; but, according to the theory of these gentlemen concerning the Spirit’s operations and movements, it is no very flattering compliment to the city. It must have been quite a Sodom of a place.
The language of the call seems to import that the Holy Spirit goes around occasionally among people; and that, if duly received and properly treated when he comes, will work to the conversion of some sinners. More than this may be fairly deduced from the language. Since the Holy Spirit is sent of the Father and the Son, this view represents them as whimsical and spasmodic, in their work of saving sinners—as sometimes willing, and then, of course, the Spirit comes; as sometimes not willing, and then he does not come. So, if the language of the call be not complimentary to the people of Chicago, they may be content to know that it is still less so to God and to his Christ. This call intimates to Christians that they should watch the Spirit’s movements; that if he is not present, or at least so near at hand that he may be called, in aid of their work, they might as well wait till it is manifest from cheering indications that he is present. The sinner, from such teaching, would learn to wait also.
Meantime the Bible is mainly left out of the account. Such teachers do not believe that the gospel is God’s power to save the sinner, though God says in the Bible that it is. If they did so believe they could not teach as they do. You are, reader, prepared by this time to hear me say that all these critical gentlemen traffic in human creeds, and are opposed to all the translation and revision movements of the present day; and so I believe they are. If there be one exception to this conclusion among the whole thirteen doctors and twenty-two non-doctors of divinity, he is a weak disciple indeed.
Now, since no additions to nor subtractions from the Bible can be made with impunity; and since no change in the form of the divine creed-book, made by human hands, can be allowed to be an improvement on the divine work; and since no man can show authority, from what is written in the Bible or is found out of it, for making such change; I conclude that every human creed, when made, is a calamity, and the making of any human creed is a sin against God and the Bible.
W. [161]
[Volume III: January, 1866]