Objections to Doctrinal Confessions.

133

that faith in an exterior manner. Many Churches had existed, and many still exist, without a Confession. What was the Confession of Faith of the Church during the three first centuries? The Reformed Church itself had existed forty years before it had one. Protestantism, said another member, speaking of the Lutheran Church, had not been created by any Confession, and so could well continue to live without one.

Again, it was objected to Confessions, that the basis they lay down is much more theological than religious, and that they are addressed to the intellect merely, and not to the heart. Pastor Galup thought that unless a Confession touched but very superficially on matters of doctrine, in which case it would be useless-it must contain a complete epitome of doctrine, in which case it would reduce them to theological slavery. He desired to remain free. He believed firmly in the Divinity of Christ, but he denied the right of any one to force on him the formula of the Trinity.* Was it not enough, asked Baron de Clausonne, a distinguished magistrate of the Nîmes bench, to believe with heart and soul in the gospel, in revelation, in Christ the Son of God, in his supernatural and divine work? Must they absolutely have something more? If Christ himself were then to appear in the midst of them, would he reprove them with not believing in a sufficiently orthodox way in his co-eternity and consubstantiality with the Father? Was it by Confessions that souls were touched? Or was it not rather by the sublime and ravishing words of Jesus, so full of consolation, light, and power? It is a Pagan error, said the pious and learned Professor Sardinoux of Montauban, to insist too much on dogmas. Christianity is a divine life, a divine love. A new era is opening. Romanism is the reign of law, of works. Protestantism had been that of dogmas, of belief, of formula. But the Church of the Future would take higher ground; it would have for its principle love, without which no man can understand either works or faith. Faith does not consist in believing in a series of articles, but in a living and close union of the soul with Christ. Religion should recover her proper ground. Of what use is the most elaborate Confession without works of beneficence and love?

Farther, it was maintained, that Confessions are not only useless but hurtful, as presenting obstacles to progress; and dangerous, as tending to engender disputes. We should always remain free, said Pastor Vidal, to change our minds. Melancthon, on being reproached with changing his on some subject, replied, "What! do you think I have been studying thirty years

*This Reverend Gentleman, it may be remarked, declared he had never read the La Rochelle Confession.

without learning anything?" And he was right. A prejudice in favour of unity, said Pastor Buisson, who left the chair to speak, had been the stumblingblock of all confessions; and the consequence of their introduction, unless when they were vague and so useless, has been the rise of divisions, of sects, of individualism. Their origin, said Dean of faculty Montet, was contemporary with the most profound alterations ever made in evangelical principles.

But the great objection alleged against Confessions of Faith was, that they are contrary to the fundamental principle of Protestantism. All Confessions, all Formularies of Faith, it was said, proceed on the supposition that the Bible is not sufficient, and this is the Romanist doctrine. The Protestant doctrine, on the contrary, recognising the gospel as the sole rule of faith, refuses to place beside it any commentary of man to direct the conscience. Homogeneity, said Pastor Athanase Coquerel, junior, is the Romanist principle; and those who profess it drive out of the Church, if they are strong enough, all those who differ from them, or secede from it if they are too weak. The Protestant principle, on the contrary, is liberty; and not only liberty but diversity-a thing to be regarded not merely as inevitable, but as being in itself good. The Christianity of each individual is different; there are as many Christianities as there are men; or at least we should endeavour to arrive at this. No Confession of Faith is good except the one each man makes for himself. Every one therefore, with God's aid, should form for himself his own peculiar faith, and then, all being at the same time united by a common belief in Christ and by Christian love, the divine intention and the true Church would be realized. Their motto should be "Every one for himself, and God for them all." The gospel, said M. Montet, gives us the solution of all the questions the mind of man can raise, but it does so in few words; and while we certainly should endeavour to penetrate its meaning, we should do so in humility, and without pretending to force our results upon our brethren. To maintain that anything more than the Bible is needed, said M. Charles Coquerel, the author of a History of the Churches of the Desert, and the brother of the elder pastor of his name, is a Romanist doctrine, and whoever could fully establish it would be made a Cardinal by the Pope. Confessions are merely the banners of sects, and no sect possesses complete truth, none is altogether an angel of light, as none is altogether an angel of darkness. If indeed it could be proved that in a single Protestant sect, founded on the Bible and reason, the Spirit of God has entirely disappeared, he would immediately become a Romanist; for he would see that, besides the Bible and reason, some human authority is necessary.

Confessions Vindicated.

135

Before closing these notices of some of the chief arguments alleged against Confessions, we must refer for a moment to one urged by Professor Sardinoux. This gentleman, to whose ideas much learning has given a peculiarly abstract and unpractical turn, assumed a position of his own. "What," he asked, " is a Confession? It is the answer made by the conscience and by Christian science to the questions raised, at any given time, regarding God, Christ, the future, and the like. Thus the Athanasian Creed was the reply to the questions that had been raised during the previous three centuries; thus the Reformed Confessions were the replies to all the questions of their day. Is it possible to make such a Confession, that is, such a reply in the present times? No; for the Church is not in a state to answer the existing questions raised by Communism, Socialism, and modern philosophy: the German philosophy, for instance, raises questions about God and the universe, and it is not in the power of man to reply to all of them categorically, by any sufficient and scientifically adequate formula." While the Latitudinarians therefore contented themselves with arguing that Confessions were inexpedient, useless, hurtful, dangerous, and contrary to the principles of Protestantism, the Evangelical M. Sardinoux went farther, and declared that to draw up one in these times is impossible.

We are next to consider the position taken by M. Frédéric Monod and M. de Gasparin, who stood alone in the Assembly. "A Christian Church ought to confess her faith"-" the Reformed Church of France does not profess hers." Such we have seen were the propositions they had to establish in order to arrive at the conclusion-" a Confession of Faith ought to be placed at the basis of her organization and discipline." On the first, M. F. Monod argued from Scripture, particularly from the epistles to Timothy and Titus, that it is the duty of the Church jealously to watch that sound doctrine alone is taught within her pale. But how is heresy to be known if there is no standard, that is to say, no Confession? How is a Church to know her own children? It is evident that she must have some powersome means, not indeed of saying, Thou shalt believe, but of asking, Dost thou believe this? It was admitted that some Churches had no Confessions, but those of them which were really Christian Churches had more they had strict communion; and as to the rest, if they had no Confession, it was because they had no faith. On the second point M. Monod inquired, if the Reformed Church confessed her faith, where her Confession was to be found?-In that of La Rochelle? But could a confession really be said to exist among men who refuse to sign it? Certainly it may be ingeniously argued, that as the discipline founded on it was maintained by the law of Germinal, that Confession

still remains in vigour. But all allow that it cannot be acted on, and if so, of what use was the abstract right to act on it? But it is said that the French Liturgies and Catechisms constitute, or are equivalent to, a Confession. To this M. Monod thought it might well be replied, that the very fact of these Liturgies and Catechisms being spoken of in the plural showed the contrary; and, in fact, there was not one Liturgy but many Liturgies. Some pastors used the ancient Liturgy; others the Geneva Liturgy of 1807; others the Berne Liturgy; others the Liturgy published by Pastor Roux at Uzes in 1826; others the Geneva Liturgy of 1828-yet these various forms differ in doctrine. And so with the Catechisms, which are to be found of every shade, from the old Evangelical one of Heidelberg to the Arian one of Geneva. How then could it be said that these Liturgies and Confessions amount to a Confession? Undoubtedly a common Confession was impossible between the Methodist and the Rationalist parties. It was quite possible, however, between those who, with differences on secondary points, are united in regarding Jesus Christ and Him crucified as the only foundation of the Church's hope and faith. It was not, therefore, from a feeling of its impossibility, but from a fear of a disruption that many brethren refused to call for a Confession. M. Monod did not wish for a disruption. But why, he asked, should two churches, really distinct, not separate in peace and by mutual consent? They professed fundamentally two different religions : why should they not openly declare it?

Count Agénor de Gasparin, formerly a deputy, and the son of one of Louis-Philippe's ministers of the interior, in supporting his resolution, argued the question with more ardour but less logic; for this Christian gentleman, though far from being an acrimonious debater, seems a keen partisan, and apt to consider one side of a question with undue exclusiveness. At an early stage of the proceedings he had stated broadly that if the Church were organized otherwise than on a dogmatic basis he would secede; and his principal speech was in reality more a defence of the line of conduct he intended to follow if the acts of the Assembly did not meet his own views, than a vindication of these views on their merits. He was less occupied in attempting to convince his Latitudinarian and Rationalist opponents that there existed a case of conscience for the Church, than in explaining to his evangelical friends how there existed a case of conscience for himself.

We must refer finally to the intermediate party, that, namely, which includes the great majority of the evangelical section. As M. de Gasparin's speech was chiefly a justification of his own proposed secession, so the speeches on this side were chiefly vin

A Declaration of Principles.

137

dications of the continued connexion of the speakers with the Church. They entered but slightly into the discussion on the abstract point of the duty of a Church to confess her faith, though Pastor Pedezert, since named a professor at Montauban, well refuted one objection to Confessions, by the observation that they did not produce divisions, but only made manifest their existence; and Pastor Melon of Caen exposed the fallacy of those who wished Christ to be the only basis, by asking which Christ they meant the Christ of Arius? or of Socinus? or of the modern Unitarians? or of those who looked on Him as God and man, dead for our sins and raised for our justification? Generally speaking they admitted, or rather assumed the duty of confession, and confined themselves to showing how the Reformed Church fulfilled it, to such an extent at least as relieved them from any immediate necessity of protesting against her by a secession.

Many of them, nevertheless, desired, in the necessary absence of a new Confession, that at least a Declaration of Principles should be placed at the head of their proposed scheme of re-organization. This arose from a spirit of compromise which much prevailed in the Convocation. Such a Declaration was proposed by Pastor Grand Pierre of the Batignolles, who thought the Church not ripe for a more explicit confession, and that the Declaration was sufficient in the meantime. M. Grand Pierre's motion was supported by M. Jalabert, a professor of law at Aix, who maintained that there should be at all events something to declare that beyond which a man is not a Christian; such a limit evidently existing and being capable of definition. Externally, said M. Jalabert, this would be useful in explaining to France the principles of Protestantism-which are not sufficiently understood-just as the Confessions of the sixteenth century are useful in explaining the motives on which the Reformation originally proceeded. And, internally, it would be useful in reassuring the Church against the supposed invasion of German Rationalism. M. Jalabert's speech was remarkable chiefly from the significant fact that he belongs to that shade of the Latitudinarian party which is tending more and more every day to adopt evangelical opinions.

But while some members of the Evangelical section tried to bring the Assembly to accept a " Declaration of Principles," the more judicious among them saw that no Declaration, fully and unequivocally expressive of their principles, could be passed by that body as it was actually composed. They, therefore, preferred to see things left as they had been, without failing, however, energetically to protest against approving of them. To illustrate their manner of treating the question, it may suffice to indicate the view of Pastor Adolphe Monod, a younger brother of the