.
Order of Contents
Articles
Books
History
Adopting Act 1729
OPC 5+
PCA 2
.
Articles
1800’s
Miller, Samuel – ‘Adherence to our Doctrinal Standards’ ToC in Doctrinal Integrity (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1979), pp. 75–131
“If the question, ‘What is the meaning of the words, ‘the system of doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures,’ as they occur in the formula which makes a part of the ordination service?’ were submitted to any intelligent and impartial jury in the country–to twelve men of plain common sense, who had never head of the subterfuges and refinements of modern subscribers to creeds–I cannot doubt that they would be unanimous in their verdict without quitting their seats. They would naturally decide thus:
‘Since the primary object of subscribing an ecclesiastical creed is to express agreement in doctrinal belief; since the manifest design of the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church is to maintain what is commonly called the Calvinistic system, in opposition to the Socinian, the Arian, the Pelagian, and the Arminian systems; since almost every point which distinguishes these several forms of error are specifically exposed, disproved and rejected, under one or another of its several articles; and since this has notoriously been the universal understanding, ever since that Confession was formed, we judge that no man who is not a sincere Calvinist, that is, who does not ex animo [from the heart; sincerely] receive all the distinguishing articles of the Calvinistic system, can honestly subscribe it.
We do not suppose, indeed, that among those who subscribe that formulary, it is necessary, in order to a candid subscription, that there should be entire agreement as to ‘every jot and tittle’ in the mode of explaining every doctrine which the Confession contains. But we cannot resist the conclusion, as fair and honorable men, that unless a candidate for admission… sincerely believes all these [previously listed doctrines], and the essentially allied doctrines which have ever been considered as the distinguishing features of the Calvinistic system, and believes them in substance, as they are laid down in the Confession, our verdict is that he cannot honestly subscribe it.”
Hodge, Charles
ch. 14, ‘The Presbytery’ §7, ‘Adoption of the Confession of Faith’ in Discussions in Church Polity (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), pp. 317–42 also in Princeton Review (1858), p. 669 ff.
Greg Reynolds: “Hodge distinguishes among three views of what the subscription vow commits a minister to when he declares that the Confession and Catechisms contain ‘the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.’ He subscribes to: 1) the substance of doctrine; 2) every proposition; 3) the system of doctrine [Hodge’s view]… he does not believe that the ‘system of doctrine’ requires subscription to every single doctrine taught in the confession…
‘Essential’ refers, rather, to the entire ‘system of doctrines common to the Reformed Churches.’… There are three categories of such teachings: 1) those common to all Christians, expressed in the early councils of the ancient church; 2) those common to all Protestants, as distinct from Romanism; 3) those peculiar to Reformed Churches, as distinct from Lutheran and Arminian.
On the other hand, Hodge gives examples of doctrines not essential to the system… These are doctrines ‘relating to civil magistrates, the power of the state, conditions of Church membership, marriage, divorce, and other matters lying outside of the ‘system of doctrine’ in its theological sense.’ As important as the Confession’s teaching on these doctrines is, Hodge maintains, the Church has been wise not to make them conditions of ministerial communion.”
The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1851)
pt. 1, p. 147 ff.
pt. 2, p. 305 ff.
Hodge, A.A. – p. 542 in Commentary on the Confession of Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1869)
Minton, Henry Collin – ‘The Authority of the Catechisms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches Holding the Presbyterian System’ in Presbyterian Quarterly Review, 10.4 (Oct. 1896), pp. 470-78
.
1900’s
Murray, John
“Creedal Subscription in The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.” in Morton Smith, Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America (n.d.), pp. 65-82 Also in ed. David W. Hall, The Practice of Confessional Subscription (NY: University Press of America, 1995), pp. 247–62
‘Blemishes & Inadequate Statement in the Confession’, pp. 261-62 of ‘The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith’ in Collected Writings (Banner of Truth, 1982), vol. 4
For an analysis of what Murray says here, and the argument against him, see under ‘Origins of & Historical Examples of Scruples & Exceptions to Confessions’.
.
2000’s
Fesko, J.V. – ‘The Legacy of Old School Confession Subscription in the OPC’ in JETS 46/4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 673–98
“This essay will argue that the [Morton H.] Smith / [George W.] Knight (S/K) version of full subscription is not the historic [American] Old School position on the subject…
Smith and Knight argue that what is meant by the system of doctrine entails every single teaching of the Standards. Yes, an ordinand may take exception to the wording of a teaching but he may not reject the teaching outright…
We can see [Charles] Hodge’s principle at work when he writes that
“there are many propositions contained in the Westminster Confession which do not belong to the integrity of the Augustinian, or Reformed System. A man may be a true Augustinian or Calvinist, and not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by St. Paul; or that the 18th chapter of Leviticus is still binding.”
Once again, we see that Hodge was willing to allow ministers to disagree, not merely with the wording, but with the very teachings of the Confession…
[B.B.] Warfield does not merely allow exceptions regarding phraseology but instead allows that ministers can disagree with doctrinal propositions… Warfield… was an advocate of theistic evolution…
[James H.] Thornwell was the editor of both the Southern Quarterly Review and the Southern Presbyterian Review. Under his editorship there were multiple articles that were published that advocated vast
periods of time rather than the traditional 6,000-year age that was typically assigned to the earth… Moreover, he did not see this wedding of [modern] science and theology as a compromise of his confessional subscription…
The evidence demonstrates that while the Old School view demands that the subscriber adopt every article and doctrine of the Standards, they do not believe the subscriber must adopt every proposition…
This, then, is Old School subscription: it is conservative, in that it requires the adoption of every article and doctrine, yet it is liberal in that it does not require the adoption of every proposition… Now, it is this truly liberal but conservative formula that embodies Old School Presbyterianism that has been carried forward in the OPC…
[J. Gresham] Machen writes:
‘Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church of America [OPC] is not to every word in those Standards, but only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain. The real question, then, is whether a person who holds the Premillennial view can hold that system… We think that he can…’
…Towards the end of the essay [John] Murray approvingly quotes Hodge:
‘If the Church intended that the candidate should adopt every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, why did she not say so? It was easy to express that idea. The words actually do not, in their plain established meaning express it.’
…whether it is the long geologic periods advocated by Hodge and Warfield (or propagated by Thornwell), Machen’s views in regard to premillennialism, or Murray’s views on the covenant, all of these theologians were never restricted from teaching their exceptions [in contradiction to the positions of Smith and Knight]…
There are many within the OPC, and PCA for that matter, that believe that the S/K version of subscription is the only way to maintain orthodoxy in the church… this seems to be the current trajectory in the OPC—rejecting its Old School heritage.”
.
Lillback, Peter – ‘The Abiding Legacy of the Reformation’s Confessional Orthodoxy: the Required Vows of Westminster Seminary Professors & NAPARC Minisers’, pt. 1, 2 (Subscription) in Verbum Christi Jurnal Teologi Reformed Injili 6 (2) (2019),pp. 109-132 and 7 (1), pp. 41-98
Gebbie, David – ‘Confessional Subscription: Indigenisation without Assimilation’ (2022) at Presbyterian Picante
Gebbie is a Presbyterian Reformed Church minister, and treats of Scottish subscription formulas and American ones as related to the Presbyterian Reformed Church (denomination).
.
Books
1900’s
Ellis, George Elwood – Nation, Creed & Unity: The Significance of the Subscription Controversy for the Development of Colonial Presbyterianism Ph.D. diss. (Temple University, 1983)
North, Gary – Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996) 790 pp.
ed. David Hall – The Practice of Confessional Subscription Buy (1997)
Many chapters survey and relate to American history on the topic of confessional subscription.
.
History
On the Whole of
Article
Hall, Russell E. – ‘American Presbyterian Churches—A Genealogy, 1706-1982’ in Journal of Presbyterian History (1962-1985), vol. 60, no. 2 (Summer 1982), pp. 95-128
.
On the 1700’s to 1800’s
Articles
Fortson III, S. Donald
‘New School Calvinism & the Presbyterian Creed’ in The Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-), vol. 82, no. 4 (Winter 2004), pp. 221-43
Fortson has been a professor of Church history at RTS Charlotte and generally leans New School. He argues that the New School (2nd division, 1838-1868) held to system subscription where the system is the system of reformed theology (as distinguished from Romanism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, etc.), or at least “all the fundamentals of the Calvinistic Creed.” (p. 238)
“Conservatives argued that the Synod of Philadelphia was correct in interpreting the 1729 Adopting Act in terms of the ‘afternoon minute’ and the strict reinterpretation of 1736. Receiving and adopting the ‘system’ [a term used in 1788] of the [Westminster] Confession meant embracing the whole confession without exception, once the originally scrupled articles on the civil magistrate had been amended in 1788.
A larger group of Presbyterians, recalling the original intent of the morning minute of 1729, believed the ‘system’ referred to the Confession’s Calvinistic doctrines; this body advocated the distinction between doctrines ‘essential’ to the system and those that were not. This was the spirit of the old Synod of New York.
And there was a third small party, which held that ‘system of doctrine’ [in 1788] referred to the fundamental doctrines shared in common with all Christian churches. This minority expression drew inspiration from the 1729 language ‘systems of Christian doctrine’ [in the early morning session of the Adopting Act 1729]. Some of the early pre-1729 discussions about subscription had advocated this opinion, but, it ultimately had been rejected [Fortson claims] in the compromise of 1729. Nonetheless, a few voices would continue to herald a loose view of subscription which favored mere assent to catholic Christianity as the ‘substance’ of Westminster doctrines.” – p. 222
“[Henry B.] Smith asserted that this historical understanding of the Confession was uniformly acknowledged by the New School. He added:
‘Among honest and candid men, there is really no doubt or question as to what subscription implies. Any candidate, before any of our presbyteries, who should say that he received the Confession ‘as containing the essential principles of Christianity and no more,’ would be unhesitatingly rejected by them.'” – p. 236
“The 1868 Old School Assembly declared that the New School pronouncement of ‘true doctrines’ in the 1837 Auburn Declaration ’embrace all the fundamentals of the Calvinistic creed.’ The New School version of Calvinism was vindicated.” – p. 238
“New School ministers, while often perceived as enemies of confessional subscription, were in fact strong advocates of the principles of 1729. The leaders of the New School asserted that throughout the nineteenth century, the majority of New School members had maintained a solid attachment to the Presbyterian creed. They allowed more theological diversity than their Old School counterparts, but there were confessional boundaries to that latitude which they openly acknowledged. New School Presbyterians were moderate Calvinists who loved the Reformed Tradition but were unwilling to allow the West minster Standards to become the only test of one’s orthodoxy. While viewing itself as generally conservative, the New School also promoted an openness to express traditional Reformed theology in fresh ways.” – p. 239
‘The Old School Sage: Charles Hodge on Confessional Subscription’ in Reformed Faith & Practice, vol. 7, issue 2 (2022)
Cline, Timothy – ‘Protestant Jesuits: A Brief History of American Presbyterianism’ (2025) at Specula Principum
“The point of all this is to suggest that the [American] revisions [to the Westminster standards] were strategic, driven by necessity, not the result of some massive doctrinal shift. Indeed, the textual change itself suggests no such massive shift, only moderation according to the circumstances.”
Baucum, Todd – ‘The Cumberland Controversy: Confessional Subscription in Nineteenth Century American Revivalism’ (n.d.) 40 pp.
Abstract: “The experience of revivalism in American Church History as it was expressed in the ecclesiastical tensions of doctrinal orthodoxy of the nineteenth century is reflected acutely in the Cumberland controversy arising out of the famous Cane Ridge Revival [in Kentucky, 1801]. This revival established new denominations and religious communities that were uniquely American with new theological distinctives. This paper is a study of this conflict and the emerging influence of moderate Calvinism as America expands westward in frontier expansion.”
.
Book
2000’s
Fortson III, S. Donald – The Presbyterian Creed: Old School / New School Reunion & Confessional Subscription Ph.D. diss. (Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003)
.
On the American Adopting Act 1729 & Immediately Following
Articles
1700’s
Dickinson, Jonathan – A Sermon Preached at the Opening of the Synod at Philadelphia (1722)
.
1900’s
The Presbyterian Enterprise: Sources of American Presbyterian History, eds. M. Armstrong, L. Loetscher & C. Anderson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), pp. 26-27
Schafer, Thomas A. – ‘Beginnings of Confessional Subscription in the Presbyterian Church’ in McCormick Quarterly 19 (1966), pp. 102-19
LeBeau, Bryan F. – ‘Subscription Controversy & Jonathan Dickinson’ in Journal of Presbyterian History, 54, (1976), pp. 317-35
Trinterud, Leonard – The Forming of an American Tradition: A Re-examination of Colonial Presbyterianism (Salem, NH: Ayer, [1949] 1978), p. 38
Payton, James, Jr. – “Background & Significance of the Adopting Act of 1729” in Pressing toward the Mark (Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), pp. 131–45
Barker, William S. – ‘The Hemphill Case, Benjamin Franklin & Subscription to the Westminster Confession’ in American Presbyterians, vol. 69, no. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 243-56
Bauman, Michael – ‘Jonathan Dickinson & the Subscription Controversy’ in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41, (1998), pp. 455-67
.
2000’s
Centanni, Grace – ‘Richard Treat & the Abington Presbyterian Church: a Case Study in New Side Loyalties, 1731-1758’ in Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-), vol. 101, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2023), pp. 44-57
Sealy, Charles Scott – Church Authority & Non-Subscription Controversies in Early 18th Century Presbyterianism PhD thesis (Univ. of Glasgow, 2010), pp. 169-28
ch. 5, ‘The Synod of Philadelphia & the Adopting Act (1729)’
“The protesters [against mandated subscription] were led by Jonathan Dickinson (1688–1747)… Dickinson shows that he is well acquatined with the debates elsewhere [such as in Ireland]… Notably Dickinson sees it [presbyterianism] not as divinely mandated, but the best
of many imperfect options. While acknowledging the usefulness of confessions…” – pp. 173-74
“The similarity [of the determination of the synod in the morning] to the Irish [Pacific] Act [1720] is apparent [which expressly allowed for exceptions], and in the context, especially given [Thomas] Craighead’s involvement, it is certain that it served as the source for the Committee’s proposal…
in light of the actual overture by [John] Thomson, which stipulated the two needs [of subscription and adopting a confession], it makes more sense to see the morning session establishing the requirement and terms of subscription and the afternoon session as the formal adoption by the Synod [of the Westminster Confession]. In other words, the Synod’s adopting of the Confession is distinguished from the requirement for subscription and later debates in the American Church has been the result of not recognizing the distinction.
The ‘preliminary’ or morning session is the only one to explicitly require subscription. Moreover, allowing presbyteries to judge scruples would be nonsense had the Synod intended to decide what scruples would be allowed in the afternoon session.” – pp. 179-81
“Even Non-Subscribers agreed that a confession was useful to express a Church’s belief and to serve as a summary statement of their understanding of the Scriptures.” – p. 231
ch. 6, ‘Subscription in the Presbytery of Charleston: 1722-1732’
.
Book
1900’s
Le Beau, Bryan F. – Jonathan Dickinson & the Formative Years of American Presbyterianism (Lexington, 1997)
.
On Subscription in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
BCO, Form of Government, 13.9, from 1788
“Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church [Orthodox Presbyterian], as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?”
.
Order of
Articles 10
Exceptions 1
Quotes 2
.
Articles
1900’s
Williamson, G.I.
‘Editorial [on Subscription Vows]’ in Ordained Servant, vol. 1, no. 3 (Sep. 1992), pp. 49–50
‘On being a Confessional Church’ in Ordained Servant, vol. 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1996), pp. 2-7
‘Confessional Integrity – A Plea for Restraint’ in Ordained Servant, vol. 12, no. 4 (Oct. 2003), pp. i-ii
‘What does it Mean to Subscribe to the Westminster Standards’ in Ordained Servant, vol. 13, no. 1 (Jan, 2004), pp. 8-10
Muether, John R. – ‘Confidence in Our Brethren: Creedal Subscription in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’ in Ordained Servant, vol. 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1996), pp. 2-7
Knight III, George W. – ‘Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms’ in ed. David Hall, The Practice of Confessional Subscription, 2nd ed. (1997; Covenant Foundation, 2001)
Knight holds that the phrase “essential and necessary articles and doctrines” in the American Adopting Act (1729) includes every article and doctrine in the Westminster Confession. He makes a historical argument that the phrase “system of doctrine” (1788) refers to each and every article and doctrine of the Westminster Confession.
.
2000’s
Harbman, Graham – ‘The Confessional Subscription Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary in California’ in Ordained Servant, vol. 9, no. 2 (Apr. 2000), pp. 39–42
Fesko, J.V. – ‘The Legacy of Old School Confession Subscription in the OPC’ in JETS 46/4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 673–98
“This essay will argue that the [Morton H.] Smith / [George W.] Knight (S/K) version of full subscription is not the historic [American] Old School position on the subject…
Smith and Knight argue that what is meant by the system of doctrine entails every single teaching of the Standards. Yes, an ordinand may take exception to the wording of a teaching but he may not reject the teaching outright…
We can see [Charles] Hodge’s principle at work when he writes that
“there are many propositions contained in the Westminster Confession which do not belong to the integrity of the Augustinian, or Reformed System. A man may be a true Augustinian or Calvinist, and not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by St. Paul; or that the 18th chapter of Leviticus is still binding.”
Once again, we see that Hodge was willing to allow ministers to disagree, not merely with the wording, but with the very teachings of the Confession…
[B.B.] Warfield does not merely allow exceptions regarding phraseology but instead allows that ministers can disagree with doctrinal propositions… Warfield… was an advocate of theistic evolution…
[James H.] Thornwell was the editor of both the Southern Quarterly Review and the Southern Presbyterian Review. Under his editorship there were multiple articles that were published that advocated vast
periods of time rather than the traditional 6,000-year age that was typically assigned to the earth… Moreover, he did not see this wedding of [modern] science and theology as a compromise of his confessional subscription…
The evidence demonstrates that while the Old School view demands that the subscriber adopt every article and doctrine of the Standards, they do not believe the subscriber must adopt every proposition…
This, then, is Old School subscription: it is conservative, in that it requires the adoption of every article and doctrine, yet it is liberal in that it does not require the adoption of every proposition… Now, it is this truly liberal but conservative formula that embodies Old School Presbyterianism that has been carried forward in the OPC…
[J. Gresham] Machen writes:
‘Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church of America [OPC] is not to every word in those Standards, but only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain. The real question, then, is whether a person who holds the Premillennial view can hold that system… We think that he can…’
…Towards the end of the essay [John] Murray approvingly quotes Hodge:
‘If the Church intended that the candidate should adopt every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, why did she not say so? It was easy to express that idea. The words actually do not, in their plain established meaning express it.’
…whether it is the long geologic periods advocated by Hodge and Warfield (or propagated by Thornwell), Machen’s views in regard to premillennialism, or Murray’s views on the covenant, all of these theologians were never restricted from teaching their exceptions [in contradiction to the positions of Smith and Knight]…
There are many within the OPC, and PCA for that matter, that believe that the S/K version of subscription is the only way to maintain orthodoxy in the church… this seems to be the current trajectory in the OPC—rejecting its Old School heritage.”
.
Reynolds, Gregory – ‘The Nature, Limits & Place of Exceptions and Scruples in Subscription to Our Doctrinal Standards’ in Ordained Servant (1999; April, 2014)
Reynolds follows Charles Hodge in arguing for strict or full subscription, in the OPC sense, while allowing that “Not every word, phrase, or even teaching must be either adhered to or even understood…”
Radney, Derek – ‘J. Gresham Machen on Confessional Subscription: Not a Fundamentalist in holding to the Westminster Standards’ (2023) Substack
“While it’s likely that Machen himself took no doctrinal exceptions to the Westminister Standards, it’s clear from his own words and leadership in the formation of the OPC that he believed officers should be granted exceptions to doctrines (not just wording) that do not strike at the fundamentals of the Presbyterian and Reformed system and that they should be allowed to teach these exceptions. We know this because of how he approached the question of premillennialism.”
Machen: “Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church of America is not to every word in those Standards, but only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain. The real question, then, is whether a person who holds the Premillennial view can hold that system. Can a person who holds the Premillennial view be a true Calvinist; can he, in other words, hold truly to the Calvinistic or Reformed system of doctrine which is set forth in the Westminster Standards? We think that he can; and for that reason we think that Premillennialists as well as those who hold the opposing view may become ministers or elders or deacons in The Presbyterian Church of America. We think that a man who holds that the return of Christ and the final judgment take place not in one act, as the Westminster Standards contemplate them as doing, but in two acts with a thousand-year reign of Christ upon the earth in between, yet may honestly say that he holds the system of doctrine that the Standards contain.” “Premillennialism” in The Presbyterian Guardian 3/2 (24 October 1936), p. 45
.
On Exceptions
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
60th General Assembly, 1993
“[An exception is] a dissent from, an objection to, or a mental reservation about any assertion contained in the [Westminster] Confession of Faith and Catechisms and is to be distinguished from an inconsequential objection to a proposition or from a quibble or from a reservation about terminology. However, such a distinction is to be made only by the judicatory, never by the individual. No officer or licentiate shall presume to have the right of making self-evaluation regarding this distinction.
An exception to the confessional standards may be granted by a judicatory, for the sake of conscience, only if 1) it affects a peripheral and minor assertion in the standards, not a central and fundamental one, 2) it does not vacate the central teaching of any chapter in the Confession or overturn a complete answer to any question in the Catechisms, and 3) it does not undermine the system of truth in the Confession and Catechisms as a whole.”
.
Quotes
Order of
Machen
Murray
.
1900’s
J. Gresham Machen
The Christian View of Man (1937; Banner of Truth, 1965), p. 115 & 117
“The Book of Genesis seems to divide the work of creation into six successive steps or stages. It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in the first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty-four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time. But do they not at least mark six distinct acts or stages of creation, rather than merely six periods in which God molded by works of providence an already created world?…
The real question at issue here is the question whether at the origin of the race of mankind there was or was not a supernatural act of God.”
.
John Murray
as quoted in Morton H. Smith, Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 80[?]
“It seems to the present writer that to demand acceptance of every proposition in so extensive a series of documents [as the Westminster Confession and Catechisms] would be incompatible with the avowal made in answer to the first question to the formula of subscription and comes dangerously close to the error of placing human documents on a par with holy Scripture.”
.
On Subscription in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
Articles
1900’s
Murray, John – “Creedal Subscription in The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.” in Morton Smith, Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America (n.d.), pp. 65-82 Also in ed. David W. Hall, The Practice of Confessional Subscription (NY: University Press of America, 1995), pp. 247–62
PCA – ‘Confessional Subscription: A Study Paper from the PCA’s Tenth General Assembly’ (1982)
.
2000’s
Radney, Derek – ‘On Confessional Subscription in the PCA: the Difference is Over what Constitutes the System’ (2023)
.
.
.
Related Pages