A CREED ON WHEELS.
The new "constitution," proposed by the Commission,
presents a most extraordinary proposition. Hitherto a confession
of faith has been supposed to assert immutable truths. Now, i n -
stead, we are offered shifting sands. The new "constitution"
invites frequent mutations of our creed. Article I., section 10, is
as follows:
"The General Conference may—two-thirds of the members
elected thereto concurring—propose changes in, or additions to,
the confession of faith; provided, that the concurrence of three-
fourths of the annual conferences shall be necessary to their
final ratification."
The foregoing, i f in force, would put our whole creed on
wheels! Not only "additions to," but "changes in" the confession
of faith, would be authorized. There is not the slightest limita-
tion to changes, either in the doctrine or in the wording of the
confession. This would involve our whole creed. Article V . of
the new "confession of faith" on the Inspiration of the Scriptures,
would be open to change, and it might be changed so as to declare
the Bible to be mere effusions of human thought. Article II.,
on Creation, might be changed, and bald Darwinism substituted
in its place. Article I., on the Holy Trinity, might be made
unitarian. Article IV., V I I . , and X . could be changed, and the
Holy Spirit and regeneration pronounced myths, and the sac-
raments, superstitions rites. Article X I I I . , on the Future State,
might be changed to say, "Death is an eternal sleep." In a
Word there is no limit to the scope of change. It simply says
to our people: " Y o u shall believe whatever two-thirds of any fu-
ture General Conference (supported by three-fourths of the an-
2. A CREED ON WHEELS.
nual conferences) shall prescribe for you—right or wrong; wheth-
er it be orthodoxy, Darwinism or Universalism; whether it be
Christianity, atheism or deism." It says " G i v e us your names,
your labors, your influence and your funds, and we will land you
somewhere—in orthodoxy or in heterodoxy, in religion or in athe-
ism, in heaven or in an eternal sleep. Trust it all to the General
Conference and to the majority in three-fourths of the annual con-
ference bodies. Y o u shall have no direct voice i n your creed.
Your superiors are ordained to think for you. A l l you have to do
is to swallow their creed,"
It may be said that such sweeping changes are improbable.
Yet it is possible to make very radical changes in doctrine. And
if a creed is thus put on wheels, departure sooner or later, from
some fundamental truth is even probable. In less than two hund-
red years after the death of the Apostle John, pernicious doctrines
established themselves in some sections of the Christian church.
Then the papal dominance, the Crusades, the Millerite delusion,
and the Spiritualist craze, show the possibility of at. least the
temporary prevalence of error. A people with their creed on
wheels, know not but that they are building up a church and insti-
tutions which, in a generation to come, may exert a mighty pow-
er to promote Calvinism, Campbellism, Universalism, or some
form of semi-infidelity,
The idea of a creed on wheels is a new departure. Article II.,
section 4. of our real constitution says;
" N o rule or ordinance shall at any time be passed to change
or do away the confession of faith as it now stands, nor to destroy
the itinerant plan."
This looks as i f the fathers who framed the constitution, had
a confession of faith by which they intended to live and die. But
the idea that orthodox doctrine was to abide unchangeable in
the church, did not originate with them. Previous to this, the
Discipline contained a restrictive rule saying, concerning the
General Conference;
"Nothing shall be done by the said conference, which would
in any wise affect or change the article of faith."
Such rules are sensible. Men wish to know whether their
church is built upon a solid or upon a shifting foundation. If our
creed were upon wheels, it would argue that we are not cer-
A CREED ON WHEELS. 3.
tain that we are right on fundamental doctrine. First-class
churches are unchangeable in their fundamental principles. If
our church is shifting, our enemies rightly call us a second-rate
church. But, if we are a first-class church, our creed should be
such as we are witling to live and die by. A n attitude looking
toward change on fundamental doctrines, indicates weakness, as
well as a tendency to skepticism and infidelity. Let us not be
followers, in this, of Beecher, Swing and Thomas. We should
build for God and the truth.
If we put our creed on wheels, each General Conference may
tinker at the confession of faith, as is too often done with other
parts of discipline. And the annual conferences will, from time to
time, be called upon to ratify such tinkering. There are no
questions that so agitate and disturb Christian churches as those
concerning articles of doctrine. Our own church was once threaten-
ed with division on the question of depravity. Continual agitation
on disputed doctrine, is not in the interests of the peace, perma-
nence, or growth of the church. It is deleterious and even dan-
gerous. Those who would expose the church to such dangers
seem to have read history to little purpose.
Indeed, those who would put our church in the attitude of a
changeling on creeds, seem (but incorrectly we hope) to care
little whether our creed is sound or unsound. And some in
their eagerness to gather in men and money and influence,
forget that zealots i n other days compassed sea and land to gain
one proselyte; that Demas in the love of the world forsook the
Lord's cause, and that Diana of the Ephesians had great influence.
The pope has great following, wealth and influence; but a poor,
humble, persecuted servant of Christ has far more of hallowed
influence, than he.
If our faith is right in God's sight, let us not say yea and nay,
but yea and amen. Let us declare before earth and heaven, that
by its doctrine we expect to live and die. Whatever other i l l
may beset the church, let it not take upon itself a gratuitous
evil, by putting its creed on wheels.
But what part are our people to have in changing the confession
of faith? Some profess extraordinary regard for the voice of the
people, but belie it by advocating the adoption of the "constitu-
tion" reported by "the commission." This new "constitution"
4
4. A CREED ON WHEELS.
proposes, i f adopted, to empower the General Conference, three-
fourths of the annual conference bodies concurring, to make any
change, however great or radical, in the confession of faith, with-
out giving the people any vote on such change! So if they vote for
the new constitution, they vote to exclude themselves from any direct
voice upon changes in their confession of faith, however sweeping
or pernicious! They vote to swallow any form of doctrine those
conferences (preachers) may give them, right or wrong, They vote
to put their creed on wheels, to be run whithersoever their supe-
riors may elect! They sell their birth-right as Esau did.
A confession of faith is a solemn declaration of belief in the
doctrine contained therein. Churches are composed of individ-
uals agreeing upon certain fundamental doctrines. Is not the
confession of faith of a church as important as other parts of its
constitution? Why then shut out the people from any direct vote
on this most important of ail church documents? Those who
propose to do so, belie any profession they make of sacred regard
or the voice of the people,
But why should we open up the whole confession of faith—if
any of it at all—for quadrennial change? Are we not established
on fundamental doctrine? Does God's word change? Does his
truth improve with age? Was the doctrine of the trinity less
true in Augustine's day than now? Was the doctrine of salvation
by faith less powerful in Luther's time than now? Was free
grace less precious in the days of Wesley and Otterbein than at
the present time? Why then so intemperate in opening the con-
fession of faith to wide and chronic change? And why deprive
the people of the power to veto any change however great and
perversive? Why do all this, i f its advocates yearn so much to
have the people vote? To disfranchise the people on all change
of confession of faith, shows the utter hollowness of this profess-
ed regard for the people's right of franchise. But they flat-
ter the people about the right to vote that they may wheedle
them into voting for the new "constitution;" and the new "con-
stitution'" proposes henceforth to disfranchise the people on the
must sacred and important questions! How precious "the right
of the dear people" to vote to disfranchise themselves! Why do
men expose themselves to the charge of insincerity? Their in-
consistency is too apparent to admit of any rational defense.