"The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy" by Ian Hamilton

In his book, Rev. Hamilton seeks to demonstrate how easing "full subscription to the Standards" has slowly lead to the drifting of Reformed orthodoxy amongst the Secession churches (and also the Free Church) in Scottish Presbyterian. He inductively attempts to demonstrate that only full subscription to a church's standards (in this case the Westminster Standards) can prevent a confessional church from doctrinal declension (p.7).

First some explanation for those who may not be familiar with some terms and names. "Full subscription" (aka strict subscription) means that a person coming into the presbytery with a view towards ordination and being a minister within the presbytery (students of theology, licentiates, transfers, etc.) hold to the standards of the denomination with no qualification or reservation. An "exception" means that the person under examination agrees with most of the standards, but has a disagreement (minor or major) with a particular section (or sections) of the standards be it the Confession (WCF), Larger Catechism (WLC), or Shorter Catechism (WSC) [3 parts of the Westminster Standards]. In Hamilton's book, the "Secession" Church refers to the Associate Presbytery which was formed in 1733 and the Relief Presbytery formed in 1761. Both of these were formed in breaking away from the national church, the Church of Scotland, hence the name "secession." The Associate Presbytery went through several splits, but eventually the majority re-joined together in 1820 to form the United Secession Church. They in turn joined together with the Relief Presbytery in 1847 to form the United Presbyterian Church. At that time, apart from the Free Church of Scotland (formed 1843) and the Reformed Presbytery (formed 1743), the United Presbyterian Church was the only other denomination apart from the national Church of Scotland and was the only one tracing its roots back to the original secession of 1733.

Chapter One introduces the need for this book (no such study exists) and its relevance for today (for confessional churches for whom there are differences of opinion on how strict to be in their subscription stance).

Chapter Two demonstrates the beginning of the cracks in full subscription. Hamilton begins by showing that the Secession church held to full subscription from its beginning and for many years thereafter. The first crack begins to appear in the 1790s when the General Associate Synod (Anti-Burgher)[one of the splits within the Associate Presbytery, it occurred in 1747] started to allow licentiates and ministers to take exception to the 3rd section of the WCF dealing with Church and State relationship issues.
The 1804 "Narrative and Testimony" caused a stir in that the Confessions were no longer used as a recourse for the examination of doctrine and practice. Instead, the "Narrative and Testimony" became the basis by which the Confession was to be examined. This was an historic changing of the relationship of the Church to her subordinate standards.
The 1820 union brought another change in that an article of the union added the phrase that the Confession contained the faith "expressive of the sense" in which you understand the Scriptures. The issue here was introducing an ambiguous phrase into the situation. Thus the door was opened for ministers, licentiates, and elders to question the scope of the Church's attachment to the Standards.
the 1847 union brought a major change in that candidates for ministry were no longer required to identify the Standards with their own personal confession of faith. In other words, they did not have to personally hold to what was taught in the Standards. 

Chapter Three focuses on the Atonement Controversy of 1841-1845. The parties involved were John Brown, Robert Balmer, and Andrew Marshall. Brown and Balmer asserted in their teaching, and seeking to use Confessional and Scriptural support, that Christ provided atonement for all men based on atonement preceding election. This position was known as "hypothetical universalism." While they did not deny that the application of the atonement was to the elect, they claimed the atonement had reference to all people. Thus, they could hold to both the universal offer of the Gospel and the doctrine of election. Dr. Marshall accused them of teaching going against the Confession and Scripture. Marshall held to "Limited Atonement" in the sense that both the provision and application of the Cross is to the elect alone (cf. WCF 3 and WCF 8). Brown and Balmer were acquitted of all charges. An important result of this, according to Hamilton, is that there was "the awareness in the Church that total subscription to the WCF was an unreasonable burden to impose on any of its ministers." (p.79) It also brought into the Church the acceptableness of multiple opinions on the Atonement and brought in a "moderateness" among some who saw the doctrine of Limited Atonement as too extreme.

Chapter Four focuses on the Union Controversy of 1863-1873. Union between the United Presbyterian Church and Free Church of Scotland was proposed. However, there was a vocal minority in the Free Church who believed the UPC did not hold to Biblical or Confessional orthodoxy in its public statements. Hamilton focuses on this to show that the erosion of Calvinist orthodoxy in the Secession church can be found not just by examining their own documents and minutes, but also those of another denomination with which union was proposed. 

Chapter Five focuses on the trial of Rev. Fergus Ferguson (an unfortunate name!) in the UPC in the 1870s. Ferguson was tried and found guilty of 5 counts of error/heresy:
1. Ferguson taught that Christ delivered all men from the penalty of sin as the annihilation of the creature, and ultimately from death to the body and darkness of soul.
2. Ferguson taught that to be justified means to we are one with God in the spirit and purpose of our lives.
3. Ferguson taught that God has only one Covenant with man, "Be true to thyself and thou art true to God."
4. Ferguson taught that there are no grounds of condemnation apart from rejecting Christ in the sigh of God; and that men are purified in the intermediate state.
5. Ferguson taught that the ultimate distinction in human destiny is that of Son and servant; the loss of sonship not necessarily meaning the loss of tolerable and useful existence. (p. 128)
In spite of the guilty verdict, the Secession Church sent him back to his congregation with a "brotherly admonition" (p.117). This, Hamilton contends, was the final straw in the erosion of Westminster orthodoxy in the Secession Church as she tolerated teachings that flatly contradicted the Standards of the Church.

Chapter Six focuses on the 1879 United Presbyterian Church Declaratory Act. This act basically codified a "conscience clause" for minister's, and allowed liberty in exceptions not touching the "substance of the faith" which Hamilton contends (rightly) is an undefined and indeterminate phrase. The Act also contained articles vaguely worded that could be interpreted equally by a Calvinist as by an Arminian.

Chapter Seven is a helpful summary of Hamilton's key points up to this point in his book. It is especially helpful if time has passed since picking up the book, or for a quick reference to refresh/review once one has read the entirety of the book.

Chapter Eight turns Hamilton's attention from the Secession Church and to the Free Church, particularly 1892 Declaratory Act and the factors that contributed to it (higher criticism, Arminian evangelism of D.L. Moody in Scotland, etc.) The effect of this Act was to prepare the Free Church to unite with the UPC [which was accomplished in 1900]. The Free Church had to relax her view of her relationship and understanding of the Standards to the level of the UPC if they were to be able to unite together.

Chapter Nine is Rev. Hamilton's conclusion to his book.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. The author has provided a great book on Scottish Presbyterian history and a book helpful in thinking through issues of subscription and the Standards. I would encourage every student preparing for ministry (especially Presbyterian students) to read this book as a helpful guide to think through where they stand on the subscription issue, to encourage study of the Standards so they can honestly answer the question of whether they have exceptions or not, and to see the importance of Confessions in the life of the Church. I encourage Presbyterian ministers to read this book as a warning of what can happen when we start re-interpreting and excepting the Standards. Current ministers are the ones who examine the students as to their subscription to the Standards. They need to think through this issue as much as a future minister does.

It is obvious that Rev. Hamilton has done extensive research, using primary sources. I'm thankful he did that, because I would not want to go through all of that Scottish parlance to try to figure out what they were saying! It is an easy read and quite quick, coming in at 218 pages. It also has quite a useful bibliography for further research and possible attainment for one's library.

One thing that was confusing to me, primarily due to my unfamiliarity, was all of the names of the different denominations. Therefore, I had to create a timeline [in an Excel spreadsheet] of when divisions and reunions took place. I could not find one in my books or on the Internet. It was a helpful exercise in retaining what the names meant and important dates in Scottish Presbyterian history. If you would like a copy of it, just contact me. 

This book provoked some questions in my mind as I was reading it. Chiefly:
1. Are all exceptions created equal?
2. Does the WCF allow for a "hypothetical universalism" understanding of the atonement?
3. Is the original WCF 23 and 30 Erastian [the state can interfere in the business of the church] in nature?

I don't have answers to the second and third as they require more reading on my part, but I pose them here for discussion. The answer to the first question seems to me a resounding "No."  In my denomination (the ARP which traces its origins back to the secession of 1733), students and ministers are allowed to take exceptions to the Standards. The 2 major exceptions I have witnessed are the Confession of Faith's exposition of the "Sabbath" (can one do anything recreational on the Sabbath?) and the ARP's additional chapters in the WCF on "Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Gospel" (chapters 34 and 35 respectively). I think taking an exception on Sabbath recreation is very different to taking an exception to the Sabbath as part of the Moral Law and abiding upon believers today with the change to the Lord's Day. I don't understand the nature of the exceptions to the added chapters. What is contained in them does not seem to conflict with anything else in the Confession. I would have major issues if someone took an exception to WCF3.1 (God ordains whatsoever comes to pass). Thus it seems to me that not all exceptions are created equal.

Hamilton's line of thought flows from the revision of the WCF on Church/State Relations to the changing of the relationship of the church to the standards in 1804, to the introduction of ambiguity in 1820, to the lack of requirement for the standards to be owned personally in 1847. These cracks (some more major than others) then usher in a flood of changes in the understanding of and relationship of the standards to the church in the next 50 years. I question whether the revision of the WCF in the 1790s can be attributed as what started it all. Certainly the changes made in 1804, 1820, and 1847 are significant. I think those would be the places to look to for the beginning of the drift. Revising of one's standards does not seem to directly relate to making a change from "strict subscriptionism" to "broad subscriptionism" or have any bearing upon the subscription question. Unless one wants to see taking exceptions to the Standards as implicitly creating one's own version of the Standards. It was via the Declaratory Acts that the church explained what she understood the Standards to teach and whether or not (and by how much) license could be taken to not agree with the Standards on a particular issue.

I am open to thoughts and discussion on all of this as I try to think through it myself.

Soli Deo Gloria