I find, however, that this argument of mine has been the occasion of some misunderstanding which seems to need correcting. On the one hand, it has been said that I am favoring a lax administration of our formula of acceptance. On the other, that I have represented our formula as itself a lax form of subscription. A word or two on both these points need be said.
1. In the first place, I am certainly not in favor of a lax administration of any formula. I feel bound to say frankly that I cannot help believing that a lax administration of our formula would be a demoralizing step. I cannot think it consistent with essential honesty to accept a creed, or to continue to live under a creed which we have accepted, for system of doctrine—the system of doctrine of which we do not believe. For a Church to impose a formula which she does not intend to be taken in its strictest sense and to require to be lived up to, it seems to me, would be dishonest in her, and would be a betrayal of her trust as the pillar and ground of the truth. And for an individual to accept it when it did not express his hearty conviction, would be dishonest in him. No plea of the animus imponendi can relieve the individual conscience of its responsibility in making its own professions. Whatever else we do, let us not sap the very springs of our honor and credit. Let all creeds perish ere we consent to profess what we do not believe.
2. In the second place, I am certainly not in favor of relaxing our present formula. There would not, of course, attach any dishonesty to the use of a laxer formula. But the adoption of such an one would certainly imperil the continued empire of sound doctrine among us. We all know what has happened in the Church of Holland since the formula, by which its hereditary Reformed Creed was accepted, was changed from asserting that they received it
