Subscription to the Westminster Standards is an issue that has been debated since the early days of American Presbyterianism.[1] Subscription, or “the manner and degree to which ministers and elders were required to adhere to the standards”[2] is a topic that is not only of specific interest in the modern Presbyterian Church, but it was also an important topic in the Old School Southern Presbyterian Church. Since the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), is the direct heir of the Southern Presbyterian Church, it is especially important to look to the men within that Church and tradition, who laid a foundation upon which many of her churches are now built and are still being built.
The purpose of this and subsequent articles by the author is to argue that strict subscription to the Westminster Standards by a minister is both good and necessary for the building up of the church. The character of the minister and his particular beliefs are foundational to shaping the beliefs and conduct of his congregants, and it is therefore important to both the Presbytery and the Congregation to know and have confidence in what a minister believes. But before examining the inheritance that has been left to the church, it is important to define terms.
DEFINING TERMS
What does it mean that a minister strictly subscribes to the Westminster Standards? Mort Smith, a father of the PCA, defines strict, or full, subscription in this way:
Strict or full subscription takes at face value the second Question [of a minister’s ordination vows in BCO 21-5], ‘Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures . . .’ It holds that the ordinand is subscribing to nothing more or less than the entirety of the Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. In other words, the system of doctrine to which we subscribe is that which is contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. [3]
This position is contrary to another position called loose or system subscription. Smith defines loose subscription this way:
Loose or system subscription, on the other hand, maintains that we subscribe to a system of doctrine, which is not specifically defined, but which is contained in the Confession and Catechisms of the church. System subscription holds to the adoption of all the fundamental and essential doctrines of the system. Other expressions of the Confessions and Catechisms are not judged to be essential to the system of doctrine as a matter of indifference, whether the ordinand adopts them or not.[4]
The way that a minister views his subscription to the Standards, whether he believes he is subscribing to the Standards or to the fundamentals of the Standards, is of supreme importance. How a man believes that he subscribes to the Standards dictates how he will preach, how he will teach, and how he will shepherd his congregation. But what is the position of the Southern Presbyterians, those from whom the PCA is a direct descendant?
THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIANS ON CONFESSIONAL SUBSCRIPTION: Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) and Francis Beattie (1848-1906)
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) spoke on this subject in a sermon given to the 1871 General Assembly held in Huntsville, Alabama titled “Broad Churchism”.[5] His sermon was taken from the combined texts of 2 Timothy 1:13 and Titus 1:9: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus… Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”
Dabney briefly touches on the history of subscription in America, but he will move quickly into the most important and profitable foundation of confessional subscription – its relationship to the Scriptures – by arguing for its necessity in four points. First, “Every honest man believes that the individual teacher in the church is absolutely bound to declare ‘the whole counsel of God’ as he himself self conscientiously understands it.”[6] Second, “From the fact that a visible church, in its organic capacity, is as truly a witnessing body as an individual herald of the gospel.”[7] Third, “A church whose teachers are not heartily agreed in doctrine, can only have peace within itself at the cost of a Sadducean indifference to truth.”[8] And finally, “The application of this remedy [orthodox theologians having liberty to preach the whole truth] is fatally obstructed by the complication of dissimilar elements.”[9] In subsequent articles, each of these four points will be discussed, but this essay will focus on his first point.
"Every honest man believes that the individual teacher in the church is absolutely bound to declare ‘the whole counsel of God’ as he himself self-conscientiously understands it."
Some might ask, with some concern, “Will strict subscription not bring with it factionalism and a smaller gathering of ministers and congregations? Will the effective witness of the church not be compromised because they are unwilling to compromise on confessional doctrine?” The answer is no, not if it is done in the proper way. Dabney responds,
These admitted truths will be found to contain two inferences, first, that there must be different denominations of Christians, amicably respecting each other’s liberty of doctrine not fundamental, within the variable church catholic. Second, that each denomination is bound to bear a full witness for God according to its agreed understanding of God’s message.
Dealing with his second claim, a minister is bound before God to declare the whole counsel of God, and he is to declare that counsel of God as he understands it. It would therefore be necessary and proper to find a way in which to systematize and concisely lay out what it is the Scriptures teach. Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 3 helps in this regard by asking What do the Scriptures principally teach? A: The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. The minister is not simply teaching his opinion of what man is to believe and man’s duty. Rather, he is principally declaring to his congregation what Scripture says to believe about God and what God requires of them.
Dabney writes, “The only honest preaching, then, is that in which each man delivers all that which he believes, when, judging in the fear of God, he intended to deliver in his word.”[10] If it is the case that the minister is declaring to his congregation what is contained in the Scriptures, then it would be of the utmost importance to discover and systematize what it is he believes so that he can rightly declare it to his people. This is where strict confessional subscription becomes the solution to a problem. If the minister must seek out and discover for himself every doctrine of Scripture, every command of God, he would never leave the seminary, and he would rightly become a monk. However, the man of God is not called to the monastery – he is called to the field to go and harvest. So he must understand and adopt as his own a confession of faith which he believes to faithfully declare the teaching of Scripture.
Francis Beattie (1848-1906), the great 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor, who held professorships at both Columbia Theological and Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminaries, articulates this truth when he says:
The creed thus forms an intelligent basis for all those who are associated in any one Christian communion. Especially does it secure a definite system to which all the office-bearers of any branch of the church profess agreement. Without some such common basis or bond it would be almost impossible to secure general harmony of opinion and action. The Bible is such an extensive book that the task of each one for himself would be too great, and the prospect of harmony would be exceedingly small… So, when a man takes upon himself the solemn vows of ordination, both he and they who ordain him have a definite system of religious truth to which it is understood that the vow relates. The Scriptures as interpreted by the Standards, the Standards as founded on and agreeable to the word of God, become the form of according to which the ordination vow is presented. This affords a common systematic interpretation of the contents of the Scriptures, to which the office-bearers are committed, and which produces a given type of life and teaching in any church communion.[11]
Contrary to the objection proposed earlier, there cannot be any denominational and doctrinal unity without subscription to some form of confession. There can be no common bond between churches, that does not also devolve into too simplistic a form of preaching Scripture, without some sort of standard. For the sake of the minister and the congregation, he must subscribe to what is contained within the Westminster Standards in a way that is open and honest, in a way that protects the peace and purity of the church, and gives him a firm foundation to convince the gainsayers.
Dabney raises an objection to another point: “They claim that the doctrinal standards of the church shall be so lowered as to embrace in one denomination all whom we recognize as within the church catholic, and as holding the truths fundamental to salvation.”[12] Why is it necessary to subscribe to anything more than a general, or liberal, set of doctrinal beliefs? Would it not be best for individual ministers to state their scruples with the Standards and let them preach and teach within the bounds of a Presbytery as long as they do not strike at the vitals?
The reality is, on this side of heaven, there will be important doctrinal differences between denominations and ministers that divide them, not because they desire to be divided from one another, but because their conscience is captive to the Word of God and the Spirit has revealed by His Word certain truths and convictions. It would sear the conscience of a minister and take the spiritual wind out of his sails if he was not convinced that a particular set of beliefs is what was taught in Scripture, and he ought not subscribe to it as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. There must be genuine respect and brotherly affection for those of different confessional and doctrinal persuasions, and they must be fully convinced that their confessional standard faithfully declares the truths contained in Scripture, else they would be bearing false witness as they stood in the pulpit and declared “Thus says the Lord.”
However, when a man comes to be ordained in a particular denomination, it is necessary for the unity of the brethren and the peace of the church that he be able to subscribe to their doctrine without reservation. If he believes the doctrine of a denomination is out of accord with Scripture, he ought not to unite himself with that denomination. If a man has reservations about marrying a woman he ought to wait to marry her and solve his reservations, either by working through and beyond them or by withdrawing from his engagement. In the same way, if a minister has reservations and disagreements with the Standards of a denomination, he ought to either submit to the standards fully, trusting that they do contain and teach the doctrines of Scripture, or he ought to start or continue searching for a denomination that he believes does teach the system of doctrine contained in Scripture.
Conclusion
Robert Lewis Dabney has rightly argued that “Every honest many believes that the individual teacher in the church is absolutely bound to declare ‘the whole counsel of God’ as he himself self conscientiously understands it.” The minister is bound to proclaim the whole counsel of God, and subscribing to the Westminster Standards is one way in which he can do that faithfully, clearly, and without reservation. The Standards do not become the Gospel to him, nor should they ever become that, but it is important that he subscribe and hold to some sort of standard, else he will be carried to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14).
This article has argued that a minister should subscribe to a confession, but it has not necessarily argued, at length, why he should subscribe strictly to the Standards. The next article will examine how the church as a witnessing body of many churches in one denomination cannot fulfill its obligation to proclaim the gospel to the nations if its ministers are unclear and divided on what it is they are proclaiming. It will begin to sharpen the point of strict subscription to the Westminster Standards and argue that ministers of the PCA should strictly subscribe to the Standards as their system of doctrine.
[1] For a succinct discussion on the issue of the American adoption of the Confessions and doctrinal fidelity, see Sean Michael Lucas, “The Adopting Act: Confessional Subscription and Doctrinal Fidelity,” byFaith, July 16, 2026, https://byfaithonline.com/the-adopting-act-confessional-subscription-and-doctrinal-fidelity/.
[2] J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Crossway, 2014), 167.
[3] Morton Smith, “Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 9, no. 1 (1993): 46.
[4] Morton Smith, “Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 9, no. 1 (1993): 47.
[5] Robert Lewis Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical, vol. 2, ed. C. R. Vaughn (Sprinkle Publications, 1890), 447–63.
[6] Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical, 2:450.
[7] Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical, 2:453.
[8] Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical, 2:459.
[9] Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical, 2:462.
[10] Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical, 2:451.
[11] Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards (Southern Presbyterian Press, 1896), 34–35.
[12] Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical, 2:451.
