Samuel Miller (1769-1850) served as a Presbyterian pastor in New York City for over 20 years. In 1813, Miller was selected as the second Professor at Princeton Seminary. He labored there for over 35 years as the Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government.
Samuel Miller’s works, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions and Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards are considered perhaps the finest on the subjest of creeds, confessions and subscription.
With the current trends in my own denomination toward a looser and looser view of subscription to our doctrinal standards, Miller’s works are a must read to stem the tide. New is in. Old is out. Miller skillfully and masterfully undermines such a view.
Here is a quote from Miller:
Be careful to give clear doctrinal instruction concerning the plan of salvation to those who are anxious and inquiring. I have observed it to be the manner of some, in conversing with such persons, to deal chiefly in tender and solemn exhortation; under the belief that the grand object aimed at ought to be to impress the conscience and the heart, rather than to impart doctrinal knowledge. But it ought to be remembered that neither the conscience nor the heart can ever be suitably impressed but through the medium of truth. It is only as far as gospel truth is apprehended, that any genuine scriptural exercises with regard to it can exist.
Kevin Reed notes:
Because genuine spiritual life is inseparably connected with gospel truth, Miller repeatedly issues calls for doctrinal integrity. His most prominent statements on doctrinal purity are found in the small book on creeds and confessions, and his open letters to Presbyterians on “Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards.” These works are primarily concerned with preserving truth, especially in times of doctrinal declension. Miller defends the use of creeds, in general; and he also defends the Westminster Standards, in particular.
Samuel Miller notes the dangers of such loose subscription. He asserts that confessional subscription is “not a mere formality, but a very solemn transaction, which means much, and infers the most serious obligation.” Consequently, he regards an evasive subscription as “a SOLEMN PERJURY.” And he warns the church of the danger of allowing officers to adopt the confessional standards “with an avowed laxity of construction, or an evident mental reservation, altogether inconsistent with Christian probity.”
The issue of subscription was crucial during the Old School/New School controversy of the 1830s. As the New School gained in influence, the practice of loose subscription became more widespread. This laxity, in turn, allowed the growth of many heresies in the church. Only the decisive measures taken in the General Assembly of 1837 provided a temporary shift toward stricter confessionalism.
“There is nothing new under the sun,” and, sadly, today the practice of loose subscription is the reigning position, even within so-called “conservative” Presbyterian denominations. Under the pretext of listing scruples, while sitting under examination of Presbytery, candidates for ordination may openly state their opposition to leading articles of the Confession. The presbyters seem especially gratified if the candidate’s denial is expressed in tones of regret, with a touch of esteem for the creed he has just denounced.
Speaking of the Confession of Faith, Miller writes:
Will you suffer one article of it after another to be nullified, in fact, by reckless subscription, until its whole dignity and authority shall perish together? In other words, will you suffer men of coarse and ductile consciences, with the philosophy and the language of Pelagianism on their lips, to be guilty of the solemn, dishonest mockery of subscribing your Calvinistic creed, and entering your judicatories?
Such questions are still apropos, as is Miller’s closing exhortation: “These questions must soon be decided. The crisis is approaching. God grant that you may decide them in such a manner as most effectually to promote his glory, and the purity and edification of our beloved Zion.”
Miller’s excellent work may be found online here. Oh that our seminarians and seminary grads would be immersed in such a good read as Miller’s essays. May it be so, for the sake of our denomination.



February 29, 2008 at 8:43 am
How would you describe the looser view of subscription that you see in our denomination today versus 10 or 20 years ago?
February 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Wes, very busy day. This is my first chance to look.
Quickly, I would say that the looser view has arisen gradually since our founding in 1973. It can be argued, though others argur otherwise, that the PCA was founded in the Southern Pres tradition. Our first moderater later repented for not pressing the subscription deeper, thinking that surely everyone understood that.
Examples in recent years would include the whole FV controversy–though I’m certainly no expert, it surely seems related to in part how men view and subscribe to the standards. Another is the women’s issue. I think some churches are avoiding violating the letter of the law on this (the one church I know of on my post a few days ago excepted. I think they have completely violated the law) while violating the spirit of it by doing everything but ordain women as deacons.
Not much time, so maybe more later.