New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-10-14
THE CONFESSION OF FAITH.
DIR. SHEDD SPEAKS FOR CONSERVATIVE
PRESBYTERIANS.
A LEADER IN poGMATIc THEOLOGY DENIES
THAT THE CREED TEACHES ERROR
DANGERS OF THE DISCUSSION


The Scotch Presbyterian Church lecure-room IN
West Fourteenth-st., where the meetings OF 'nc w"
York Presbytery are held was well filed last MONDAY
morning when It expected that the overture rum
tho General Assembly relating 10 the revision VI '"o
Westminster Confession Of Faith would be caeu w
for discussion. In the large gathering were many
representatives Of neghborng Presbyteres, a. VOL
nearly all the Presbyterian clergymen In Ne"io
This important topic had been set down Tor INC ".
noon meeting but so great was the interest in II mat
Il was called up before the that those present
then might not miss the debate that was HhelS +"
follow when the report received. Inc o''''"'o
reads: ~,
~ Do you desire revision Of the Conie'Son u
Faithl
(ol II So I'm what respects and 10 what extent
No one expected that any decisive action "o"iI
be taken at the first meeting. but the deep li''
in the overture manifested when an ei'l'o Na9
in November was set apart for the discussion amor.
were few members Of the Prcsbytery present WIZ ~
not read the interview published that mor"'Db
The Tribune with Professor Philip schah' Vi .Ho
Union Theological Seminary, and In some vi 'no
speeches intimatiOns were made that similar l''o'
views with leading theologians would do much to" 'iu
solving what is conceded by all 10 be a vital qu7'
not only for all the followers Of the Westminster ~
bols but also for all denominations. Dr. 0'.'a"
plea for a revision that should make the love VI ',N
the central doctrine admired even by those ""'
Vigorous as was the position taken by Dr. > Ia"
in favor of revision OF the Creed, The tribune
pre sents herewith an Interview with one OF hH VI
leagues in tho Seminary equally vigorous 's@a.''
disturbing the Confession For half century It'
fessor W. G.. T. 5hedd has been an eXponnuer Vi ,'
doctrines taught in the Westminster sympo'', i.o
work as an instructor. pastor and author IS KNOW"
wherever Calvnism Is known. His stalWart ue'o".o
Of the tenets of tho Presbyterian Church mas De'"
called forth many times In the past The compl''u'S
advanced now against the Crced formulated DS 'n'
divlnes Of the seventeenth century are nos ~
him, nor are the arguments urged by inc a' =.
for revision novel; again and again have 'n.'
met and repealed, but the novel part IS tha' me- ~
now advanced by those who part of the Onur0"
whose doctrines they oppose formerly the aus.
made by outsiders, but now It IS lei by freSD'
pastors aided by denomnatlonal papers
THREE REASONS FOR OPPOSING REVISION
Dr shedd has written two strong articles agal"s'
revision one relating the ineXpedlency OF zoe p
posed changes and the other replying 10 the al ~
of his critics that there are grave errors III o .,
fo.eion To a Tribune reporter who called upon III"
last week he said that he opposed revision loi 'l
reasons ,.Iral
80, w such change has occurred In the doc'THa'
views Of the present generation of Presbytera"s -
rcouires a different statement OF The noc"'"o9 -
Scripture from that which has been sa'IS'a''O' ~
the mast generations All shades OF OaiV'h'"
boon content with the present phraseoiosS "a
ctandr1s and both branches Of the Church were To-
united upon them ..o Confession
unon the subject Of DEGREES which is the pom par
ticuIarlv specified by advocates OF revision, "o"'u
an acknowledgment that the stahaarus '"'i-
positive error respecting the sovereignty oI 'o' ~"
orsali,, Of the Gospel offer Of salvation ana
this would be serious reflection upon inc 0orP'U'
,,,orrlodcc and wisdom Of the Church OF The past
cueIle
., noirts To revise a chapter with when ioriher
presbvterans found no fault, and In when they u''4
hat there Is error whenever the allegation was mado
nv the enemies Of the faith, would be an Impeachment
~ their Intelligence and doctrnal sonndness
d" q, Because revision. If entered upon, would I'M
,t,,elv ,eonen all the old controversies upon The
obstrrso docrines without resulting in any better
settlement of them than they now have In the Church'
The great variety Of alterations from The most con
sor,atiye 70 the most radical. that would be urged
would bring in a period Of dispute and Disagreement
that would impair the existing harmony OF the De
nomination might ultimately divide it again and would
surely seriously interfere with the prosperity and the
practical interests Of Chrlsts kingdom. period o.
speculative discussion IS not apt 10 be an evangelism
perod The project Of revising tho standards would
convert the Presbyterian Church into a theological
debating school instead OF harmonious ana earnest
missionary church, such as It IS now, in some good
measure.
In rcgard to my first for opposing re
vision | have explained the situation more fully IN
The Evangelist: The Presbyterian Church in the
United states since 400 has passed through varcd
and sometimes difficult experience The controversies
I'm the beginning between the Old and New Lights, and
stl more the vehement disputes that resulted in the
division OF the Church in 1881. have tried the common
symbol a, severely it Is ever likely 20 be. Eut
through them all both theological divisions were
content with the Confession and Catcchlsms they
stood, and both alike claimed to be true to them.
Neither party demanded revision on any doctrnal
points and both alike found in them a satisfactory
expression Of their faith.
"What is there IN the Presbyterian Church OF today
that nccessitaes any different statement Of the doctrine
of DEGREES Of aopcmen Of regeneration or Of punish
ment from that accepted by the Presbyterian Church
of 1897 or 1888? Are the statements upon these
points any more liable to mi,cCnception or mis-
representation by non Calvnl,ts than they
fifty or a hundred years ago! Are there any more
" weak corsciencc,- requiring SOfteung explanations
and relaxing clauses in The Church Of today than ir
former periods? And with reference 10 the allowable
differences Of theological opinion within the Irc~by-
terrain Church. IS not creed that was adopted and
defended by Charles Hodge and Albert Barnes sIlil
ciently broad 10 include all who are really Cavinl'tn
and Presbyterian In belief? What is there, we repeat
in the condition OF the Presbyterian Church today
that makes the old Confession of the last 200 years
inadequate a doctrinal standard All the success
and victories Of PrEbyterianism have been ac-
complshed under e. Success In the past is guarantee
Of success I'm the future. Is It not better for the
Church 10 work on the very Old basis, IN the very
same straight line"
REPELLING 4 CHARGE AGAINST CALVINISM'
The advocates for revision deny that Goa
created any man on purpose 10 damn HIN"
And deny that there Is any phrase or clause In
the Confession which, when fairly Interpreted by IT.
context and other parts of The Standards ju'tilcs I'll,
suspicion ! say, without fear Of contradiction. that
am supported in this denial by all the expounder'
ana defenders Of the Westminster standards. l do
not know OF one who that the phraseO0gy con
corning DEGREES even suggests. much less rants,
the sentiment that God creates men on purpose u
damn Them