The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-12-16
Presbyterianism and the Episcopal
Church.

The ordination OF the Rev. DR.. SHIELDS
OF Princeton University into tho diaconate
OF the Episcopal Church on Wednesday Is
an interesting event for various rea-
sons. The first OF these is that tho
immediate occasion of his leaving the
Presbyterian Church, into whose ministry
he wns ordained about fifty years ago, was
not any change In his belief or conviction
as to its creed and doctrine, but to his resent
ment against q mere matter of its discipline.
rule of the Presbyterian General Assembly
requires it's ministers to refrain from tho
rendering OF any assistance In the procur-
ing OF liquor licenses. In spite Of this law,
DR.. SHIELDS was one OF the signers Of an
application for a liquor license for the
Princeton Inn. and consequently he was
hailed before the Brunswick Presbytery for
trial for the offence, and he left the Pres
byterian Church in order to be free to assist
in the establishment Of q liquor saloon IL
he was SO minded.
1t did not appear at the time, nor has it
appeared since, that he rejects the westmin-
ster Confession Of Faith, to which he made a
solemn declaration Of allegiance upon his
ordination to the Presbyterian ministry in
1S49. His rebellion was solely against a
feature Of its discipline which, unquestion-
ably, was within its proper discretion. Nor
can it be gainsaid that the business
Of procuring liquor licenses Is one
with which 1t is decent for Christian minis
tiers to avoid interfering. The Presby-
terrain rule as to the matter may or may
not exist in other Churches, but, 30 far as
we have observed, the practice Of priests
and ministers generally is to keep from
being mixed up in such a matter.
However that may be, that q Presbyte-
rian minister Of more han seventy years
OF age, and Of about fifty years service in
its ministry, should change to another
Church under such ar impulse is a sug-
gestive indication of the loosening
hold which religious convictions, once adj
hered to so tenaciously, have upon the
modern mind. DR.. SHIELDS gave UP the
Westminster Confession and went with
out a qualm into the Episcopal Church.
1t is true that he had favored the
organic union Of the Congregational,
Presbyterian, and Episcopal Churches,
but he had never exhibited any theolog-
ical change in himself which required
his abandonment Of Presbyterianism and
surrender to ~Episcopacy. That Is not the
sort of union he was after. He wanted
these three denominations to come to-
gether bodily in accordance with a plan
long under consideration. He did not ad-
vocate individual secessions from one and
into another.
When, therefore, the Episcopal Church
admits DR.. SHIELDS into its ministry, under
the propulsion Of simple rebellion against a
detail Of Presbyterian discipline, and
with his body Of theological belief and
conviction unaltered, what other dis
tinction from the Presbyterian Church
can it have than its mere form of pre-
latical government? Why should the
two Churches remain apart II the separa-
ton Is no more than that? If the with
drawal Of DIR. SHIELDS from Presbyterian
ism and his going over to Episcopacy is
~justifiable, though it involved no change in
his essential faith, but simply a preference
for a prelatical organization, what reason
is there for any Presbyterian minister's re-
naming in that Church except as q matter
Of taste purely2
Moreover, how about the Episcopal
Church9 A large and powerful party of
that Church resents any association Of it
with Professionalism. Yet in DIR. SHIELDS is
added to its ministry a man who is a Prot
estant distinctively, and almost as far re-
moved from the sacerdotal Episcopalian as
Is an agnostic.
1t Is all some what confusing to minds
that look for anything like reasonableness.