The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-12-21
A Theological Revolution.

We publish elsewhere two letters that
show how very intelligent men can miscon-
oeive the differences Of q fair and unpreju-
diced treatment OF q matter concerning
which they have the deep INT earnest re-
ligious sentiment 80 honorable in human
nature and 90 essential to the building up
OF the best type OF manly character,
These letters refer to our remarksupon the
case Of the Rev. DR.. SHIELDS Of Princeton
University, which we instanced as an exam
pie Of the loosening hold OF old-time re-
ligious convictions upon t~heologians Of this
time. The immediate occasion Of DR..
SHrEnps's leaving the Presbyterian Church
was q really triflng difference with It as to
q matter Of mere discipline. He had signed
an application for q liquor license for the
Princeton Inn, In disobedience Of o precept
Of the Presbyterian General Assembly long
In existence, and when he was summoned
before the Brunswick P~resbytery to render
account for his offence he withdrew from
the Church Of the Westminster Confession,
saying that he would seek his religious
home elsewhere.
Now, the persistence Of Presbyterianism
through 30 many centuries has been due to
the serious conviction Of those adhering to
It that In its faith and order It represents
the spirit and doctrine OF Christianity with
special completeness, and that fidelity to It is
IN obligation ofhigh and necessary principle.
DR.. SHIELDS, in abandoning this system Of
faith after more than fifty years service In
It's ministry, did not announce any change
Of theological belief. but simply expressed
Impotence Of o detail Of its conventional
discipline. Think Of such o desertion for
such a reason as occurring fifty years ago,
twenty-five years ago. nay, ten years agol
It would have astonished the religious
world, for DR.. SHIELDS Is 10 man Of more
than seventy years Of age, and he has been
a leader in Presbyterianism and conspicu-
u as o teacher Of its tenets.
The grounds OF which he went into the
Episcopal Church seem to Justify the in
ference that he recognizes no vital and
essential distinction between its doctrine
and that Of Presbyterianism {; yet was
there not in the mind Of the late Father
BROWN, for instance, the broadcast and
most radical distinction, reaching to the
very foundations Of Church authority Do
Episcopalians want their Church to be treat
ed as q mere convenient harbor Of refuge
for c~astaways and buffeted spirits in the
ministry Of other denominations2
II seems to many ~Episcopalians, as our
correspondence has borne witness, that
their Church does not gain really by the
accession Of the Shieldses and the Briggses,
considering the motives which Induce them
to knock at the doors Of its ministry. It is
a Church which is now advancing very rap
idly in membership and in public regard, lin
this neighborhood more especially, but will
the increase conduce to its essential growth
unless 1t be due to something more than the
impulse which one Of our correspondents
describes as the motive Of DR.. SHIELDS,
namely, that che found the Presbyterian
Church too narrow both for his creed and
his conduct 2"
Our reference to the case of DR.. SHIELDS,
however, as we have said, was simply to
point it out as a notable symptom Of the
growing Indifference Of even t~heologians
to doctrines and systems which ence bound
fast the consciences Of men as divine In
their obligation-questions Of faith which
for centuries separated the Christian world
into bitterly warning camps. Is it not a
wonderful development in the history Of
theology, and does 1t not deserve the
most serious consideration Of all Christen-
domp 1t seems to us to be nothing less
than a great religious revolution.