New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-10-21
PRESBYTERIAN CREED REVISION.

PRESBfTERIAN CREED REFISIOA.
The action of the Presbyteries THUS far on the
question of revising the Westminster Comics
sion of Faith does not reveal the widespread
desire for a change which has generally been
assumed to exist. Out Of the 232 Presbyteries
in the Presbyterian Church 10 have taken ac
ton, with the following results For revision
only, 3; for a declaratory statement explaining
the Confession, 2; for supplemental creed, 3d.
for a substitute creed. 3; for revision and a
supplemental creed, 10; for a dismissal of the
whole subject, 33. Probably not more than 220
Presbyteries will vote on the question, so that 10
more Presbyteries are yet to be heard from, but
it is hardly likely that their verdict will be essen
TALLY different from that of those which have
already voted. Assuming this to be the case
there will be only about sixty Presbyteries in
favor of revision pure and simple, whereas the
request of two-thrds or 155 Presbyteres, is
required in order to bring the question before
the General Assembly.
AS a rule the Presbyteres that vote for re-
vision do so because they regard certain phrases
in the Westminster Confession as needlessy
harsh. They are careful not to commit them
selves to any denial of the general teaching of
the Confession. For instance, some Presby
teries ask that the phrase "elect infants dying
in infancy" be changed to infants dying in
infancy are included in the election of grace"
In general the advocates OF revision put them
selves in line with the reports submitted by the
Revision Committee of 1892. The Presbyteries
of Lackawanna and Des Moines, which voted
for declaratory statement say that they would
be entirely satisfied If the statement adopted by
the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in
1879 was adopted and which reads: I'm ac-
"cepting the standards 1t is not required to be
"held that any who die in infancy are lost"
The Presbyteries voting for q supplemental
creed would leave the Westminster Confession
as 1t stands, as q sort of historic heirloom, but
for ordinary use would have a short creed along
the same doctrinal lines. The five Presbyteries
which voted for a substitute creed did so not
because they antagOnize the doctrines of the
Confession, but because they regard the archaic
expression of those doctrines as a stumbling
block to many who are essential believers in
them The thirty-three Presbyteries which have
voted for dismissal of the whole subject de-
clare that they are entirely satisfied with the
Westminster Confession as it is, and they be-
lieve that any attempt to revise it or substitute
for it another creed would do more harm than
good.
The non-appearance of any overwhelming SEN
timent in favor of revision will probably be ex-
planned in two ways. The conservatives will
say that the liberals in the Church have always
made a noise out of all proportion to their
numbers and that during the last five years a
reactionary feeling against liberalism has grown
up in the Church, partly due to the course of
Professor Briggs. There is some truth in this
last statement. Many Of the more timid liberals
have deserted that party in the fear that it en-
dangered the integrity Of the Church. The ultra
conservative Interpretation of the creed is no
more palatable to them than it was before, but
they consider it a duty to suppress their per-
sonal feelings in order to promote the welfare
of the Church. There is no evidence however
of any general reaction toward conservatism
On the contrary the Church is apparently be-
coming more roomy every year. Practically no
effort is made to discipline either ministers or
laymen who openly hold views which, accord
ing to the letter Of the Confession, would make
them amenable to the severest discipline. This
is a matter of common knowledge which may be
confirmed by five minutes talk with any intelli-
gent Presbyterian Yet there is apparently less
desire for revision than there was when the
question came up in 1892 1t would seem that
the explanation of the conservatives does not
quite explain
Another theory suggested by close observers
is that many of the more radical liberals are
opposed to any revision of the Confession at the
present time because it would not be radical
enough to suit them, while the adoption of what
they would consider milk and water revision
would be a serious obstacle in the way of
more thorough revision such as they desire
The conservatives would Immediately cry out:
See how unreasonable these liberals are! We
''have revised the Confession at their request
land now they want to revise it again Verify,
1.-The Church is in dangerw And such a cry
would so thoroughly alarm the average mem
10, Joc,
poned. Moreover, many liberals are coming to
attach less Importance to the formal symbol of
belief They say that the Church is rapidly
outgrowing the Westminster Confession with
out knowing it. Some day it will realize the
fact that it is merely an archaic survival and 1t
will then be in position TO drop it. In the
mean while it is much better, they say. to let
this evolution work out its results than to check
it by a patchwork revision that would itself
become obsolete in five or ten years