The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-03-02
THE ~ Y. EVENING POST AND
THE CENTRAL PRES
YTERTd "

nallsm That 1t has become common thing
for our periodicals and great dailies to
discuss and express opinions on religious
and theological questions. AS might be
expected these opinions are not ordin-
arily the result of matured study and
represent for the most part that spirit of
revolt against orthodox and sound evan
gelical views, which characteristics So
ciety leavened by the materialistic phil
osophy and the rationalising criticism of
the day. Notably we may mention as
examples of this sort in our secular peri
odical literature, the Contemporary Re
vieao, the Nineteenth Century, the West
minister Review, the atlantic Monthly,
iScr7baaer's Magazine, etc. Among news
papers we may mention the Nev York
Herald, and it was only the other day
that we called attention to formal at
tack in the editorial columns of the Lon
don Times on the British and Foreign
Bible Society and on the genuineness and
authoritative character of the books Of
the Bible.
Among all the great daily newspapers
of the United States there is none which
we respect more-none which is more
elevated in its tone and teachings than
the New York EUening Post. 1t was
precisely for this reason that we regretted
the character of an editorial in its issue
OF the 9th ult., referring to the one hun
dredth anniversary of the first Universal
list church in New York, and the death
of DIR. Chaplin, and to the views recently
expressed on the subject of Future Pun
ishment by the Rev. Morgan Dix and the
Rev. Heber Newton. In this editorial,
as we read it, the Post expressed SYM
pathy with the Universalist doctrine in
regard to the punishment of the wicked,
and in a line we announced the Post as
"being out in favor of the doctrine of
universal salvation.
For making this statement we are now
very gravely lectured by the Post, which
asserts that it meant to express no opin-
ion on the theological question under
consideration, but merely to describe the
present phase of opinion with regard to
it. And it charges us with being guilty
of IAN extraordinary gloss of the facts.
We OF course do not wish to place the
Post in position which it disclaims, and
we take occasion to express our gratifca-
ton that SO influential a journal is at
least neutral on this grave question, which
at the present time is agitating so many
minds in this country and England
But we must say, after reading the
original article in the Post with great
care second time, that we think that
most persons, if not all persons, would
have interpreted it as we did. Ger
tainly, the average newspaper reader
would have carried away the impress
sion that the Post was after giving
the old doctrine thrust. There are
various ways of doing a thing: You
may make an impression on the mind
without distinct affirmation; often you
may say most by what you do not say
but only suggest. The article in ques-
ton certainly appears intended to bring
odium on the utterances Of Jonathan Ed
wards and the old-time theologiaps on
this subject, and to suggest that, at least
in our day, there are others, besides
"scoffers and blasphemers, who reject the
doctrine of eternal punishment" namely
men high in the Church, to wit, the Rev.
Morgan Dix and the Rev. Heber Newton.
Here CATER citing passage from Jona-
than Edwards) is the closing paragraph
of the Posts article:
Now, whether these startling words are
taken as literally descriptive or merely fgura.
tive, where is the pulpit in which they would
be spoken to day. Or if spoken anywhere what
would be their effect upon a congregation2
Without deciding how far reaching the change
of opinion is it is safe to say that the drift of
thought cannot be resisted in the old fashion.
1t will no longer suffice to say that only scoffers
and blasphemers reject the doctrine Of eternal
punishment or that the men who question it
are only seeking warrant for the indulgence
OF their evil appetites and passions or contriving
theory by which with perfect impunity they
can defy all restraints, human and divine, and
throw off all responsibility 10 God or man. To
say nothing of the ministers who openly preach
final restoration, the great multitude Of minis
tiers and laymen who silently accept the belief