The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-10-19

Not II u Position to Cast Stones ut
Dr.. Briggs.
THE CRITIC is C0RNERED.
Liberal Views Advanced In n Paper
on Future Probation-.Sanctitica.
tlon After Death - Sensation In
Presbyterian Observation-Disclosures from
an Old Address Printed In the
Evangelist"

NEw YonK, Oct, 1s.-Thc Rev. DR..
Francis L. Patton, president Of Prince
ton, great Presbyterian conservative,
and the real leader OF tho anti.Briggs
iactlon in tho Presbyterian church, is
made to appear in 4 strangc light by an
article in this weeks New York Grange
lia' Four years ago, according to this
article, DR.. Patton was MS radical in his
views ms DR.. Briggs and probably as
llcrctical.
"Dr. Patton on Future Probation" is
the title OF the creed. 1t purports to be
q verbatim report, hitherto Imprinted,
OF an address delivered before the Phil
adolphian Society OF Princeton on March
81, 1887. The famous Andovcr contro-
vcrsy about the fate OF heather whodie
without knowledge OF the gospel was
then going OIL and formed tho subject
OF the address. These nre some OF tho
surprising things DR.. Patton is reported
10 have said:
We continually see men going into the
other world imperfect. They must be
imperfect when they reach there and
need some time for restoration or
change. AM pretty sure that there is
no doctrine that is put in jeopardy by
the simple affirmation Of this belief.
That is future probation, neither the
doctrines OF aanctifcation, Justification,
| nor. final rntrihuttpr I,,ar ,n,n
held this he might hold those other ar
ticles OF belief. Suppose m individual
70 otler himself rs n missionary. Would
the simple fact that he held to 4 per-
sonal hope OF q future probation of the
heather in any way mar his influence
or usefulness, and prejudice him in the
performance Of his duties? Subject to
correction 1t seems to me man might 60
into tho field entertaining the view and
yet teach Jesus Christ Just as earnestly
as though he held the church view.
Suppose he helped five heathcns to IN
opportunity to hear OF Christ; suppose
he was to 20 and preach 10 them. He
would preach the same gospel then as
now; there would be no change as to
what he would preach, but us to mo-
tive.
suppose that we grant the Andover
premise, we piously hope that infants
and some hcathen will be saved by the
spirit OF God, working when and where
he will, w%ithout4thc need OF an objective
presentation OF the gospel. What right
have they to say that no man can DO
saved without belief in Christ? People
piously believe that infants can be
saved, although they do not have q
chance to believe in Christ; SO many
hope that Socrates and Plato will be
saved. Those who hear the gospel in
this world will not have another chance
thereafter; those who do not hear it or
have no opportunity here will have
some chance in the future.
Ourown confession OF faith, which
some think very strait-laccd, does hold
out that hope, although it does say that
the heather cannot be saved by framing
their lives according to the light OF
nature"
A great deal OF this is Brigssism pure
and simple. 1t may even bequestioned
il the first paragraph, in which 4 belief
in sanctification after death seems to be
explicitly affirmed, does not 20 further
than docs DR.. Briggs himself. Natur-
ally there was agrcat stir among friends
and opponents OF DR.. Briggs when this
report came out. The Briggs people
TODD great comfort from it, for ii DR..
Patton really held such views it would
be hard for him to urge on the prosecu-
ton OF DR.. Briggs.
The anti-Hriggs people refused to be-
llevc that the report was correct and
were at pains to see ii it were not some
other DR.. Patton and not the head OF
Princeton. They got little consolation
from that source. The address was in
formal and not for publication. 1t hap
pened, however, that OF tho stu
dents who heard it was q stenographer
and took it down MS delivered. Alter
wards, so it is said, some OF the mem
bers of the Phi!adelphian society asked
Tor permission to print the stenograpll;c
report. DR.. Patton refused, with some
show OF annoyance, because, he said, he
had spoken as DR.. Patton and not as a
professor in Princeton, and, besides, he
was about to print III magazine an
elaborate article on the same subject.
The magazine article appeared a few
months lHtor, but the views it expressed
did not agree with those OF the address.
The publication OF the report in the
Evangelist ut this time was unintcn-
tional. Dr.. Field, the editor, and Dir.
Dyer, his assistant, wcro out OF town
this week, and the paper was left in the
hands OF a sub-cditor. He thought the
report was q pretty good thing Tor the
Briggs side OF the controversy and put
it in. 1t was not DR.. Fields intention
to have the matter published just yet,
if at all. Who raked this report from
the stcnoSraphcr's notes does not ap-
pear, but it was sent to tho Eranoclis!
some weeks ago.
DR.. Briggs trial begins November 4,
and to confront his accusers about that
time with the discovery that DR.. Pat
ton once Endorsed the alleged Briggs
hcrcsy would have been an excellent
stroke OF policy. Even the premature
publication is likely to have much ef-
icct.