Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-10-17
PATTON'S TURN COMES.
The President of Princeton Now Put
on the Theological Rack.
SOME OLD VIEWS ON PURGATORY
Brought Up Against Him, to Prove the
Doctors UnsOundness.
THEEXPLANATION GIVENOF THE MATTER

ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DIsPATCH.1
PRINCETON, Oct. 16--An article printed
in this weeks New York Evangelist, entitled
CDR. Patton on Future Probation, an ad-
dress to the Philadelphia Society at Prince
ton, March 81, 1887, z" has caused some COM
ment to-day among the Princeton theologt-
ans. The question was then known as the
"Andover controversy" This is the sem
terce of DIR. Patton's address which has
caused most comment and which is used by
the Evangelist to show the unsoundness Of
DR.. Patton on the subject of future proba-
tion.
1t is only due to ourselves and the men
interested that we should understand and
appreciate what Andover believes and not
recklessly accuse her of holding what she
does not hold. We should form our judg-
ments on an understanding of the exact
limitations of the views entertained. 1t IS
not q doctrine of purgatory as we under
stand that. We continually see men going
into the other world imperfectly. They
must be imperfect when they reach there
and need some time for restoration OF
change. They don't hold to the doctrine OF
restoration, nor to this hope for ALL
DIR. PATToN'S EXPLANATION.
A reporter called on DIR. Patton this eve
ming in regard to his reported utterances on
future probation. DIR. Patton said: Il
will fix that in a minute for you. The
article in the Evangelist is very imperfect
report of an extemporaneous talk given in a
very formal way to the Philadelphian
Society in Princeton College, in response
to an invitation of the students.
'Iwas very much surprised when a few days
afterwards young man, MIR. Frank Hyatt
Smith, called upon me with the galley proof
of the address, which he was about to print
in the magazine which was published by the
Philadelphian Society / refused to allow
the article to appear, because 1 was under
engagement to write for the Forum and also
because it didn't have the literary form that
/ would wish printed utterance of mine to
have.
NOTHING IN IT TO REGRET.
'T have not read the article carefully, but
have as vet seen nothing in it to regret,
except its fragmatary character and its lack
of literary form. There is only one sem
tence that can be construed as implying be-
lief in complete sanctifcation at death, but
anv intelligent reader will see that / am
describing the doctrine of purgatory and not
expressing my own view. A simple change
of a period to a colon is sufficient to make
this clear.
''The article as it appears in the Evangelist
does not raise a theological question respect
ing my soundness in the faith, but one of a
somewhat different nature, growing out
of the fact that 1 had authoritatively
forbidden the publication of the address at
the time of its delivery, and when the pub
lication of it in the way originally eortem-
plated was under my control"
Dr. Patton was professor in the semi
nary at the time the address was delivered.
The error in punctuation referred to by DIR.
Patton is after the words ''we understand
that