The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-10-18
acknowledgement
FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
Views Thereon by the Rev. DE-
Raymond.

.s,oil.,s rather severely criticised fof
,lIs,ed he,e,y on the doctrine of future
arsi.bneu,, leemedit advisable to make
I.,,temen. to the Rock River Confer
.,rs which he did on Sunday, at the
,o,e Of the session. The Doctor rose to
,Qas,.ioa Of privilege, and said:
M PRECEDENT: Several brethren
b,r, this morning said 10 me that, in
tS.,, Judgment, the reports in circula-
t;os respecting the instruction given in
an, theological Seminary on the doctrine
Of future punishment required that |
,bould make some statements on the sub
tc, and have risen to do SO. For my
Eli have too many grey hairs to be look
ipr Alter my reputation. So far as / am
reasonably concerned, hold the whole
matter in perfect contempt. But as
these brethren, whose judgement l am
bound to respect, think that the interests
Of our Theolosica! School, and, through
1.-THE interests Of the Church, require this
service ST nv hands, | consent to do it.
| sn not a universalist; am not an
AnnihiIationis!, am not Restoration
ist. believe sin incurs an infinite peril,
and that salvation is made possible only
BY an ininite remedy. And here say
tha. any person, who has had such an OPP
portuuity to know my opiaions as iustiies
40 attempt to report them, and is compe-
tentio make such report, could not fail to
know thai what ] have just said ia true.
claim to know what Methodist doctrine
Is, at least a. we'll az the average OF my
brethren. ought to know them better,
because | have had better opportunities
!rr acquiring that knowledge than the
average OF my brethren have had.
| DO not, however, Cldim a superior,
only an equal, knowledge with them OF
The doctrines Of our Church. | am not
the man to preach in a Methodist pulpit,
or teach on Methodist foundation, any.
thing that looks, even in the slightest de-
gree, towards what antagonizes the Meth
Odut filth; nor am the man to preach in
the pulpit, or teach in professors chair,
OF advocate in private conversation,
VIA; lido not believe. II lam at fault At
al in respec: to adhesion to Methodist
doctrine, it i, likely to be the opposite Of
lOossaess. The prejudices OF my educa-
ton may have biased the formation OF my
religious opinions. / am more likely 10
Be TOO sectarian than TO be too liberal.
Bctit an at fault in this respect l am in
Ioceut, lot, in all sincerity before God, l
IN Methodist without mental reserva-
uou
Ihare now said all I desire to say, but
With indulgence will add what doubtless
many vii, think l ought to say. It is
natural TO ask, From what FIRE comes
Il! ibis suoke% "What has been said
o'done that gives occasion for these re-
PosuT l answer: At the Theological
Union Of last year, Brother Axtell read
VIA: impressed me as a very excellent
paper on the doctrine Of future punish
nenl As ii seemed to me, the paper
tvInced much thought on the subject.
Alter the reading, the Chairman called
lot criticisms and discussions. Because
30 one else responded, simply 10 keep
matters moving, rose and proposed to
Tie 1nthor Of the paper question, which
AOught would lead to a discussion Of
Tie subject on its most vital issue. Isaid,
Fascinating that all created intelligences
Ee Kept in being by the constant exer.
else Of Gods persevering power, what
notIredo you think Of as probably indu.
encIag the Divine Mind TO exert His
power TO keep in existence beings to
whom existence has become curse ~
Not to detail what followed in the
discussion, it became manifest tina,
some brethren present inferred that
the man who could ask such q ques.
lion was not sound in the faith. Is
that inference logical? A man might
propose the question as an objection TO
the doctrine, and he might propose il to
!avite an ivestigation Of the strongest OBJ.
lseIiOns possible, because OF his confidence
hat those objections could be answered
and Of his belief that they ought to be.
But, BY the way, as to The man who ia
W ;,!Ad TO have such a question asked,
MaAt about him3 Can his fear have any
foundation but in the weakness Of his
nVa II the man who asks the question
ia hereto, wha. is be who is annoyed
gt4s asking! Again, on the question
VI theodlcy-eutiFeIy apart from all
questions Of E,chatology-the question,
nov can the existence Of evil be recon
Slled With the goodness OF God7 have
" accustomed to propose the question
myself in this wise: Suppose con.
H.Vs Of God as proposing 10 create an
,US'Llsen', 'entient being, who should be
companion for Himself through the
Ntoai ages. Could God gain the con-
gay oil his own mind to bring such be.
ny 'aio existence ii He ioresaW that to
Ss being to be created existence
g s.u!a Se acurse? And my answer il:
. w could noL-that is, as i think it, any
-, that infinite goodness will per.
~ must be better than nOn-existence.
save never stated this a. the doctrine
%Aay church, bot simply as the way 1
s- A. compelled TO think on that difficult
51seon' And now, II any one wishes
IL, Il nte ny head for so thinking, and has
SgoEes to dosO, l must consent to be
E aaes', Tor l cannot think otherwise
,t...s's', before | am beheaded submit
~ n" q thinking is 10 the interests moi
II,.NIsfable hell, but Of toIerable God
tua, At the last Union said something
Wv = burden" which saying has beer
VI SUBJECT Of considerable comment
"T PaF1'eology was used cannot say
we remark was wholly impromptri
H.. .n 1ncidsutly made in the discus
NJ M o. smother topic. Ny thought was
~ That the idea Of eternal torment 4
SS, .s .s Of religious thought; in the
~ mat tits the most tremendous idel
SSS TO Consciousness, and the mos
~ aH 70 realize in thought and feeling
NJ ~ here that II to any one Il Is no.
Ss.;iR.Iy the mans intelligence or IL
~ 0ulsy. lhAvs ottentimes Said. apd
~ q written it in my iortbcominr
9S,S IAt II !. competent to think Of CO.
s,,T .klns hell not as terrible, but a t hi,
a., !. y possible. II God puni,hss ain
~. 1t u because He must Ia Il S;n IL
dSs,Sh but not yindictive. He il I