The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1878-02-03
Mr.. Lloyd's Sermon.

,reached n sermon on "EternAl Punlsn-
nentu on which we commented editorially,
thinks that our remarks did not DO MIN
iustice, and in this connection sends us the
communication
ENEw ORLEANS, Jan. 80, 1873.
Edtor Morning Star,
Dear Sir My attention has been called
Co an editorial in your paper on "a free
R,hIeD Now IL q man takes the trouble to
inform himself accurately concerning my
views have NO objection to his prononnc'
ing them heretical and damning II tnat 90
his conviction. honor him for q straignt-
forward and honest performance OF what ne
considers to be his duty. But then the
right to criticize my views involves, as 1t
seems to me, the duty Of finding out what
thew really are. In the only criticism you |
make you charge me with taxing "pnnlsn-
mept" literally and ''life" fgurativeiy' |
Now the passage referred to 10 an argamen
t,.n, ad honsinem. The point made is that
If DIR. Palmer takes "life" literally he ought
to take Ndeath," the antithesis of life, liter
ally. and that in that case he wouid nave
the annihilation of the wicked instead OF
their eternal punishment. In the very next
paragraph I gave my own y view' vi VIZ ;aham 1nSs
literally, but that both together, the re-
ward of a mans good deeds and the pun
ishment of his bad deeds, make up every
mans lot. I explained that in very
definite sense believed in endless punish
menr. A mans sfostePPeFtaHlties are LOST
forever, and because of them the man is
foreuer less sympathetic, less Intellectual,
less holy than he might have been, ana 80,
| In a very definite and easily comprehended
sense is punished forever" simply tried
to prove that while the past cannot be
! wiped ont, every man, whether IN THIS OF
| any other werld, may, if he chooses, make
better use of the future that God desires
| the repentance, the reformation, OF every
one Of His creatures, and that, with His
| infinite resources, and eternity at His com
4 mand. 1t 10 not unreasonable TO suppose ne
can accomplish all that He desires. Be kind
enough to make the correction and oblige,
yours respectfully, w. j. LLOYD.
We should be unwilling to feel that MIR.
Lloyd, or any other gentleman, rested,
however erroneously, under the impression
that We had misconstrued him and were
not willing to correct the error; therefore
We insert his expostulation in full, as above
Still we cannot see what correction is to be
made. Mr.. Lloyd says that DR.. Palmer
took the word "life" literally and that ht
himself was simply pointing out the logica
consequence of that position. But w
, cannot agree with Mr.. Lloyd on that point
D In the passage quoted by him from DR.
, Palmer's sermon, the Doctor did not, VI
are confident, understand the word literally
a but as o figurative equivalent for the wor'
Q s'Heaven." The distinction is very per
= Iceptible. For instance; according to th
Catholic faith, infants dying without bap
o tism cannot go to Heaven; they cannot g
n to He'll either, being guiltless of actual sir
l. therefore they are relegated to an existenc
a- happy and immortal, but not Heaven, nc
IL gloriied by the visible presence of Goo
u Such souls, then, have eternal life in th
literal sense, that is existence, but not
u the sense meant by DR.. Palmer.
= As to Mr.. Lloyd's individual views
. regard to the character of future e1
h istence, we think that correction is
at little due as on the other point, if his Sc
of mon was correctly reported. In fact v
re clipped out and inserted his own languag
We the following being part of it:
O. We believe that, sooner or later, every o.
of Gods intelligent creatures will become
loving, obedient child.
of When that "sooner or later" shall ha
he finally come to pass will not that be an 81
nd of the punishment that the reconciled sor
w had been in the meantime suffering7 N
E. Lloyd says: no; even after full reconcile
no tion there will still be during all eternit
no q loss of some higher stage of happine
,.o and glory that might have been achieve
~S This loss itself will be an eternal punis
ma ment.
ds Here, again, we are unable to agree wi
nal our correspondent. He uses the VIC
zes "punishmentr in an entirely arbitra
,at senee. Punishment does not mean
ieS absence ofreward, but thereverseo ofrewa
ert If a man earn only Eve dollars when
might have earned ten, no one would cC
slider him punished by receiving the
oh only. No man is "punished" by not
ne ceiving what he has not earned. 1t il
mere absence of reward. We cam
,ly, therefore, think that we misrepresen
aid Mr.. Lloyd in saying, as we did, that
en- preached ga gospel in which people