The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-10-18

Christ leaves the place of mediator and
takes the throne OF judgment on soul
when il leaves this earth! There is not n
man of you who has not preached the ter
rible truth that when men die impenitent
they are forever lost, and you did not think
that you were destroying the character of
God" This concluded the presentation OF
his case.
DR.. THOMAS
then rose, and quietly read his argument.
In it he quoted largely from his sermons,
on which the cl a 'gcs were based, and gave
the substance OF what hc believed and what
he denied. lie said that he held to the
great and fundamental doctrines of chris
tianity, and that he was in hearty accord
with the spirit and work of Methodism.
He held to the inspiration and authority
of the scriptures that in matters of doc
trine and duty they are final, the authority
of God. He did not accept the verbal"
theory Of inspiration; nor claim that all
parts of all the sixty-siX books of the bible
are of equal authority, inspiration, orvaluc;
nor that all parts Of the Old Testament are
critically infalliblc.
He held to the doctrine of vicarious
atoncment, but in that form that is called
moral or patel nal or, in other words. TO the
governmental view with the penal idea
lcft out. lie denied the doctrine Of u literal
penal substiton as unreasonable and I'M
scriptural. 1t ives an oilense to our deepest
moral intuitions, and Il burden to christian
faith.
He held to the strength and the intcgeity
of the government of God; that all sin will
be properly punished; but he did not he
lievo in material hell fire; nor in the terri
BILE ideas Of future torment that have
come down from the past. Such teachings
negate the very idea of God. flood pun
ishes sinners, II Is because he must. He is
vindicatory but not vindictive. He is a
righteous being, and righteous sovereign,
but he is not malicious murderer.
The doctor held to the endessness of the
law by which sin must be punished, and
hence to endless punishment for the end
lessly obdurate, if such there be; but he
could not affirm that any soul WILL or will
not, forever remain in sin nor deny endless
punishment for any soul. But, postuating
endless punishment upon endless SHINING,
he was logically bound to suppose that ii
the SHINING come to an end, the suffering
must also come to an end-unlcSs it be that
suffering of loss that in the nature of things
seems to be remedilcss. And he had hope
that, somehow, all the divine love and
| striving to win and save souls will not end
with this poor, short life, but that the work
of discipline and salvation might go on in
the immortal world.
In regard to
ENDLESS PUNISHMENT
lie held that there is not one word in the
, articles of religion about endless punish
ment, nor about future punishment. Nor
was there one word on this subject in the
apostles creed, nor the Niccnc creed Nor
was there word in the thirty-ninc articles
ofthc Church of England on the subject
! That church inserted an article affirming
endless punishment, and carried il eleven
years and then dropped it, So it was in the
days of Wesley, and it is to he noted that
/ Wesley in framing the articles of religion for
the Methodist Episcopal church did not in
scrt the article, nor did he anywhere make
any allusion toit, This omission was GER
tainly intentional, and not accidental. And
this view was strengthened by the we'll
known fact that Wesley was deeply attach
cd to the MOravian ministers, who were
generally rcstOrationists, and especially to
/ Peter Boohcr, who declared that the time
would come when every lost soul in hell
would be redeemed, and that Wesley him
self in his latter years came into n broader
hope for all mankind.
| He held that the church had no law by
which to cXpel him for his views of future
lluut. II nus Dttll utNlutl ny lllt UlEHtSl
courts of England that minister of the
established church could not be disciplined
for not believing in endless punishment
that the church had no law requiring that
belief Nor was there any such law in the
Methodist church. The Methodist church
| as yet was iavorably conditioned to be an
example of tolerance.
| The doctor claimed that there were
1 WRONG IMPRESSIONS
= as to his having brought the present trial
upon the conference. He had been pushed
! into defense, and had not sought IL. lie
had found il necessary to defend the church
against the attacks of Colonel lngcrsoll and
others, and he had, in order to the best de-
Tense Of truth and the doctrines ofMethod-
ism to protest against hypcr-prthodoxy
and too literal and material Interpretation
of the scriptures and certain Antinomian
teachings that were too common.
He characterized M false and unfair the
statement. Of DR.. Parkhurst, 'that DIR.
Thomas docs not intend to stay in the
| Methodist church. All he wants is the glo-
ry of your approval to turn his back on
you and walk out and leave you and 90 to
his audience in the theatre in triumph.
This is hi, object in forcing this trial upon
the church; this is the whole of it,"
The long address closed Us follows:
And now, brethren, | have tried to set
this case before you rs plainly rs possible.
! am not in conflict with our articles of re-
ligion on the question of the scriptures and
the atonement. You have no law by which
to expcl me for my teachings concerning
future punishment. Had you such a law,
YOU would then have the dcnominational
right to do so; but II would not be so rcadi-
ly conceded in these days that you have a