The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1883-07-12
DR.. McKim's Views on Future Pun
iShment.
To the Editor Of the Ne,o York Times

To the Editor Of the Nel0 York Times.
My attention has been called to a communal
cation signed ~ which appeared IN your col
umns on May 80, which does injustice to my
friend Dr. Mckim and put This supporters in
sition. therefore beg leave to give some facts
which will disprove the charge that 1--WE in
tended to keep secret his views If we could,'
and which Will place Dr.. Mcl>m in the right
light before the public
| was very desIrouS to have DR.. Mcliim elected
to the office of Assistant Bishop OF Virginia. be-
lieving he was the best man for the place. But
having heard it is said that he held erroneous
views on the question of future punishment, l
wrote and asked him to state what his views
really were, the subject never having been dis
cusSed between us.
Dr. McKim sent the inclosed reply which was
written to me individually, and which | am
sure he intended to be private, and never con-
templated its being read in the Council of the
diocese. Nor did intend so to use it. But when
his opinions were challenged by a member OF
the Council, knowing that DR.. McKim had no
wish to conceal them, and remembering that
he had so expressed himself in the letter itself,
felt that in justice to himself and to the diocese
| was at liberty to read a part OF it, which part
regarded as the giSt OF his argument, and that
all the rest was but an elaboration. l now re-
gret that did not read the whole of the letter,
as ! am confident, in that case, his position
would not have been so grossly misunderstood
as it has been. And accordingly, having OBJ
tanned his consent, now ask The TIMES, in JUS
tice to all parties to publish the entire letter,
which disposes of the unworthy insinuations
against the author
Your correspondent tx y goes on to speak of
q "McKim movement" in our late Council. III
there was an organized movement to elect any
body did not know it, and do know that Dr.:
McKim was nominated by the Rev. Mr.. Powell
spontaneously without any preconcert what
ever. X. j. MCBRl DE,
Rector Grace Memorial Church, Lexington, Va.
WEDNESDAY, June IL, 1888.
NEW YORK. March s..
MY DEAR BROTHER: / have been on the sick
list for week, otherwise should have answered
your letter sooner
You ask my belief with reference to the awful
subject of future punishment. might answer
in word. bow to the teaching OF Jesus Christ
and his Apostles absolutely. But that might
appear an evasion. Let me say, then, believe
the wicked are reserved unto the Judgment OF
ing 10 the deeds done, not in the intermediate
state but in the body. believe the sentence
then pronounced will be final and irrevocable,
and that it will be to everlasting punishment"
SO far all is clear
If you ask what is meant by everlasting pun
ishment you enter at once upon debatable
ground. For, first, do not think the Scriptures
clearly teach that the wicked shall suffer tor
ever d. e., do not see it clearly taught tand |
am thankful do not) that sin and Satan and
hell and the torments OF the damned are as
eternal as God Himself! And second, incline
to the opinion that q true eXegesis, unshackled
by philosophy or traditional beliefs, indicates
that absolute Immortality is the gift of God in
Jesus Christ to all who receive Him. 1.-The
wages of sin is death; the gift of God is eternal
ife.'' If this be the true interpretation then it
will follow not that God ultimately annihlates
the wicked man, but that He, having suffered
that indefinitely long punishment pronounced
conscious being l find no difficulty in har-
monizing this view with the most awful de-
nunciatfons of Gods Word
have no hesitation in saying it seems to me
the most likely Interpretation, and | do not
care who knows that so regard it.. But do not
hold 1t as an article OF faith; should not pre-
sumo to teach it dogmatically; should not at
firm positively-as did in Il sermon preached
five years ago-that Ibelieve this the doctrine
of Christ and His Apostles. | prof oundly fee
the folly of dogmatizlng on such theme-only
SO far as the Scripture leads me by the hand can
nj hog fD1 n rNfp ifcy .fnt,n
But hold back when am required to accept
certain Interpretation of Scripture as a thing as
the dark when we get upon such theories.
Hence my practice is to use the words of
Scripture in my teaching, no more, no less, and
lettne Holy Spirit apply them as He will.
nOn the other hand refuse to allow that Scrip
lure binds me to believe in the absolute eternity
OF sin and hell and the devils and the lost in
hell. An absolute eternity of conscious woe in
hell is not clearly revealed in Scripture, and l
Will not teach It; nor will commend myself to
any mans good opinion by denying that sound
exegesis seems to allow us to hope that evil Will
not be as eternal as the throne OF God, and that
the wicked may in a far-off eternity having
ceived the due measure of their deeds and hav-
ing refused eternal life, perish out OF conscious
being. am, very truly yours, II. II. MCk1M.
The Rev. X. ]. MCBRYDE.
L. S.-S1nce writing the above it occurs to me
III perusing it how vain it is to put ones thought
another thing, we talk glibly OF ''eternity'' and
eternal punishment but do we know what these
words mean? The Bible contains no definition
OF eternity must be not only vague, but incom-
plete and inaccurate. Is it any wonder, then,
that we stumble in trying to draw out definite
dogmas aboutit? We know this life is our pro-
bation We know it involves a tremendous
sponsibility. We know that the penalty of re-
Jectmg Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit is
terrible. and reversible, irrevocable, and ire
mediable. What more do we know? What
more do we need to preach? TOO much dog
matizng on this and other questions has made
multitudes OF unbelievers and hypocrites. But,
my dear brother, write all this only out of re-
gard for your wishes. | would not have you
misunderstood my position. Neither do l de-
sire you to vindicate nor explain it. My indie
pendence OF thought and the sacredness OF my
convictions are OF far greater import to me than
any possible preferment. The position of honor
which you desire for me is one l would not
seek. am contented with the responsibilities
of the ministry as now hold it. In these days.
episcopal ambition ought not to be very hard to
resist. II my supposed opinions on this subject
stand in the way OF my advancement, so be it,
ana SO much the better for me- The honor would
be great, but the burden would be heavy and the
once hard to fill. Let me fill the humble place
OF parish minister. 1t is honor and joy enough
for me. And think can say would not sac
rlhce the truth as God reveals it to me for forty
bishopries