Methodist Ministers on Future Punishment.
A very lively interest has been awakened in the New York Methodist ministers’ meeting, on the subject of future punishment. These meetings are held every Monday, in the Mission Rooms of the Methodist Book Concern, Broadway and Eleventh St. The following is the report of the meeting, Monday, Dec. 30:— Rev. Mr. Terry of Poughkeepsie presented the commonly accepted view. He interpreted the affair of Dives and Lazarus as a statement of fact instead of a parable, which is now the almost universal understanding of it, and concluded that the wicked will suffer a torture that shall never end, and that the final state of the wicked is one of everlasting suffering and anguish. Rev. Dr. True was then called for. Dr. True is an able man, highly cultured, and, for some years, a professor at Middletown. He said he had written a review of the question for the Methodist Quarterly, which it had been thought best not to publish, as productive of controversy. He said he was not an annihilationist but a destructionist. Annihilation is the destruction of the material of which man is made, and would require the same exertion of power on the part of the Almighty as the creation of matter. The penalty of the incorrigibly wicked will be the destruction of his conscious existence; a total cessation of all his functions. Man was designed to live forever. He was naturally immortal; the penalty of the law was the destruction of this immortality. There were three great men at three great epochs of the world through whom the divine will was given to man—Adam, Moses and Christ. With the law the penalty of violating the law should be given, and if you do not find the penalty58of eternal punishment given by either of these in direct terms, do not look to parables, figures of speech, or the meaning of words. Dr. True was interrupted several times by Rev. Drs. Curry and Corbett, and severely condemned by them for bringing his views before the meeting. Rev. Dr. Crawford, Rev. George Lansing Taylor, and others, argued that the discussions should be free to all, and that it was best to meet and controvert strange doctrines or acknowledge their force; they defended Dr. True for speaking, as he had done so by invitation solely, though they differed totally from his views. The sentiment of the majority of the preachers seemed to be in favor of allowing a liberal range to discussion. A committee of three was appointed to consider the matter and report rules for the government of the discussions. The following is the report of the meeting, Jan. 5, as given in the New York World:— “The Methodist preachers of New York and vicinity held their regular weekly meeting in the Mission Rooms of the Methodist Book Concern, Broadway and Eleventh street. The following questions were proposed for discussion at the next regular meeting: Shall the wicked be finally destroyed? Will the wicked in hell finally become extinct? Are the future punishments of the wicked permanent? Are the conscious punishments of the wicked endless, or are the punishments of the wicked in hell parallel to the eternal bliss of the righteous in heaven? An elderly gentleman said that there was a disposition to ignore this subject of hell. The foundation of the church stands upon this question. If there is danger, let the people see it. Why shut out the light? During the past week I have been approached by the members of my congregation, saying, “I see that the Methodists are dropping their eternal damnation.” If the punishment of the wicked is not endless, then the joy of the righteous is not. One doctrine stands with the other. If the views promulgated by Dr. True be allowed to go unanswered it will make me desperate. My very soul is absorbed. It’s an awful thing with me. I propose the following: Do the Scriptures give hope that the wicked shall finally cease to exist? (Cries of “Put him out!”) Dr. True said that it was without any intervention on his part that he was called upon to speak. He had been patient to present his views to the public. For seven years he had taught them to his flock with good results. I did not think that when I spoke I endangered the souls of those present. If you want to reach the point I propose that the following proposition be discussed: “That the eternal future of the wicked is not the eternal consciousness of sin and misery;” or, “Is death, eternal death, eternal punishment?” Mr. Corbett asked how punishment could be eternal if the soul ceases to exist. Dr. True—There must be a difference between utter nothingness and destruction. For instance, a house can be destroyed, or a tree, but it is a something. I am so sanguine of my views that I believe the whole Christian church will sooner or later embrace them. If the other question does not meet your approbation, try this: “Does the future punishment of the wicked imply their eternal consciousness?” (Hisses.) An excited member here sprang to his feet, saying: “We had too much of this at the last meeting, and the notices of the press have occasioned considerable talk. There is danger. (Cries of “Amen.”) We are now to startle the religious community for ten weeks to come, when we should devote our efforts to something higher. The devil is rubbing his hands gleefully; he has never had a better chance than the present. If this question be adopted I must read up on hell instead of warning sinners from the wrath to come. Are we to begin the year with this devilish or hellish excitement? I have no objection that this theme be discussed in March. I see reporters present from this city, from Brooklyn, Jersey City, Newark, and other neighboring places. I am not in favor of the discussion of this question with open doors.” Mr. Corbett said there was no use ignoring the subject. It will not interfere with the salvation of souls. Mr. Wesley did not hesitate to speak of hell and damnation; why should we? Perhaps there may be greater ones here than he. I think this question should be discussed for the salvation of souls. If the doctrine of destruction be accepted I go about carelessly; but make punishment eternal and I go along carefully. I do not pretend to be an angel. I am liable to err, but when the doctrines of the church are assailed, I rise to arms for its defense. You tell me to be calm. I cannot when that which is so dear to me is wronged. I know that the discussion will do good. The reason why we do not get along faster is because we do not have enough hell in our religion. A vote was then taken on Mr. McAllister’s motion to lay the question on the table, which was lost. A tall gentleman addressed the assemblage. He was sorry that it was said that the church was ambiguous. It would be unfortunate if a question of such moment be not discussed. He was not in favor of having the reporters admitted. The press tomorrow would have the proceedings of this meeting, and the world at large would see that we are afraid to touch this subject of hell. If a brother is so low as to be afraid of altering his views by a discussion, I recommend that he stay at home and pray. In Wesley’s time they preached sermons on subjects like these: “A few groans from hell,” or “A nut for damned sinners to crack.” I hope we will act like sensible men and not as children. We should not shirk from this question. I go in for fair play. (A voice, “Hallelujah!”) The next speaker said that if a little intellectual investigation be denied they would go where it would not be denied. One of the greatest hindrances in the cause of God is that the people are not impressed enough with hell. This preachers’ meeting should speak with no uncertain sound. We want truth. (Cries of “Glory!”) I want this question discussed next Monday, and to be continued until finally disposed of. (A voice, “Put him out!”) I shall not be frowned down. Another reverend doctor did not think that this question was one of the doctrines of the Methodist church, neither did he know that he was in a manufactory of Methodist doctrines and creeds. The house built by those shining lights of our church, he said, was built. Shall we take out the foundation stone and show it to the world? (Cries of “No!”) We owe something to our people. They have their convictions fixed. Are we authorized to alter them? (Cries of “Yes!”) The motion to postpone the debate until the first Monday in March was lost—twenty-seven to nineteen. A gentleman moved that when they do adjourn it will be to meet the first Monday in March. Rev. Dr. Roach asked, Why do we propose to discuss the question at this time? Is it proper to doubt that the future happiness of the pure be everlasting? I have no doubt that Mr. Corbett will do the subject full justice. Hell was preached three or four hundred years ago, and discussed with avidity. It is now settled. The wicked shall be turned into hell. I believe that nothing but evil will come by the discussion of this theme. Have we the authority to discuss questions like these in public? (A voice “Sit down.”) These meetings have been reported broadcast. We are not justified in these open proceedings. The motion to lay the whole subject on the table was lost by a vote of twenty-seven to twenty-eight. Rev. Mr. Merwin, the chairman, said that he could not afford to allow so much waste of precious time. Rev. Dr. Curry said that he wanted to waste a little. I express myself decidedly against the discussion. That a representative body of Methodists should gather together and act so unwisely was to be deprecated. It is humiliating to view this question in the light of the profane. That a body of ministers unknown as to their ecclesiastical polity should here discuss the very foundation of Methodism is horrible. If this discussion be allowed, I desire to have my name stricken from the rolls. It should most certainly not be in public, but should be done in private, logically and learnedly. I confess that people have been educated by these meetings through the press. But we do ourselves a serious harm by crudely discussing such a momentous question without due deliberation. I believe that the reports as given by the press of these meetings are substantially correct. But this question will damage ourselves and those who look to us for influence. Mr. Buckley said he did not attach any importance to any member who says he would be influenced by these questions, which are sometimes spoken of gravely, other times in ribaldry. We are not afraid to grapple with this question. I hail this glorious time. Many things have been said against me. I fall back on my reputation to save me from the false reports circulated against me. Several years ago a question of similar import was discussed in Boston. It lasted three or four months, and was very exciting. But when completed it was found that but two members dissented from the orthodox views. Dr. True said he appeared before them by accident—providentially, perhaps. At the last meeting there was but one who stood by me. (A voice—“You brought him in.”) I have not advanced a principle contrary to Methodism, but only a modification. We are not stereotyped in the principles of John Wesley. We live in an age of reform—in a progressive age. I, too, doubt whether this is the proper place to discuss. I want no angry controversy. During the seven years that I have accepted this theory of destruction I have converted four hundred and fifty souls. I have not lost an iota of my interest for the salvation of mankind. A motion was here made that the whole subject be postponed, amid cries of “We want no gag-law here.” The motion was lost by a vote of thirty to twelve. The question will therefore be taken up for discussion next Monday.