A HOARY ERROR ABANDONED.
By Charles B. Reynolds
BY ELD. CHAS. B. REYNOLDS. The Rev. Myron Adams of Plymouth Church (Congregational) Rochester, N. Y., one of the most able and respected of the city's clergy, and pastor of a large, wealthy and influential church, on a late Sunday morning and evening edified and startled his hearers by declaring his change of views relating to the future punishment of the wicked. He declared his belief that God is in the Bible described as too merciful a being to doom any to the horrors of an everlasting hell. The greatest excitement prevails. The following is the leader from the Rochester Express of Tuesday, May 18:— One of the most prominent clergymen in this city has “come out,” as people say, in opposition to the doctrine of eternal punishment. The gentleman is so well and so favorably known here that any expression of opinion from him is sure to command attention, and to deserve it. This will be especially the case on a subject of so much importance as the one named. Into the theological aspect of the case we cannot, of course, enter. But there are certain aspects of the question possessing so much general interest that they cannot well be passed over in silence. Is doubt on this doctrine in circles heretofore called orthodox confined to this gentleman and such members of his church as share in his views? This is a topic in which all our citizens are interested, and on which they have a right to be informed. Our esteemed contemporary, the Rochester Herald, in some remarks on this declaration of a Rochester pastor, speaks as follows: “Not that it would be difficult to find a number of clergymen in nearly every large town who hold irregular views on the subject of eternal punishment.” Does this city contain any of these men? We suppose it has its quota, if the above remark is true. These preachers holding “irregular views” ought to explain their position. They ought to inform us in what this “irregularity” that they indulge in, consists. Protestants complain of the Catholic Church because it refuses the cup to the laity and grants it to the priest. But are Protestant clergymen allowing themselves the luxury of doubting any doctrine that they choose in private and refusing this comfort to the laity? Many persons feel compelled, by certain scruples as to articles of faith, to leave a church to which they are tenderly attached. Others are kept outside its pale and deprived of its consolations from the same cause. Do preachers feel the same anxieties, the same hesitation, the same doubt, and keep it all secret? This charge is often made even more emphatically than by our contemporary above named. It should be boldly met. We think the present occasion one of which the evangelical clergy of Rochester could very well take advantage to define their position and proclaim it. Let the people know how they stand, not in vague and general terms, but exactly, so that there shall be no mistake. It is very easy for a man to say that he believes or disbelieves a certain statement. Or, if he has not made up his mind, it is not difficult to state that fact. The clergyman whose recent sermon has made this ecclesiastical sensation deserves credit, it is said, for his moral courage. But this is a virtue so essential to the first element of manliness, to say nothing of Christianity, that it would seem almost an insult to praise a minister of the gospel for possessing it. This minister in particular would, we are sure, disclaim very earnestly having done more than his duty in announcing to his people at the first opportunity the results of his investigations. Speaking of courage, it will require just as much of this quality, perhaps, for the orthodox clergy to avow their continued belief in the doctrine of eternal punishment as was needed in the case to which we have referred to pronounce against that dogma. The old-fashioned belief on that point is not at present popular, which, of course, is not saying that it is false or that it is true. But considering all the elements of the situation, the excitement in one of our leading churches on this subject, the remarks of our contemporary, a very correct exponent of public opinion in most cases, and the general theological unrest of the community, we do not see how the clergy of this city can well avoid defining their position on this subject. Let us redouble our diligence in laboring in the tract and missionary field, sowing the truth in humble prayer, and the Lord will give the increase,