Familiar letters to a brother

Front matter

UNITED STATES OF AMEEIOA. !

TO A

brother;

Dedication

is the only one of the kind, known by the writer, to exist in the Mississippi Valley, as the little cloud, seen by Elijah's servant, "like a man's hand" 1st. Kings 18: 44, rising in the WEST: (the Mediterranean Sea, out of which it arose, lies west of Mt. Carmel, from which the little cloud was seen.)

May it spread like that, and covering the moral heavens, send forth refreshing showers of truth until the " desert shall bud and blossom as the rose."

Mount Hygiene April 1844.

Preface

human beings: — one is, to be eternally miserable; — a second, to be destroyed or lose their conscious existence; — and the third is, to be restored from sin and sorrow to holiness and happiness. The latter, is advocated in these familiar epistles, it is hoped, with a becoming spirit and due respect for the opinions of others.

The lovers of truth will not reject it for coming in a plain dress, as the charms of real beauty are better appreciated in a simple garb.

The limits of this little book do not admit of bringing forward all the proofs which might be adduced in favor of the doctrine advocated, nor of considering all the objections which may be urged against it. The object is to present, in a concise manner, some of the most prominent objections, and answer them; together with a few reasons for adopting a faith " every where spoken against."

The reader should not expect therefore, that every difficulty will be met and removed, and the writer has no expectation that every reader will arrive at his conclusions; nor does he think

PREFACE.

VII the salvation, either of himself or others, depends upon the adoption of his doctrinal views; but that " repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" with obedience to his commands, will ensure to all who comply with these terms, an exemption from condemnation in this life and in the life to come.

It would be uncharitable indeed, to conclude that all must be lost who do not believe in our peculiar theory. Still, it is a great blessing to know the truth respecting the character and purposes of God, as our dispositions and practices will be likely to accord with our opinions.

That both the reader and writer of this book may so live, as to have a conscience void of offence before God and man, is the devout prayer of the

AUTHOR.

I

FIRST SERIES.

I

Letter I

Mount Hygiene, Clermont Co. Ohio;

Dear Brother:

You seem to think that if the Restoration doctrine be true, there is no need of religion; that is, if the human familyis all to be made holy and consequently happy, there is no need of their being purified from sin. Such a supposition arises from a misconception of the sentiment. You might as well say, that because the Lord has declared, that " every knee shall bow and every tongue confess," therefore it is not necessary there should be any bowing and confessing.

The doctrine is not, that mankind will be saved in Sin, but /rcwi Sin. Neither do Restorationists believe that any thing but the Spirit of God in Christ can, or will cleanse the soul from moral pollution, but believing as the Scriptures declare, that " God will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth," 1st Tim.

p

ON RESTORATIGNISM.

2: 4; and that Christ came into the world, suffered and died, to accomplish that will; he must either succeed or be disappointed.

Restorationists think that as he has " all power in heaven and earth," Matt. 28: 18, and is the " Power of God and the Wisdom of God" he cannot be frustrated in carrying out the divine purpose; but must ultimately succeed ii " subduing all things unto himself" 1st. Cor. 15: 28, " through the blood of the cross," Coll. 1. 20. Yet this universal subjugation does not conflict with the idea of a righteous retribution according to our works; nor does it follow that every one will receive the same reward; for that is to be " according to the works," and the works being limited; the rewards to be according to them, must be limited also.

It will be asked then, will the rewards of the righteous be limited? It is answ r ered yes; because their works, however good, are still limited.

On what principle then, we shall again be asked, will Eternal Life be enjoyed? The reply is, on the principle of a gift; no one deserving it on the ground of works, " lest any man should boast." Eph. 2: 9.

Will every one then receive a full reward in this life and all be equally happy at the general

FAMLIAR LETTERS resurrection? — Restorationists say not. They believe that those who live and die in sin, will rise to condemnation; that the degree of condemnation and suffering will be proportionate to the degree of guilt in each individual; that the Eternal state does not immediately supervene. But that the Resurrection, Judgment, and Retribution, though they will take place in a future state, it is not properly the eternal one, but belongs to that kingdom which will be exhibited when Christ comes the second time, or last dispensation of time: that before this kingdom will be given up to the Father, all will stand " before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the things done in the body," 2 Cor. 5: 10: then, a righteous retribution will be awarded to each class. The present is therefore, the state of probation, and the time of the Saviour's second advent, will be the season of retribution. The two terms probation and retribution are by no means synonymous; the former signifying a state of trial, and the latter, that of rewards in reference to the manner of our using that state of trial.

For want of seeing this difference, some suppose that Restorationists hold to a second probation. They do hold, however, that where crea-

ON RESTORATIONISM.

tures are so circumstanced that they cannot know the truth in this life, it will be communicated to them in another; but there is no guilt without wilful transgression.

Why then should my Brother conclude that if misery should come to an end at some future unknown period, there is no need of being religious now ?

I confidently trust that when those who now oppose the Restoration sentiment lay aside their prejudices and give to the subject that careful and prayerful attention its importance demands, they will discover higher motives prompting to religion than the fear of Eternal Torments.

You may possibly hear from me again on this interesting subject when I have leisure to write; until then, youlnay rest assured my daily prayers will ascend to the merciful Creator for your present and future prosperity.

D. P.

Letter II

Mount Hygiene, July 24th, 1841. Dear Brother:

In a former letter, I considered the common, although erroneous conclusion, that a belief in the final Restoration superseded the necessity of present religion, and remarked that such an idea arose from a misconception of the sentiment.

My reason for commencing our correspondence with a consideration of this objection is because it presents itself among the first, to those who take but a superficial view of the subject.

There are other objections which I consider much more weighty, although to my mind, not insuperable; — such as the strong and terrific terms used in Scripture in reference to future punishment; for instance, the words everlasting, forever, forever and ever &c; which, at first view, seem to indicate ceaseless perpetuity.

ON RESTORATIONISM.

Had these terms been always used by the inspired writers, in an unlimited sense, there would be an end at once to the controversy; or rather, the controversy would never have been commenced. But as we find them frequently applied to subjects of a. temporal nature, in the Bible, we can ascertain their import only by the nature of the subject to which they are applied.

When therefore, the expressions are used in reference to the Priesthood of Aaron, the Covenant of Circumcision, the possession of Canaan by the Israelites, and even to the mountains and the hills; they can not be properly understood in an unlimited sense. But when applied to the Almighty; or his ways, the signification should not be limited, for the very plain reason, that the subject is not.

This position being settled, the next enquiry should be; do these awful denunciations, so often put forth in the Bible against the ungodly, refer to their eternal destiny in the immortal state, or to the condition in which they will find themselves at a future period of time, within the bounds of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ ?

On the solution of this question depends very much, the decision of the controversy between Restorationists and their opposers. It is therefore, a question of great importance, and should be examined with care and candor.

The limits of a letter are too contracted to admit of a thorough examination of this point. I will however cite a few passages which clearly shew the distinction between the limited and unlimited kingdom. 1st. Cor. 15: 24, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." Verse 28, " And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Rev, 3: 21. " To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

There are many other similar passages which an attentive student of the Sacred Oracles will readily recognise, as shewing this important distinction, without a proper understanding of which, the most sincere minds, however piously devoted, will labor under great difficulty.

If then it can be made apparent, that the Resurrection, Judgment and Retribution, are all to take place before the kingdom is given up to

ON RESTORATIONISM.

the Father; we shall be able to see how all the terrible threatenings of God, against the impenitent, may be executed through the administration of the Son, during his reign as Mediator, without including the dreadful idea of perpetual never ending misery,

In some future communication, should I bo spared, you may expect to see other branches of this important subject noticed. Until then, I remain your affectionate bi other, not only in the flesh but I trust also, in the Lord.

D. P.

2#

Letter III

Louisville Ky. July 29th. 1841. Dear Brother:

Although no reply to my former letter has yet come to hand, I continue to address you on the same subject; it being one that lies nearest my heart, and concerning which, I am anxious you should have a correct understanding.

The many false representations made by those who oppose the Restoration doctrine, render it necessary that a correct view of it should be presented, and also that the objections brought against it, should be met and treated with candor.

I will therefore, in this epistle, take notice of that one predicated on the sin against the Holy Ghost.

The objector asks, how can those ever be brought into heaven, whose sin will not be forgiven neither in this world nor the world to

ON RESTORATIONISM.

come? Matt. 12: 32. Answer: — This text is, by some learned commentators, said to have reference to the Jews, who in the time of Christ, sinned against the Holy Ghost, by imputing his miracles to the agency of Belzabub; and that the Saviour meant, they should not be forgiven in that age, nor in the age following. The original Greek word rendered ivorld in our translation, they say, might have been as properly rendered age.

How this may be I can not say, not being myself acquainted with the original language; but as it is said in Mark 3: 29, that this sin hath never forgiveness, we must seek another solution.

We will then suppose that the Jews are not exclusively those who have committed that sin; but that any one rejecting the evidence of truth, sent home to the conscience by the convincing power of the Holy Spirit, commits the sin unto death; 1 John 5: 16, which I understand to be the same sin, and the death mentioned in this text, to be the second death. If then, the sinner die the second death, as the penalty for committing that sin, it would be improper to say he is forgiven; because when a culprit is forgiven, he does not suffer the penalty at all, but is exempted from it altogether. Take the following as an illustration, suppose a man commit an offence for which he is condemned to suffer ten years imprisonment; if his crime he forgiven, he does not suffer that punishment, — if not forgiven, he does. Suppose again, that after he has endured the full amount of what he deserved for hiscrime, the governor should give him a generous present; would it follow that he had been forgiv* en the crime for which he had suffered; or that by suffering, he had paid the governor for the present ? — not at all. The punishment was what he deserved for the crime he committed. It was no equivalent for the gift; — that being a spontaneous act of mercy on the part of the donor.

So the misery which the wicked will suffer, will only be a just retribution for their past sins, and constitutes no claim on God for deliverance, which when effected, will be on the principle of Grace, and not of debt.

Re itorationists believe that some will die the second death, but do not think it will be endless miser;/. They suppose it will con ist of extreme suffering in future, arising from a consciousness of guilt contracted in this life; yet, as the last enemy is to be destroyed, 1st. Cor. 15: 26, which i; Death, and the second death being later than the first; it must be the last enemy.

OK RESTORATIONISM.

If so, and the last enemy will ever be destroyed; it follows, that its subjects must be delivered from its power; and as death is not a creature, but want of life in a creature; there is no way of destroying death but by giving the creature life. Should the second death prey upon its subjects to all eternity, how can that declaration be fulfilled, recorded in Rev. 21: 4, 5 ? " And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. ,,

My brother is perhaps not satisfied with what I have written on this objection; because it is said in the passage quoted from Mark 3: 29, that those who commit that sin are in danger of eternal damnation. On this point my ignorance of the Greek obliges me to rely on what others say: — they tell me, that the word translated here Eternal, is the same as that rendered, in other places, by terms which do not imply endless duration. If this be true; we are still left, as in other cases, to determine its import by the nature of the subject.

It appears to me therefore, that our decision should rest on some surer basis than the use of any one word; especially one which is used in different senses, and that if the inspired writers had intended to convey the idea of interminable woe, they would have used such language, as could not have been misunderstood, and not such as is often applied to things of a limited nature.

In my next you may expect something more on the objections made to the doctrine of the final Restoration; until then, believe me

Your affectionate Brother,

D. P.

ON RESTORATIONISM.

Letter IV

Having in my last letter, considered the sin against the Holy Ghost, and given what appeared a reasonable solution of that subject; I thought that you might want to hear what could be said, by a Restorationist, about paying the last mite, Luke 12: 59, or as it is in Matt. 5: 26, uttermost farthing.

The objector says, the impenitent sinner being turned into hell an insolvent debtor, and forever sinking deeper and deeper into debt, will never be able to pay, and therefore can never come out; or if he should be ever brought out, he would be under obligations to Hell and Devils for salvation, and not to Jesus Christ.

Now this all results from not understanding the subject on which the Saviour is speaking.

Let us now refer to the passages, and we shall be better able to understand them. Matt. 5: 25, " Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." Verse 26, " Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Now, turn to Luke 12: 58, 59. " When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite."

The word magistrate, in the quotation from Luke, may serve as a key by which to unlock the whole subject. The adversary to be conciliated is the legal creditor, to whom the debtor should propose a settlement by compromise or arbitration, without allowing the case to go to court; because if permitted to take that course, (as there is no mercy in law,) the debtor will have to pay, not only the original debt, but also the interest and costs of suit. Our Saviour intended by this, to guard his followers against

ON RESTORATIONISM.

going to law, and to inculcate the principles of mutual, honest and peaceful intercourse. In like manner, Paul deprecates the practice of suing among christians. 6 1 Brother goeth to law with brother, and that, before the unjust." This, to my mind, is a very simple and plain exposition of the passages above refered to, which some think favor the doctrine of endless misery.

But should the objector not be satisfied, and still insist, that those scriptures allude to the condition of wicked beings in a future state; he is requested to inform us, why the word until is used ? A term like this, expressive of limitation, does not convey the idea of endless duration; which would have been more clearly conveyed by the expression, never come out.

The objector is also desired to say, what will be the last mite of that which will never end ?

As in my former communications, so in this, I have avoided circumlocution; wishing to lead the mind of the objector to discover at once, that his difficulty arises from a misconception and consequent misapplication of the passages on which the objection is founded, without encumbering the subject with unnecessary verbiage.

I am well assured that honest minds are often 3 led into error, for want of carefully examining particular texts with reference to the subject spoken of, and the context with which they stand immediately connected.

If the explanation given of the foregoing texts be correct, you can not but see that the objection falls, and that the passages quoted, instead of supporting endless misery, teach the duty of living in peace, and avoiding litigation.

You do right, my brother, in bringing forward all the objections you can, against the doctrine in question, for whilst they remain concealed in the mind, — not seeing how they can be removed — there will be a drawback upon the enjoyment arising from a clear conviction of the truth of the final Restoration; an event for which all christians pray, although they can not pray for it in faith, unless they believe it will take place.

When therefore, the difficulties are all examined, and we discover how they can be removed without sacrificing either Scripture or reason; our faith is no longer implicit, but founded on satisfactory evidence.

You may look for more letters on this important subject. In hope that these simple and familiar epistles may be acceptable to you, and praying that we may be preserved from error,

ON RESTORATIONISM.

and made free by the truth; I remain, as heretofore, your brother in the bonds of christian love.

D. P.

N. B. If the adversary, with whom we are to agree, is to be understood in a spiritual sense; will it not follow, that we should agree with the Devil ? For according to Peter, the devil is the " adversary going about seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5: 8. " Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." He is therefore our adversary in a spiritual sense, whom the Apostle commands us to " resist steadfast in the faith." Verse 9.

FAMLIAR LETTERS

Letter V

I do not wait, you see, to receive answers to my letters, or to know certainly that they are agreeable to you; but taking it for granted that you will not consider me intrusive, and being desirous you should understand the views of a denomination every where spoken against; I still continue to address you, occupying one letter with the examination of one objection.

In this, I shall take notice of a very common declaration; that there is no repentance after death, and that as the tree falls so it lies. Although I have not yet been able to find exactly this language in the Bible, it is proper we should ascertain, if possible, its authenticity.

There is a passage in Ecclesiastes 9: 10, which probably is intended to be quoted. It

ON RESTORATIONISM.

reads thus; " Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." It however does not follow, that because there are none of these operations and principles in the grave, that therefore there will be no lepentance after death.

Restorationists do not hold that the final redemption of men will take place while they are in their graves; but that Christ having passed through death and the grave, and having "tasted death for every man, by the grace of God," Heb. 2: 9, will deliver every man from their power; and that their final subjugation will be effected by the spirit of God in Christ, causing "every knee to bow and every tongue to swear," Isaiah 45: 23; which bowing and swearing is acknowledging allegiance to God, and as it does not take place with all in this life, it must in another. And it is reasonable to suppose that they will be sorry for their past sins and will repent of them; not while they are dead, but after the resurrection.

As to the other part of the declaration concerning the tree lying where it falls, the text intended to be quoted, I suppose is Ecclesiastes

11: 3, to understand which, we should read the 3 * first and second in connexion. The whole three read thus; " Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days. Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth. If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth; and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth there it shall be." This piece of Solomon's writings is intended to set forth the duty of giving alms, enforced by the beautiful similitude of the clouds giving out their contents to nourish the earth; so we should do to those who stand in need, not only because it is right to do so, but also because we know not what evil may befall us. We may ourselves stand in need of assistance, although we may now be above want, misfortune may overtake us. We should therefore, " do good as we have opportunity" to those in want, trusting in God, who will not forget " our labors of love;" but in his kind providence will amply reward us, although it may be " after many days."

The fallen tree is then brought in by way of contrast, the more strongly to enforce the duty, as though he had said; cast your bread upon the waters, or bestow charity on the poor, it will be

ON RESTORATIONISM.

restored to you in some way at a future period. It will not be like a tree that falls to the earth, which will lie where it falls, whether it be toward the south or toward the north. You see brother, what becomes of the objection above noticed.

Still, according to Restoration principles, mankind will be found at the Resurrection, in the same moral state in which they die, unless they experience a change in an intermediate state between death and the resurrection. On this subject there is a difference of opinion among Restorationists; — some believing in a conscious intermediate state, — and others, considering it an unconscious state. But all holding, that without a change of moral condition in those who die in sin, there can be no Restoration for them.

Those who oppose the sentiment, take it for granted, that the eternal condition of every individual is fixed the moment he dies. If this be so, the doctrine falls at once; for common sense teaches, and the Scripture declares, that " without holiness, no man shall see the Lord." But admitting the common orthodox view, what need is there of a future Judgment; it can not alter the condition of any ? And what becomes

FAMIUAR LETTERS of all infants, together with all the myriads that have never heard of the Saviour in this life, (being so circumstanced as to render it impossible they should;) are they all to be swept away with the besom of destruction ?

If a knowledge of God and Christ be essential to salvation, such knowledge must be communicated in a future state, or they must all be lost. The mind revolts at such an idea. This is a very serious point, and should be well considered.

Hoping that we shall all arrive at the truth on this, and every other branch of the doctrine, I bid you adieu, with my sincere prayers for your present and everlasting happiness.

D. P.

ON RESTORATIONISM.

LETTER VL

Mount Hygiene, Aug. \Qth. 1841. Dear Brother:

I am still occupying my leisure moments in writing to you, and finding no subject more worthy of attention than the one on w^hich I have already written five letters, shall make no apology for continuing to bring forward and answer to the best of my abilities, the most popular objections against that faith which you know I have for many years advocated.

You have no doubt often heard our opposers bring up that passage in Matt. 3: 12, which speaks of burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. The verse reads thus, " Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.' , These are the words of John the Baptist, speaking of Christ, whose work should be effectual in separating what is valuable, from that which is worthless; and are supposed to relate to the final separation of the righteous, intended by the wheat, from the wicked, intended by the chaff: that gathering the wheat into the garner, signifies receiving the saints into heaven; and burning the chaff, signifies dooming the sinners to suffer eternally in hell fire.

Now let us examine this exposition analogically; for it will be admitted, I presume, that the language of the text is figurative, and that all figurative language is founded on analogy. Then, if the chaff mean wicked people and is to be burnt up; it will follow, that wicked people will be destroyed, and of course the passage can not prove endless misery; for recollect, it does not say the chaff will always be burning, but " will be burnt up"

Here the text fails to prove what the objector aimed at; but clearly proves, according to that exposition, the doctrine of Annihilation.

There is, to my mind, a great absurdity in supposing the chaff to mean the souls of wicked people; because we know that sinners may, and often do become saints, by being converted from sin to holiness, and translated from the kingdom

ON RESTORATIONISM.

of Satan, to that of God; but who ever heard of chaff being converted into wheat ? The analogy fails therefore, in this view of the subject, not only in reference to the chaff, but also to the wheat; which according to the foregoing hypothesis, must have been once, all chaff.

Now I will give you what strikes me as the true meaning of the passage, and you can judge for yourself.