My Dear Sir,—I received yours of the 21st ult. about a week since, but many engagements have prevented a more early reply.
Your inquiries were interesting and important, and I only regret that I have not more time and room to answer them as their importance and minuteness demand.
I am not at all surprised that my old friends should wonder at my change of views; even to this day it is marvellous in my own eyes, how I should be separated from my brethren to this (Mormon) faith. I greatly desire to see my Baptist brethren face to face, that I may tell them all things pertaining to my views and this work; but, at present, the care of my wife and six children, with the labours of a civil office, forbids this privilege.
A sheet of paper is a poor conductor of a marvellous and controverted system of theology; but receive this sheet as containing only some broken hints upon which I hope to amplify in some better manner hereafter. You have expressed confidence in my former conscientious regard for the will of God. I thank you for this, because the virtues of many good men have been disallowed upon some supposed forfeiture of public esteem. I thank God that you, and many of the churches where I once laboured, are more liberal.
You, more than common men, know that it is in accordance with all past history, that men's true characters suffer imprisonment, scourging, and death, as soon as they become innovators or seceders from long-established and venerated systems. Many have suffered martyrdom for literary and also religious improvements, to whom after ages have done better justice. "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted, and slain them which told before of the coming of the Just One?"
It was the misfortune of many of the former prophets, that they were raised up at a period of the world when apostacy and corruption rendered their efforts indispensable, although such efforts proved unacceptable to those who were in fault. Ancient prophets, you know, did not merely reiterate what their predecessors had taught, but spoke hidden wisdom, even things that had been kept secret for many generations; because the spirit by which they were moved had knowledge of all truth, and could disclose and reveal as it seemed wisdom in God.
The spirits that were disobedient, while once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, doubtless despised the prophet that taught a universal deluge. But Noah had a special revelation of a deluge, although the religious people of his day counted him an enthusiast. The revelation given to Moses to gather an opprest people to a particular place, was equally one side of, and out of the usual course of former revelations. John came to the literal followers of Abraham and Moses; but he escaped not persecution and death, because he breathed an uncharitable and exclusive spirit towards the existing sects of the day. Still he was a revelator and seer approved of God.
And is it a thing incredible with you, brother, that before the great sabbatic era, world's rest, or millennium, God should raise up a prophet to prepare the people for that event, and the second coming of Jesus Christ? Would it be disagreeable to those who love the unity of Saints, or improbable or unscriptural to expect such a prophet to be possessed with the key of knowledge, or endowed, like Peter, with the stone of revelation? If the many hundred religious sects of this age should hereafter harmonize into one faith and brotherhood, without the aid of special revelations, it would constitute an unparalleled phenomenon. Should they become a bride fit to receive Jesus Christ at his coming, it could not be according to Paul's gospel. For six thousand years, apostles and prophets have constituted an essential part of the spiritual edifice in which God dwells. Paul says it is by them the church is perfected and brought to unity of faith.
I know that you and I have been taught from our childhood, that the church can be perfected without prophets; but where, I ask, is the first scripture to support this view?
As you kindly say, I have always been accustomed to offer a reason for my faith; but be assured I was confounded and made dumb, when asked why I taught another gospel than what Paul did—why I taught that revelation was ended, when Paul did not—or why I taught that prophets were not needed, when no inspired teacher ever taught such a doctrine. Error may become venerable by age, and respectable from the number of its votaries, but neither age nor popularity can ever make it truth.