The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-03-08
"A Note from the Author OF The
4ast.t Dentfs or Ncnffs.'' s:ss 1900.

49, ,5.S.5is sf.ssssas Al1REH ., aIotss4
Editors Dispatch: It is human to err
and I think iisyou will refresh your memo
|ries Of DR.. Edward Beecher's book, when
YOU state to be now a year old, you VIII re:
| cognize the fact that 1t and The Death OF
Dealt" are not on the same suhlectln any
lust sense. I read the former for the hrst
time about three weeks ago, and am In.
debted Il believe)to your kindness EXTENDED
to Randolph & :Engl ish for getting 1t SO soon
after 7 ordered 1t OF them. Being fresh from
it, therefore, / think you will ind that am
not mistaken as to its object, and that. l cor
rectly state it below. ,;s-t ID 5fsT
may omit two negatives from your ian.
guage in the Dispatch OF yesterday ana ae,
scribe the book, justly, as being on Inc saine
subject as ssThe Death OF Death s oniy ~
the sense in WHICH il may be saId te,t Tue
Bible is a book on the same: question. ,:,:tu
It is hook of great learning ana apply,
but on the title-page 1t is descfipeai as
nncfrine of Retributiop." This it is, and
no,hinn else. Though he gives the history
of the various forms Of opinion on cue tu-
tnre state from the earliest times-and IN
doing so describes, as You say, that CLASS,
amonp others, who hold that all creatures
will & he ultimately restored to holiness ana
honpiue ss ,-yet, in the only place III. Wnlcn
he refers to his own views he expressly ae-
nIines to commit himself to that doctrine.
The book was originally published, as APP
nears in charter SO, in the ChTsst,dn Ch'oh.
In answer to questions addressed to him du-
ring the course OF the publication as 10 us
own opinions, he says In that chapter aIteI
sneakinp of the basis on which 'aione the
doctrine Of an endless punishment can De
defended, and dissenting from the OASIS
ON which it is generally put by those VINO
hold it: alt follows, OF necessity, thai as
between them. and the restoratlonlsts-h
were shut up to that cholce-iny synpa-
thies and convictions would be Win tue
restorationists. But I am not shut up TO
that alternative. I can take another posi-
tion."
mThe Death of DEATH" on the contrary,
has for its great object the solution OF the
perpleXng question Of the origin OF eDI by
the reconciliation Of the holiness OF God with
its existence; and maintains The position it
holds as to future rctribution as necessary
to the true solution OF that question.
Until the book was written the author
was entirely unacquainted with the Systems
of Oriqen or OF Theodore of MopsueStia.
lie learns from DR.. Beecher's book that
there are points OF contrast and of differ
ence between the system OF the former and
the system of "The Death OF Death" TO
whatever extent, however. the one or the
other may exist, the system OF the latter is
the result OF the authors own solitary medi-
tations on the subject, without any aid from
the suggestion of others, either in ancient
or in modern times. He was not only unlc-
quainted with the views Of others on the sub
iect, but, as he says on page so OF the book,
he abstained studiousiy' all his life from
reading any views on the subject, except
those OF The traditional thcologians. And
he did so because he wished bis opinions,
when formed and expressed, to be the re-
suit, is they are, OF unbiased investigation.
TIE AUTHOR OF THE DEATH OF DEATH"
I'VE have no exception to take to the
foregoing note.