ASERIES OF LETTERS, IN DEFENCE OFDIVINE REVELATION;IN REPLY TOREV. ABNER KNEELAND'S SERIOUS INQUIRY INTO THE AUTHENTICITYOF THE SAME. * * * * * BY HOSEA BALLOU, Pastor of the Second Universalist Society in Boston. * * * * * TO WHICH IS ADDED, A RELIGIOUS CORRESPONDENCE, BETWEENTHE REV. HOSEA BALLOU, AND THE REV. DR. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTERAND REV. JOSEPH WALTON, PASTORS OF CONGREGATIONALCHURCHES IN PORTSMOUTH, N. H. _District of Massachusetts, to wit:District Clerk's Office_. Be it remembered, that on the twenty-fifth day of July, A. D. 1820, inthe forty-fifth year of the Independence of the United States ofAmerica, HENRY BOWEN, of the said district, has deposited in thisoffice, the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Proprietorin the words following, to wit: "A Series of Letters, in defence of Divine Revelation; in reply toRev. Abner Kneeland's Serious Inquiry into the authenticity of thesame. By HOSEA BALLOU, Pastor of the Second Universalist Society inBoston. To which is added, a Religious Correspondence, between theRev. Hosea Ballou, and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Buckminster, and Rev. Joseph Walton, Pastors of Congregational Churches in Portsmouth, N. H. " In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing theCopies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors ofsuch Copies, during the times therein mentioned:" and also to an Actentitled, "An Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, an Act for theEncouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts andBooks, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies during the timestherein mentioned; and extending the benefits thereof to the Arts ofDesigning, Engraving, and Etching Historical, and other Prints. " JOHN W. DAVIS, _Clerk of the District of Massachusetts_ TO THE READER. Some few suggestions respecting the following Controversy are thoughtnecessary in order to inform the reader how it was first introduced, the motives which led to it, and those which induced to its beingpublished to the world. We learn from the Rev. Mr. KNEELAND, that having at different timesbeen exercised in his mind with serious doubts respecting theauthenticity of the Scriptures, and the system of Divine Revelation, recorded in them, he was induced to solicit a correspondence with theRev. Mr. BALLOU on the subject. That, in order to render thecontroversy the more interesting, by calling into action the energiesof mind, and by directing the correspondence to definite purposes, heassumed the character of a real opponent, determining to maintain theopposition, in all its forms, until reduced, by necessity, to yield tosuccessful arguments directed against it. It was with great reluctancethat the advocate for the christian religion, in this controversy, consented to undertake a work of this nature; not, however, because heesteemed it unnecessary, or because he entertained any doubts withregard to the defensibility of revelation, but, as he contends, onaccount of the want of abilities and means to do the subject justice. His opponent, however, being a familiar acquaintance and friend, aswell as a preacher in the same profession of faith with himself, having led him to believe that a labour of this kind was called for bythe most sacred obligations of brother to brother, he was induced torender what assistance was in his power, without infringing too muchon other important duties in which he was almost constantly engaged. When the controversy closed, Mr. KNEELAND felt such an entiresatisfaction in his own mind, that the objections which he had statedwere fairly answered, and the validity of the Scriptures vindicated, that he was led to believe that to publish the correspondence would beof service to the cause of Christ. He therefore obtained leave of hiscorrespondent, and carried the manuscripts to the westward, where heoffered proposals for the work, and obtained a number of subscribers;but being called to remove to Philadelphia, he was under the necessityof postponing the publication for a season. The publisher havingobtained some knowledge of this correspondence, and being informed bythe Rev. Mr. KNEELAND that the arguments which it contains were, inhis opinion, calculated to strengthen the believer, as well as confirmthe doubting, he negotiated for the manuscripts and now presents thework to the public, entertaining a hope that it may serve the interestof christianity, and promote a respect and veneration for the sacredwritings. The letters which passed between Mr. BALLOU and two respectableclergymen in the town of Portsmouth, N. H. Were some years sincepublished in Vermont; but several circumstances rendered it properthat this work should be reprinted. Besides its being nearly or quiteout of print, the first edition was on an inferior paper, the workbadly executed, and a number of errors were discovered. To those who believe in the universality of divine goodness, thepublisher feels confident the following work will be received and readwith no small satisfaction. And a hope is entertained that it may bethe means of enlightening some, who though they possess the spirit ofuniversal love and benevolence, have not the felicity of believing inthe divine goodness to the extent of their own desires. H. BOWEN. A SERIES OF LETTERS, &c. EXTRACTS No. 1. [The first letter of the _objector_ was designed merely as anIntroduction, inviting Mr. B. To the investigation of the importantsubject of _moral truth_, or more particularly the truth of _divinerevelation_. The following are extracts. ] "The thought has long since occurred to me that the present age is anage of discovery and improvement. The human mind seems to bedeveloping its powers in a most wonderful manner; new inventions, newdiscoveries, and new theories are the fruits of new experiments; whilemany are improving upon theories and subjects already existing. Thushuman nature seems to be almost prepared to make a regular advance in_moral_ as well as _scientific truth_. "However pleasing this must be to every real lover to the arts andsciences, yet there seems to be a disposition (at least, as itrespects all moral and religious subjects) to chain down the humanmind to its present attainments, and thereby prevent all furtherimprovement. O how long will it be before common sense shall burstthis bubble of fanaticism, and all its mists become evaporated andremoved by the rays of simple and native truth? Then shall man knowfor himself that, under God, all his powers and faculties are as freeas the element he breathes. Free to think, free to speak, and free toact as reason and good sense shall dictate. Supposing that you and Ishould think of setting an example for others, by trying to throw offthe prejudices of a false education, so far as we have been thusentangled, and search for the _truth within us_, as the foundation ofall TRUTH which materially concerns us to know. Who, except our ownconsciences, will ever call us to an account for so doing? "It gives me pain when I see what time and money, what labour and toilhave been expended, and are still expending, in plodding over, as itwere an old dead letter; to learn languages which exist _no where_only on paper, barely for the sake of reading the opinions of othermen, in other times; men who lived in other ages of the world, andunder very different circumstances from ourselves; whose opinions, allof which are worth preserving, might be given in our own language, soas to answer every purpose which can be answered by them, at less thana hundredth part of the expense it necessarily requires to obtain acompetent knowledge of those languages in which almost every thing, supposed to be valuable, has been originally written. And after all, the truth, or falsity, of every proposition must depend on the truthor falsity of the principles embraced in it; and not on the languagein which it was originally written. "If the Greek and Hebrew languages be any security against thingsbeing uttered or written falsely in those languages, I should not onlythink it important to learn them, but to adopt them, if possible, asour vernacular tongue. --But as I believe none will contend for this, Ishould like to be informed of what possible service it can be to anAmerican to learn either of those languages? Is it not a fact, thatevery natural as well as moral truth may be fully unfolded to theunderstanding without them? This will lead the way to one of theprincipal subjects which I mean to discuss. It maybe said, that the_holy scriptures_ were originally written in Greek and Hebrew: viz. The bible, which contains a revelation of the will of God concerningthe duty, interest, and final destination of mankind. This, ifadmitted, gives the Greek and Hebrew languages an importance thatnothing else could. Hence the importance of preserving the Greek andHebrew languages, without which, religion could not be preserved inits purity. And as all have not an opportunity of attaining to aknowledge of those languages, it is the more necessary that someshould, lest the knowledge of languages, on which so much is supposedto depend, should be lost to the world. "If I understand the above proposition, it seems to be this: The onlyrevelation of God to man, which was ever recorded on either vellum orpaper, was written partly in Greek and partly in Hebrew; hence, therevealed will of God cannot be known only through the medium of thoselanguages. If the truth of all this can be made to appear, I shouldfind no difficulty in admitting all the consequences which must resultfrom such premises. It appears a little extraordinary, however, to myunderstanding, and not a very little neither, that God should make arevelation of his will in one age, and not in another; to one nation;and not to another; or that he should make a revelation in one_language_, and not in another! If a special revelation, was evernecessary at all, it is difficult for me to see why it was not equallynecessary in all ages of the world, to all the nations of the earth, and in all languages ever spoken by man. "How sweet is truth to the understanding! And, when spoken in alanguage every word of which is familiar, how harmonious it sounds tothe ear by which the sentiments find their way to the heart! "When God speaks to the _inward man_ there is no need of going toLexicons, Dictionaries, and Commentaries to know what he means. Iwould not complain, however, even of this method to ascertain truth, if I could be so happy as always to come away satisfied. But toconsider a subject on which much is supposed to depend, and, desiringif possible to obtain the truth, plod through the dark mistsoccasioned by the ambiguity and contradiction of authors, and afterall, be obliged to dismiss the subject as much in the dark as it wasfound, is too insupportable to be confided in as the only road tomoral truth. "Let it not be supposed however, that I mean to insinuate that thebible contains no moral truth; so far from this, I conceive it to bereplete with moral instruction; that is to say, there are excellentmoral maxims in the bible; but respecting these there is neitherambiguity nor obscurity; and probably for this plain reason, becausethere seems to be no dispute about them. These however are none themore true for being written, and would have been equally true if foundin any other book, and at the same time not found in the bible. Truthis truth wherever found, and all moral truth, as well as natural, mustbe eternal in its nature. "Much of the bible however, is merely historical; and whether most ofthe things there related are either true or not, I do not see anyconnexion they either have, or can have, with either my present orfuture happiness. As for instance, I do not see how my happiness is atall connected with the story of Daniel's being cast into the den oflions--or of Jonah's being swallowed by a fish! any more than it iswith the story of Remus and Romulus' being nursed by a she wolf! Andif not, these things are matters of total indifference; yea, as muchso as the extraordinary, and, were it not for comparing thingssupposed to be sacred with profane, I would say, ridiculous stories inthe heathen mythology. If it should be contended that the factsrecorded in sacred history are necessary to prove the power andprovidence of God towards his children, it may be answered that thosein profane history, if true, are equally conclusive. If it should besaid that we cannot place the same confidence in profane history as insacred, it brings me to the very subject of my inquiry--viz. "If the things stated in the bible are no more reasonable than thosein profane history, what reason have we to believe _these_ any morethan _those_? Must not our own reason finally determine for ourselveswhether or not either be true? And if we are in no sense interested inthe truth or falsity of those accounts why need we trouble ourselvesabout them? "Yours, &c, A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER I. _Much esteemed friend_, --The desire you express of attempting thoseresearches which seem necessary to promote the further attainment ofmoral truth, is appreciated as truly laudable; and did I feel myselfadequate to your wishes, I should enjoy a peculiar felicity incomplying with your request. But so far from this I am very sensiblethat the magnitude of the general subject which you have introduced, requires to be investigated by abilities far superior to thosepossessed by me, and demands a tribute from resources not within mypossession. However, as you have imposed an obligation on me by thecommunication which is here acknowledged, I will make a feeble attemptto suggest a few reflections relative to the main subjects of yourepistle, which if they do nothing more, will return meritedacknowledgements and plead the necessity of calling to your assistanceabilities more promising. While I view the advances which are making in the knowledge of thearts and sciences, with the pleasure of which you speak, I amapprehensive that the propensity "to chain down the human mind to itspresent attainments, and thereby prevent all further improvements, "relative to moral truth, may have its rise in a principle, which, sofar from being inimical to man, is, in its general tendency, incalculably beneficial. No desire is entertained to justify all thezeal and all the means which are employed to prevent the free exerciseof the human mind, in its researches after divine knowledge, and toretard the influx of that light which would prove unfavourable todoctrines which have little more than prescription for their support;but it seems reasonable to make a proper distinction between what maybe called a salutary principle in the human mind, and a wrongapplication or an erroneous indulgence of it. The principle referredto, inclines us not only to hold in the highest veneration anyimprovements which we have made, but also to retain such acquisitionsin their purity. Now it is believed that what you complain of, has itsrise from the foregoing causes, and is nothing more than a wrong or anerroneous indulgence of a natural desire which in its general tendencyis advantageous. Nothing is more incident to man, than to misapply hisdesires, and to overate his reasonable duty. But it is at the sametime believed that a remedy of such defects which should consist inthe destruction of those principles which are improperly acted on, would be worse than the disorder. And now the thought strikes me, thatthe way by which we account for the improprieties which have just beentraced up to their causes, will as charitably account for what seemsto incite you to aim a fatal stroke at a fabric which has itsfoundation in the immovable principles of our moral nature, and which, though through the wanderings of the human mind, may have not a littlehay, wood and stubble, yet possess too much gold, silver and preciousstones, to be forsaken as a pile of rubbish. It gives you "pain to see what time and money, what labour and toilhave been expended and are still expending in plodding over as it werean old dead letter; to learn languages which exist _no where_ only onpaper, barely for the sake of reading the opinions of other men wholived in other times, " &c. But you allow that all this would benecessary if "the only revelation of God to man, which was everrecorded on vellum or paper was written partly in Greek and partly inHebrew, " and that "the will of God cannot be known only through themedium of those languages. " In this last particular, you express whatappears very reasonable, and I presume you would be willing to consentto all this expense and toil, even if the proposition were to losepart of its importance, and it were only contended that God hadactually made a revelation to man, which was written originally partlyin Greek and partly in the Hebrew, without saying that he has nevercaused a revelation to be written originally in any other language. A revelation from God, if it were written only in the Hebrew or Greek, would be considered of sufficient value to recompence the labour oflearning the language. But you contend that this revelation, if real, can be translated into English, but, you must allow that to translateit, the original must be learned first. Will you say, that after thetranslation is once made, the original is of no more use? How then arefuture ages to determine whether they have not been imposed on?Suppose no person of the present age understood the languages in whichthe scriptures were first written, surely in this case, thoselanguages would be lost beyond recovery. Suppose then it should bedoubted whether our bible was not a fabrication, written originallynot in Hebrew nor in Greek, but in some more modern language, howcould the suggestion be refuted? You appear to be perplexed with the disagreement of authors, ascommentators, and I presume, critics on the original text; you speakon this subject, as if it were too much for patience to endure. Now, dear brother, I confess I feel very differently on this subject. Ifeel a devout, a religious gratitude to him whose wisdom isfoolishness in the sight of too many of my fellow creatures. I viewthe very thing of which you complain, as that fire and crucible whichhave preserved the written testimony from any considerablecorruptions. This is a subject on which volumes might be written tothe instruction and edification of the disciples of Jesus. The queries which you state concerning a revelation's being made inone age and not in another, in one nation and not in another, in onelanguage, and not in another, if a special revelation were necessary, &c. Are not considered as very weighty objections to the doctrine ofthe scriptures. I believe you will allow that our species of beingcommenced on this earth in a different way than that by which it hasbeen continued. But why should the Creator, create a man and a womanat one time, and not at all times when he sees fit to multiply hisrational creatures? It is not only evident that God saw that the lawsof procreation were sufficient to perpetuate man, and to multiply hisrational offspring, but it is likewise apparent that the connexions, relations, and harmonies of society are principally built on this law. So I humbly conceive, that the continuance and propagation of a divinerevelation are even as well secured by the means which have beenemployed for that purpose, as if the Almighty had in every age, and inevery country made such a revelation, and moreover, it is likewiseapparent, that the mental labours necessary in obtaining a knowledgeof these divine things greatly contribute to their enjoyment, andrender the christian fellowship, faith and hope peculiarly interestingand edifying. Here again I can only suggest a subject on whichvoluminous writings might be profitable. You seem to entertain an idea that the historical part of the biblecan be of no importance to you, as it has no connexion with yourpresent or future happiness. You instance the particulars of Daniel'sbeing cast into the den of lions, and Jonah's being swallowed by thefish, &c. As these are circumstances in the history of that nationwhich continues a comment on, and an evidence of prophesy, they aretoo interesting to be dispensed with. If you could produce the decreeof a powerful monarch, sent into all parts of his dominions, which wasoccasioned by "Remus and Romulus' being nursed by a she wolf, " thecase would bear some marks of a parallel. Profane authors advert tosuch events as sufficient support of any fact which they endeavor tomaintain. I come now to your main object. Speaking in regard to the credibilityof what is written by profane authors, and of that which is recordedin the scriptures, you ask--"Must not our own reason finally determinefor ourselves whether or not either be true?" To this I reply in theaffirmative; but then reason must have its means and its evidences. For instance, I read of the death and resurrection of the man ChristJesus, I consider this vastly important event as it stands inconnexion with the evidences which support it, and reason is the _eye_with which I examine these evidences, and when reason is constrainedto say all these circumstances could never have existed unless thefact were true, it is then I am a believer in Jesus. But if I mustconsider the resurrection disconnected from the evidence, reason hasnothing to do with it. Please to accept these hasty remarks, not as ananswer, but as suggestions which may lead to one, and as a testimonyof my respect and esteem. Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. * * * * * EXTRACTS No. II. "A revelation from God, let it be made in any language whatever, I amvery ready to admit, must be considered of sufficient importance, notonly to justify all reasonable pains to preserve it, but also to handit down in its original purity to posterity. We owe it, not only ingratitude to the _giver_, but we owe it in justice to _futuregenerations_, who would have just occasion to reproach us, if theycould know that so valuable a treasure was put into our hands, whichmight have been handed down to them, and that we suffered it to perishthrough what must be termed by them, a _criminal neglect_. "You will perceive, therefore, that I had no particular allusion to arevelation from God, when I spoke of translating the most valuable ofancient writings into English. No one will pretend that suchtranslations could not be made sufficiently accurate to answer all thepurposes, either of history or of the useful arts. It is admitted thatthe case is quite different, if there be a mystery in these writings, the truth of which depends on literary criticism, or grammaticalexactness; but if these writings are nothing more than the bareopinions and discoveries of _men_, and of men too, as liable to erroras ourselves, and if no one was to view them in a different light, Iapprehend there would be all the confidence placed in a translation, that could with propriety be placed in the original itself. For, afterall, we should try the facts by other corroborating testimony; and asto the opinions, we should judge of them only by the reasonablenessand fitness of things. Although I have heard it objected to thetranslation of _Seneca's Morals_, that much of the beauty of the styleis lost in the translation, yet I never heard it pretended but thatthe ideas are sufficiently clear; but the case would have been quitedifferent if mankind had ever been taught to believe that their finaland eternal salvation depended in the least degree on an exactobservance of those moral principles. And I very much question whetherthere ever has been a translation of the bible, or even of any otherwork, in which the most important facts were not sufficientlyapparent. If the fact can be supposed otherwise, it must be admittedthat, comparatively speaking, but very few people at the present dayare benefited by a revelation from God. For the great mass of mankindhave to receive the bible altogether on the credit of others. And whoare their guides in this case? Answer, Translators and Commentators!And as these men made no pretentions to inspiration, unless thetranslation is _substantially_ correct, as to matters of fact, how arethe common people benefited by a revelation from God!" [Having adverted to the previous studies in the dead languages, whichare required before an admittance can be obtained in our commoncolleges, the objector proceeds. ] "But I am off from my main subject. I will now endeavour to call upall my mental faculties, seriously to attend to a revelation from God. The idea suggested in these words is beyond all expression awfullysublime. Yea, not even the bursting of _Vesuvius_, not the_aurora-borealis_, not the forked _lightning_, not the tremendous_earthquake_, no, nor yet the greatest _phenomenon in nature_, ofwhich the human mind can conceive, can afford such ideas of the trulysublime, as the _truth_, if it could be realized, of the aboveproposition. Let me not hastily reject without serious reflection, that, which of all truths, must be the most important. O help me, mydear friend, help me also, O thou who art the only source of truth, thoroughly to investigate this momentous subject! But let me not bedeceived. Let me not receive for truth, that which cannot be madesufficiently clear to my understanding. There can be no more harm in_doubting_, than in _believing_, where the evidence is not clear. Allthat which appertains to eternal truth will remain, whether I now seeit or not; and that which does not appertain to it will never berealized, although I may now be made to believe it. There can be noharm, therefore, in investigating this subject in the same way and onthe same principles, as I would investigate all subjects. Although Icannot expect to offer any thing very new, yet I am disposed toexamine the subject for myself, and that too, in my own way. I shallquote no authors, for I have not read but few on this subject whichmeet my approbation, and even them are not now by me. My ownunderstanding is the only author to which I shall appeal. If that canbe cleared of the difficulties which have fallen in its way, I amwilling, yea I wish, still to believe in divine revelation. "Here let me close my preamble, which is already made too lengthy, andcome immediately to discourse 'ON DIVINE REVELATION. ' "In order to know the truth or falsity of any proposition, we must inthe first place understand the terms by which the proposition is made;for without such previous knowledge, we cannot know what is meanteither to be affirmed or denied. By _divine revelation_, I understand'a communication of sacred truth, ' made directly from God to man. Inorder for any man to know that a revelation has been made to him fromGod, it must be made in such a way, that neither his perception, norhis judgment or understanding, can possibly be mistaken. For, as manby his reason alone, never could have foreseen that a revelation wouldbe made, therefore, unless it should have been made in such a way thathe could not have been deceived, a rational man would be more likelyto conclude that he was deceived, than that, which to him would seemmore unlikely, should be true. It seems, therefore, that a revelationfrom God to all our conceptions of the fact, must be considered, ifexisting at all, as something supernatural; otherwise it could benothing more than discovery, or a fortuitous event. Hence a revelationfrom God, however true, and however clear, to the person or persons towhom it was first communicated, must lose its evidence, in somedegree, when it comes to be communicated by him or them to others;for, being communicated to others, although it is still revelation, yet not being received immediately from God, it cannot be accompaniedwith the same evidence which it was in the first place; therefore, tosay the most of it, it is nothing more than the _history_ of arevelation. It is made no less true than it was before; but its truthnow rests upon very different testimony. "The principles in nature all existed, before they were discovered byman. Their being discovered, neither changed their nature, nor madethem any more true. What consternation a total eclipse of the sun, orof the moon must have produced, before their cause was known? They arenow viewed, especially that of the latter, among the commonoccurrences of nature. Yea, many of the operations of nature, whichare now perfectly understood by chemists, could they be viewed by thecommon people, who know not their causes, they would be inclined tobelieve they were supernatural. At least, it would not be difficult tomake them believe so, especially when this knowledge was confined to afew, and those few were so disposed. These remarks are not designed todo away the force of any arguments which may be founded on miracles;for this is no proof that miracles may not exist; but then, how is amiracle a revelation of any thing more than what is contained in themiracle itself? This is what I cannot see, but I shall have occasionto say more on this subject hereafter. It will be needless for me toobject to the inferences drawn from miracles until a miracle isproven. "If a man absolutely knows something of which I am ignorant, andinforms me of it, it makes no difference to me how he come by hisknowledge--it is revelation to me. It may not be divine revelation;but supposing it is, or is not, in either case, how am I to believe?Is it any thing that will admit of mathematical demonstration? If so, I shall take up with nothing short of being convinced in this way. Isit any thing which he has discovered? If so, he must give me evidenceof such a discovery. Is it something to which he was an eye witness?Then the truth to me, depends for the present, entirely on hiscredibility. I must be convinced in the first place that he was notdeceived himself, and secondly, that he has no motive in deceiving me. And evidence equally conclusive must accompany the truth of divinerevelation, or it ought not, nay more, it cannot, rationally bebelieved. But supposing that I am convinced of the truth, andtherefore believe; and I relate the same to a third person; is itequally revelation to him as it was to me? Yes, it may be soconsidered, in one sense, at least, for it informs him of something ofwhich he was before ignorant, as much so as it did me, but then thetruth of the fact does not rest with him on equal testimony, andtherefore he is more excusable if he does not believe. If, however, hecan believe all that I believe, and in addition to that, believe alsoin _me_, then, and not till then, he will become a believer in thesame truth. But if he even suspects my veracity, it weakens in hismind, all the other testimony; and though he may still believe in themain proposition, yet he believes with less strength of evidence. "Here a very important question arises in my mind. Is divinerevelation something that rests entirely on matters of _fact_; or isthe most essential part, which concerns us to know, a mere matter of_opinion_? On a few moments of reflection, however, it appears thatthis can hardly admit of a question. For all that relates to a future, and an eternal state, must be a mere matter of opinion only; and thefacts recorded in the scriptures are supposed to corroborate andsubstantiate those opinions. Now, as they respect matters of fact, Ibelieve the scriptures are substantially the same in all versions, andin all languages into which they have been translated. And if so, there is no need of learning the original languages in order to becomeacquainted with the matters of fact recorded in the bible. We nevershould have seen, nor even heard, of so much controversy and biblicalcriticism, if the disputes had been wholly relative to matters offact. No, all the various readings, different translations, andinterpolations, have little or nothing to do with a dispute of thiskind. But if the facts can he disputed, they must be disputed uponother grounds than that of biblical criticism. "Take, for instance, the 'death and resurrection of the man ChristJesus, ' which you have mentioned; can any one suppose that there everwas, or ever will be, a translation which makes any thing more or lessin favour of this fact? This is not pretended. And if not, how does aknowledge of the Greek language help me to believe this fact? "This brings me again to my main subject; and now two very importantquestions arise in my mind. "1. In relation to the facts, as stated, respecting the life, death, and resurrection of the 'man Christ Jesus;' are they positively andabsolutely true? "2. Admitting the truth of the facts, does it necessarily follow, oris there any thing which renders it certain, that, in regard to otherthings, neither he, nor the apostles, so called, could be mistaken?And that, in all their writings, they have stated nothing which isincorrect? That is, what certain evidence have we that the writers ofthe books, which being compiled, are called the New Testament, wereall honest men? That they could not have been mistaken relative to thethings which they have written? And that in every instance, they havewritten the truth? "Respecting the first proposition, I have already observed that thetruth of it does not, neither can it, depend on biblical criticism. They are either facts, which are substantially correct, or they arefabrications. The circumstantial differences between the originalcopies themselves, as recorded by the four Evangelists, are muchgreater than what can be found in all the different versions, translations, &c. That have been collated. Hence no argument can bebrought against the truth of those facts from either a real orsupposed difference between the translation, and their respectiveoriginals. For even if not only the original copies, but the languagealso in which they were originally written, should be entirely lost, it would not militate, as I can see, against the truth of the factstherein recorded. "The translation acknowledges and affirms itself to be a _translation_out of the 'original Greek, ' together with former translationscompared, &c. Now permit me to ask, is not this as good evidence ofthe existence of the _original Greek_, as the original Greek is of the_facts_ intended to be proved thereby? I should consider thetranslation of any work, which was generally known at the time of itstranslation, better evidence of the existence of such a work, thoughthe original should be entirely lost, than the work itself, even inthe original, could be of the existence of facts, which, if theyexisted at all, were known at first to but very few. "You have suggested, sir, that if the original of the scriptures wereentirely lost, future ages would not know but they had been 'imposedupon. ' I think, however, you will not insist on this point, lest youshould destroy an argument, which, hereafter, you may very much need. I recall my words. For this seems to imply that we are already engagedin a controversy; whereas, I trust we are both candidly in search oftruth. I suspect, however, there is too much truth in your suggestion;but then its truth, instead of relieving, only increases mydifficulty. "Every one must know that when the translation of the scriptures wasfirst made, the original not only existed, but it must have been knownto others, beside the translators, who were able to detect the_fraud_, if there had been any, as to substantial matter of fact. And, in a work of so great importance, this certainly would have been thecase. Hence you will at once perceive, that when the copies were fewin number, and before the art of printing was discovered, fabricationsand interpolations might find their way into the original scriptureswith much greater facility, than could any considerable variations byan intentionally erroneous translation; especially after the workbecome generally known, and so highly valued, as to require atranslation of it. "As you admit that 'reason is the _eye_ by which we are to examine theevidences' which stand in support of the 'resurrection of the manChrist Jesus, ' and of course, as I presume, by which we are to examinethe evidences in support of all other subjects, I shall say no moreupon this part of the subject until I hear your reasons for believingin the resurrection of Jesus; for this fact, as I conceive, must beconsidered the main hinge on which the whole Christian system rests, if it can be supported by any fact, on which it will finally turn. 2. "But after all, my greatest difficulty is with my secondproposition. To relate facts substantially correct, which persons haveeither seen or heard, requires no degree of uncommon skill, oruncommon honesty; but to state things which will absolutely takeplace, which are yet future, requires something more than commonskill; and to state things correctly, which will take place ineternity, must, as I conceive, require nothing short of _divinewisdom_. That the evangelists have stated nothing more than what is_substantially_ correct, as it respects matters of fact, will beadmitted by all: for every one knows there is a _circumstantial_difference in their writings, both as it respects the order of time, and in several instances, as it respects matters of fact. "If the account given us of Jesus be even substantially correct, Ithink there can be no reasonable doubt but that he was capable oftelling his disciples every thing which it concerns us to knowrelative to a future state of existence. --But I have been often struckwith astonishment, when reflecting on the subject, that Jesus said solittle in regard to a future state! Notwithstanding he was long withhis disciples, as we are told after his resurrection, and did eat anddrink with them; yet, how silent he was upon the subject of eternity, and of a future and spiritual world! At the only time when we shouldrationally suppose that he could be a competent witness in the case, admitting his death and resurrection true, is the time when he isentirely silent as to the final and eternal state of man! Should weadmit therefore that Jesus at this time was capable of declaringeternal truths, yet, as he testified nothing on the subject, nothingrelative to the subject can be proved from his testimony. "It may be said that Christ had plainly taught his disciplesrespecting this subject, previous to his death, and therefore it wasnot necessary for him to say any thing more respecting it. But aconfirmation of what he had before taught, if it had been repeatedafter his resurrection, would have added great weight to his formertestimony. We need not dwell however, upon these niceties, as the mainquestion is not involved in them. Yet I am inclined to think that ifall the words of Christ, which have been handed down to us, should beclosely examined, they would be found to be much more silent on thesubject of a future state than many have supposed. But the mainquestion is, are we certain that he could not have been mistaken inthe things whereof he affirmed? This question may be thought_blasphemous_: but I cannot see wherein the blasphemy consists; for Icannot help making the inquiry, in my own understanding, and as myobject is to gain instruction, I put the inquiry on paper. You may saythat Jesus was endowed with _divine wisdom_, and therefore could noterr. That divine wisdom cannot err, I admit, but does divine wisdomsecure man at all times, and under all circumstances, from mistake? Ifthe man Christ Jesus was in fact _man_ (and that he was man, evenTrinitarians admit) notwithstanding he was endowed with divine wisdom, why might he not without any dishonour to the Deity, be sometimes leftto exercise only the wisdom of _man_? And to say that the wisdom ofman cannot err, would be saying contrary to daily experience. I havenot contended that Jesus ever erred; but I contend that he must havebeen liable to error, or else he was not man. And the supposition thathe did not err, not even in thought or opinion, ought not to beadmitted without the most conclusive testimony. "But whatever may be the conclusion on this subject, as it respectsthe 'man Christ Jesus--a man approved of God, ' yet what shall we sayconcerning the apostles? Were they also absolutely secured from error?These men, according to the confession of one of them at least, notonly had been, but still were--_sinners_. Paul, notwithstanding hisapostleship, still acknowledges the plague of his own heart 'I amcarnal, sold under sin--when I would do good, evil is present withme--O wretched man that I am!' &c. Are such men absolutely proofagainst even the error of opinion? It appears to me there are too manyincidents of imperfection recorded in the lives of the apostles toadmit all this. Peter once rebuked his master, at another time deniedhim. He once objected to the voice of the spirit, and was afterwardsaccused by his brethren for obeying it. Paul accused Peter to hisface, and also disagreed with Barnabas. And other circumstances mightbe named, proving them to be destitute of intuitive knowledge. Considering, therefore, all these things, how do we know but that intheir zeal to do good, (for I do not consider the apostles bad men;neither do I think any the worse of Paul for either acknowledging hisown faults, or detecting the dissimulation of Peter, ) I say therefore, in their zeal to do good, how do we know but that they stated thingsrelative to another world, which were only inferences, which, as theysupposed, were justly drawn from what they had either seen or heard, or else what their own fruitful imagination dictated? If we are atliberty to view the apostles in this light, however highly theiropinions are to be valued and respected, yet I see no occasion ofinvestigating their writings with the eye of biblical or grammaticalcriticism; for after all, they are but the opinions of men likeourselves. "But if it can be demonstrated that the opinions of the writers of theNew Testament can be relied on, as containing eternal truth, withoutany mixture of error, then it is very important for us to know themeaning of all the words they used, not only as it respects theirgeneral import, but also the exact and particular sense in which theyused them. This however cannot be done without a thoroughacquaintance, not only with the Greek, but also with the Hebrewlanguage, for they used many Hebraisms, which, with a knowledge of theGreek only, we should not be likely fully to comprehend. "Yours, &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER II. _Much esteemed friend_, --In replying to your second number, you willexcuse me if I begin by finding some fault, in which, however, I willendeavour to be as sparing as the case will admit. On the subject of the languages, after reading in your first numberthe following in its connexion: "If I understand the aboveproposition, it seems to be this; the only revelation of God to man, which was ever recorded on vellum or paper, was written partly inGreek and partly in Hebrew; hence the revealed will of God cannot beknown only through the medium of these languages. If the truth of allthis could be made to appear, " &c. And after replying to your argumenton this subject, I can hardly account for the insinuation in yoursecond number, by which you suggest, that you had no particularallusion to a revelation from God when you spoke of translating themost valuable of ancient writings, &c. The subject of a revelation youacknowledge to be your main object; if this be the case, you have thisobject in view when you speak of the Greek and Hebrew, and also whenyou speak of the arts and sciences. You contend in your second number, that the translation of theScriptures out of the original languages is as good evidence of theexistence of the original, as the original could be of the facts theyrelate, &c. And this I believe is the only acknowledgement you make infavour of the original's having been any benefit. You seem not willingto allow that the retaining of the original language is of any use inproving to after generations that the translation was correct, whichseems not easy to account for. But I will give you no further troubleon the subject of this nature; nor will I occupy my time ininvestigating the question relative to the necessity of studying thoselanguages, which you acknowledge is off from your main subject, andtake some notice of your queries respecting a divine revelation. Although I am unable to trace the connexion of many of your remarkswith which you call your main subject, yet I am not disposed to doubtthat you comprehend such connexion--I think I understand yourstatements so as to be able to discern the following particulars, assubjects of your inquiry. "1st. Is it reasonable to suppose that God has ever made a specialrevelation to man? 2d. Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of beingproved? And, 3d. If so, does it follow that this was designed bydivine wisdom to give us any hope respecting a future state?" It is not pretended that you have stated these questions just in thisorder, but these are the subjects which your second number suggests tomy mind. I shall take a much nearer road to come to a solution of thesequestions, than that which would lead me to follow you through allyour remarks, because you have furnished me with the means to do so. 1st. You acknowledge that a divine revelation "if real, " is of "alltruths the most important. " Here let the eye of reason examine. Whyshould a revelation from God be more important than those discoverieswhich our Creator has enabled us to make in the arts and sciences? Whyshould such revelation be more important than the use of the mariner'scompass, or the art of printing? Even without contending that a divinerevelation is of any greater importance than the arts and sciences, your allowing it any importance at all, is, in the eye of reason anargument in its support. Had you taken the other road, and contendedthat there was no necessity of a revelation, and had you been able tomake this appear, you would have proved to the eye of reason, that aBeing of infinite wisdom, who can never act without a just cause, hadnever made a revelation. But if reason admits of its importance, aslong as this is the case, it will be looking not only with a ferventdesire, but with expectation till it makes the discovery. You will, nodoubt, allow that a divinely munificient Creator would not omit anything which is of importance to his intelligent creatures. Perhaps you will, (though I do not see why you should) call up aformer query, which was answered in my first, which answer was notreceipted in your second, and ask why this revelation was not made inevery nation, in every language, and in every age? But you will besensible that the same questions might be stated respecting theprogress of science and the discovery of the arts useful to a refinedstate of society. You will not think it strange that I am some disappointed that youtook no notice of my remarks on the above query as I really attachimportance to that little piece of reasoning. If reason has noreluctance in acknowledging that man is multiplied and continued hereby a law which was not able to bring him into existence at first, whymay not a revelation from God, be perpetuated by different means thanthose which first made it, and thereby the great object be even bettersecured than by a perpetual revelation, which would seem to renderresearch unnecessary, and leave the reasoning powers without employ? But it is time for me to inform you that I feel myself under noobligations to labour to prove what you and I and many thousands ofothers have considered sufficiently proved from ancient prophesy withwhich our heavenly Father has favoured so many ages and nations andlanguages. And furthermore, permit me to tell you, that if you aredisposed to doubt and to disprove what you acknowledge to be of suchvast importance, it is your province to bring forward your strongreasoning, if such you have, by which the prophesies of the oldtestament, those delivered by Christ and his apostles shall be made toappear either to have no just analogy with the events of which theyspeak, or that they were contrived by impostors since the events tookplace. 2d. You acknowledge the validity of the evidences in favor of theresurrection of Jesus. You say; "That the evangelists have statednothing more than what is substantially correct, as it respectsmatters of fact, will be admitted by all. " Again; "I do not considerthe apostles bad men. " Now the apostles are the deponents who solemnlytestify the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Why should you wish meto prove what you allow to be true? Why do you not take the otherhand, and say the apostles were impostors, they were the opponents ofthe righteous rulers of the Jews who put their master to death? Why doyou not avail yourself of the story put into the mouths of the guardwho watched the sepulchre, and say that those timid disciples who allfled and left Jesus when they saw him bound, not only went to thesepulchre and stole the body of Jesus and hid it where no mortal couldever find it, but then went to Jerusalem and boldly affirmed he wasalive, who was dead, and then had the boldness and audacity to accusethe rulers of having "denied the holy one and the just, and desired amurderer to be delivered unto them; and of having killed the prince oflife, whom God had raised from the dead?" The reason is obvious, yousee the impropriety of such argument. --But: 3d. Allowing the resurrection of Jesus, the truth of divinerevelation, the honesty of the apostles of Jesus, are we to rely onwhat they say respecting a future state? Answer, yes, most assuredly. For here let reason ask, whether a divine revelation founded on theresurrection of Jesus could have a more reasonable object, than thebringing to light, life and immortality? Again let reason ask whetherthe divine Being would endow Jesus and his apostles with the gift ofmiracles, by which the divinity of their missions was proved to theunderstanding of all who believed, and then suffer them to teachthings of a moral, a religious, or of an eternal nature which were nottrue? By so doing, it would seem that God gave power to heal the sickand to raise the dead for no other purpose than to gain the attentionof men to what was the mere guess work of men subject to error in thethings which they pretended to teach. For myself I am perfectly satisfied that infinite goodness would neverdo any thing so imperfectly. I am satisfied, being convinced of thetruth of the facts which you acknowledge, that the testimony of Jesusand his apostles respecting this and the coming world, may be reliedon with the utmost confidence and safety. You intimate that Jesus saidbut a little on the subject of a future state. I am entirely of youropinion. And yet I am persuaded that he and his apostles have said asmuch on the subject as is necessary for us to believe. They have givensufficient proof that the design of our Creator is a design of eternalgoodness to our race of being. Jesus has brought life and immortalityto light through the gospel. The Christian is enabled to hope forexistence with God in an eternal state, and this is as much as ourpresent welfare requires. I have no doubt that many passages ofscripture have been applied to a future world, by Christianexpositors, which have no allusion to such a case--but this harms notthe glorious truths and divine realities of the religion of theblessed Saviour. I have many reasons for not believing in the general sentiment thatsupposes the revelation contained in the scriptures was designed toprepare men in this world for happiness in another, and that a want ofa correct knowledge of this revelation here, would subject theignorant to inconveniences in a future state. Such a sentiment is animpeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God. For if this were thecase, why was the gospel not early published to all people? Why wereages after ages suffered to pass away, and generations aftergenerations permitted to sink into eternity without a ray of thatlight which was indispensable to their everlasting happiness? Was itnot as easy for the eternal to send his son at the dawn of time asafter so many ages had passed away? Was it not as easy for him tocommunicate to all nations as to one? But divine wisdom has seen fitto manifest itself by degrees in the system of the gospel as well asin the knowledge of science; and we have no more evidence to believe, that those who go from this state to another ignorant of the gospel ofChrist, will, on that account, be rejected of God from his favour, than we have to believe that those who have died ignorant of thesciences, will, on that account be so rejected. Every communication from God, whether relative to the moral orphysical world is evidently designed for our profit in the state wheresuch communication is made. This improvement of the moral andreligious state of man was the evident design of the revelation ofGod, and to this agree all the prophets. "Instead of the thorn shallcome up the fir-tree, and instead of the briar shall come up themyrtle-tree. " You seem to be opposed to biblical criticisms. So am I, if the objectbe to fix a creed to which all must conform on pain of beinganathematized, but if the object be to get the right understanding ofthe sacred text all in humble submission to that CHARITY which isgreater than a FAITH that could remove mountains, no harm can everarise from it, but a benefit. No one can more sincerely wish to have the frivolities of superstitionand the endless multitude of nothings which arrogant creed-makers haveimpiously superadded to pure christianity removed from the church thanI do; but wisdom must direct in this great and necessary work. It wasthose who had more zeal than discernment who asked if they shouldpluck up the tares from among the wheat? They were told that theywould pluck up the wheat with the tares. --Let us be careful, mybrother, and in our zeal to cleanse, take care and not destroy. If you are troubled with unbelief, if this plague have entered yourheart, permit me to suggest a remedy. Humility is the first step, sincere piety towards God the second, let these be followed by thatfor which the Bereans were commended and the deadly virus of unbeliefwill soon be purged. Will you say; "physician heal thyself?" I reply, I think I have found relief by the use of the prescription, and am somuch in favour of it, that I am determined to continue its applicationmyself as well as recommend it to others. If you ask why I do notdirect some arguments more cogently to prove divine revelation? Ianswer, in the first place, you have granted the validity of theevidences; and secondly, if I think of the attempt, the brilliantlabours of better abilities argue the impropriety of it. But if you think it necessary to labour this subject, I will proposethe single instance of the conversion of St. Paul for investigation. By this means we shall be kept from rambling after different subjects. If you can give a reasonable account of this conversion withoutadmitting the truth of christianity, I will acknowledge you have leftme destitute of one evidence on which I now rely. On the other hand, if you fail in this, you may reasonably suppose that you would fail inany other case of equal moment in this general controversy. Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. * * * * * [The letter containing _extracts_ No. 1, having been laid before theRev. EDWARD TURNER, of Charlestown, Mass. He saw fit to reply to it. The following are extracts from his letter. ] "Passing over the principal parts of your introduction, whichgenerally embrace sentiments to which I readily subscribe, I will justnotice what you say concerning the study of languages. I am not sotenacious of this kind of study, as to believe that too much time hasnot often been employed in it. I am also convinced with you, that 'thetruth or falsity of every proposition must depend on the truth orfalsity of the principles embraced in it. ' But still I am not able tosay that the study of Greek and Hebrew can be of no 'possible serviceto an American. ' Neither, because those languages are not a perfect'security' against falsehood, does it necessarily follow that they areno 'security' at all. For how shall we arrive at the knowledge of the'principle embraced in a proposition' without the knowledge and use oflanguage? We cannot in any other way. Now if it be a fact, that aproposition embracing certain principles may suffer by translation, and even its principles be perverted and misrepresented, then, anunderstanding of the original, in which the proposition was written, may, in my opinion, be very useful. It may assist a man to arrive at atrue knowledge of the 'principles' upon which said proposition isfounded. "'It gives you pain to see what time and money, what labour and toilare expended in plodding over an old dead letter, to learn languages, which exist no where only on paper, barely for the sake of reading theopinions of other men, in other times; men who lived in other ages ofthe world, and under very different circumstances from ourselves, whose opinions (all of which are worth preserving) might be given inour own language, so as to answer every purpose, ' &c. --But if these'opinions' should be given in our own language, there must be some tounderstand Greek and Hebrew, or the opinions of those ancient writers, let them be worth ever so much, would never find their way to us. Andwhen we have gained those supposed opinions, through the translation, how do we know that the translators were faithful? Who can say theywere not warped by system? not misled by preconceived ideas? Who cansay they have not wilfully imposed upon us? Under such circumstances, the ability to detect any inaccuracies or imposition, would, in myview, be very desirable. You have, yourself, my brother, availedyourself of this ability, and very justly merited the gratitude ofyour readers, by rectifying the judgment, upon certain terms used inthe scriptures, the former translation of which, you have disavowed. As I value those efforts of yours, and have been instructed andedified by them, I am proportionably sorry to find them treated in thelanguage of disparagement. "You observe that 'the learned are as much at variance with each otheras the unlearned, ' and this circumstance you say, 'weakens yourconfidence. ' But upon what subject are they not at variance, evenwhere Greek and Hebrew are not concerned? Have philosophers beenalways agreed, when they have discoursed in one language? Havechemists been always of one opinion, though the subjects of theirinvestigations are material bodies? You will not reply affirmatively. And if not, and no system can be found which is not in some degree'liable to misconstruction, disputation and deception, '--what are weto do? Shall we depend upon nothing? Shall we remain immovable forfear we should fall? Shall we never attempt to walk for fear we shouldstumble? I must be allowed to express my concern, that, it shouldappear 'not a little extraordinary to you that God should make arevelation of his will in one age and not in another, to one nationand not to another, or in one language and not in another, and if aspecial revelation was ever necessary at all it is difficult for youto see, why it is not equally necessary, in all ages of the world, toall nations of the earth and in all languages ever spoken by man. ' Itis true, I may be unable to see why a revelation was not equallynecessary to one nation as well as to another, and at the same time, but is this a proof that no revelation was ever made to any nation atany time? I know of no special reason why the laws of electricity werenot developed to my grandfather as well as to Dr. Franklin, with whomhe was contemporary; or why the great principles of civil libertyshould not have been discovered to other nations as well as to ourown, and at the same time, or to ALL nations, a thousand years beforethey were discovered to one. But all this is no discredit to thosediscoveries. But I find reason to doubt whether a revelation 'isequally necessary in all ages of the world. ' I doubt whether a specialrevelation is NOW necessary; and for a very obvious reason; because aspecial revelation has already been made. And as this, though atfirst, really special, follows the general course of other thingswhich are beneficial, and which commence with a few and diffusethemselves to many, it is a reason which precludes the necessity of aconstant recurrence of miracles or any other special medium ofrevelation. You certainly will not deny, that, admitting there hasbeen a revelation from God, it has been progressive like all thingselse, which involve the interests of man. If we admit these facts, they will go far to explain some of the difficulties, to which youallude; but if we do not, our disbelieving in a special revelationwill not remove, but increase our difficulties. "Your's, &c. E. TURNER. " * * * * * EXTRACTS No. III. [To the extracts above, the objector replied as follows. ] "Remarking on the doubts which unavoidably arise in my mind on accountof the diversity in the opinions of the learned respecting the meaningof certain parts of the scriptures, our friend asks, 'upon whatsubject are they (the learned) not at variance, even when Greek andHebrew are not concerned? Have chemists been always of one opinion?'&c. Which must be answered in the negative. Nevertheless I may takeliberty to observe that inasmuch as they have disagreed, it shews thatthe subjects about what they have disagreed, are as yet obscure, andtherefore perhaps none of them are entitled to full and complete'confidence:' for whatever is plain and obvious, men seldom disagreeabout. That the sun and moon are _globes_, and not _triangles_, allare agreed; and it would be impossible to raise a dispute on thesubject: but whether either or both of them are inhabited, or evencapable of being inhabited, by rational beings, similar or like untoourselves, is a proposition not so clear, and respecting which thegreatest philosophers might possibly disagree. The above remarks areintended to shew that when men differ in opinion, whether learned orunlearned, it is obvious that the truth about which they differ, tosay the most of it, is yet but obscurely made manifest to theirunderstanding. "In order to remove an objection, to the idea of revelation, onaccount of its being made only to one nation, &c. Our friend says, 'Itis true, I may be unable to see why a revelation was not equallynecessary to one nation as well as to another, and at the same time;but is this a proof that no revelation was ever made to any nation atany time?' I am very ready to answer this question in the _negative_. But at the same time I must be excused for not being able to see anyanalogy between revelation and the discovery of the laws ofelectricity; as mentioned by our brother; and therefore my mind is notto be relieved from its difficulty in this way. If it could be provedthat the principles manifested by revelation were like the principlesin nature, against the developement of which there is no great barrierat one time than at another except what exists in the ignorance ofman; and if the Christian could now try the experiment over again, andthereby demonstrate the truth of the doctrine of the _resurrection_, the same as the philosopher can try the experiment for himself, andthereby demonstrate the truth of the doctrine _of electricity_, thenmy doubts or surprise at the seeming partiality in the developement ordiscovery of the principles of the doctrine _of revelation_ would beentirely removed. But the very idea of a _revelation_ supposes themanifestation of it to differ essentially from all the discoveries ofman. Therefore the remarks of our friend relative to the laws ofelectricity, &c. Seem to be hardly in point. The evidences ofrevelation to all, excepting those to whom the revelation was firstmade, are in their very nature essentially different from theevidences of natural philosophy, chemistry, &c. For these are foundedin immutable principles which never vary, and are ever open at alltimes to thorough investigation and experiment. Hence if the learnedhave any doubts on the subject, those doubts may be removed by occulardemonstration; and even when they are enabled by any new discoveriesto correct some former opinions, which were either founded on mereconjecture or imperfect reasoning, yet the first principles stillremain, and the former evidences, instead of being weakened, areincreased by every new discovery or experiment in the developement oftruth. But not so with evidences of divine revelation. Although everso clear at first, and so well supported by facts, concerning whichthe witness had the clearest evidence, yet the evidences being of sucha nature as preclude a repetition, like those respecting a vision ofthe night or any other phenomenon, are liable to suffer by passingfrom one to another, and also to be impaired by every change whichthey are caused to pass. And if the evidences of any fact may beweakened at all, either by lapse of time, or by passing throughdifferent hands; by the same causes, if continued, they may lose alltheir strength. That the evidences of some facts may be thus weakened, I believe will not be denied. Hence what was once clear may be nowdoubtful, and in process of time may become entitled to no credit. Iftherefore the evidence of revelation either have been, or ever shallby any circumstances whatever be thus impaired, then a new revelationmay become necessary either to revive or to strengthen the evidencesof the old. If Christ should make his second appearance, according tothe opinions of some, it would be as much of a revelation as his firstappearance was; and this new revelation would corroborate and confirmthe old; but if nothing of the kind should ever take place, and ifthere should be nothing more to confirm the validity of prophesy, butlet the world pass on for several thousand years as we know it has forfifteen hundred years past, how long will either the Jews orchristians believe in divine revelation? "I believe however, we had better see whether the old revelation canbe fully proved before we go very far into the inquiry whether a newone is necessary. "That I deserve any credit in the opinion of our friend or my ownconscience for the unwearied pains I have taken to ascertain thecorrect ideas communicated to us in the scriptures is very grateful tomy feelings; and let it not be imagined for a moment that I feel atall disposed to shrink from my former assiduity; for as long as theworld, or any considerable part thereof, believe the scriptures to bedivine revelation I think it very important that they should have acorrect understanding of them. So long therefore as I hold this to bemy profession, I mean faithfully to pursue it; ever remembering that Iam not accountable in the least degree either for the truth or falsityof the bible, but only for my faithfulness in preaching, taking heedthat I do not preach that for bible, which is not bible. "Let not my brethren be 'concerned, ' or made in the least degreeunhappy on my account. My mind was never more tranquil respectingreligious subjects than at the present moment. My doubts, whateverthey are, give me no uneasiness; they only excite me to diligence andassiduity in endeavouring by all possible means to ascertain thetruth; and wherever, or in whatever light, it shall be discovered, Iam fully satisfied that eternal truth is perfectly right, yea just asit should be. "For, provided deism should prove true in its stead, what is there tobe lost if christianity fails? Ought we not to be thankful for, andalso satisfied with the truth of either? It appears to me that allought to be satisfied with the truth whatever it may be; and thereforemy present object is to ascertain, if possible, what truth is. "'Did human reason, ' saith he, 'unassisted by divine light make thediscovery?' (i. E. Of the 'unity of God. ')--'Then indeed would "allnations, in all ages, " have possessed the great object made manifestby revelation. ' In answer to this, I would only ask, were not the lawsof electricity discovered by 'human reason unassisted by divinelight?' Why then were they not known to 'all nations, in allages?'--The fact is, what reason is capable of discovering may also belong concealed from the eye of reason. "Yours, &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER III. _Dear Sir, and Brother_, --As I have not the opportunity of presentingyour third number to our mutual friend and brother, to whom it mostproperly belongs to reply, I have thought it no more than reasonablethat I should acknowledge the receipt of your favour accompanying thisacknowledgement with some observations on the most essential parts ofwhat you have suggested. You wish us to take it for granted, that those parts of ourcommunications to which you make no reply, are at least, generallyspeaking, satisfactory to your mind. Respecting this particular, youwill suffer me to point out, what appears to me, a very materialdefect in your proposed method. Suppose, sir, an argument be laid down on which much depends, in theopinion of the writer, and out of a proper reply to which, heanticipates great advantages; he waits for a reply--No reply comes tothis particular, but the very same query which the argument wasdesigned to answer is still urged; is it not easy to see that muchlabour may be in vain in consequence of this method? If you answer toa question, stating with great seeming earnestness, viewing thequestion of importance in the mind of him who states it, you would notonly expect, but you might really need to be informed what effect yourreply was allowed to have in the mind of your opponent. And as hemight not anticipate the use which you had designed to make of hisanswer, you would not judge it advisable to submit to him whether heshould reply or not. You have finally put the dispute about the necessity of retaining thedead languages at issue on the question relative to a future state, inthe following words; "If the opinions recorded in scripture relativeto a future state of existence are to be relied on, as being dictatedby God himself, and in a way too, that was not mistaken; and that thewriters of the scriptures being thus inspired, have written nothingbut the truth, then I admit, " &c. Now from this your own statement youwill see the importance of retaining those languages until it be fullydiscovered that no credit is due to these writings which we have beenin the habit of believing to be divinely inspired. Your discernmentwill at once discover that it would be imprudent in the extreme, toobliterate, without first knowing that what was to be defaced was ofno utility. A child, ever so old, who should utterly deface hisfather's last will and testament, which had made ample provisions forhis future wants, merely because he had not a perfect understanding ofit, or on suspicion that there were some possible defects in it, couldnot be considered prudent in so doing. But if the will should finallyfail, and prove invalid, no loss would be sustained even if it werecommitted to the devouring element. To say, the will may be destroyeduntil it has been proved, would be absurd. In your further remarks on our brother's communication, you findoccasion to suggest a difference between the subject of revelation andthe discoveries which have been made by men in the powers andproperties of nature. But when you have contended successfully forthis (which by no means has any power to refute his argument) you seemnot to realize that there must be as great a difference in theevidences by which these different subjects are communicated to themind, as there are in the subjects themselves. It is acknowledged, without controversy, that we cannot demonstrate by any mathematical orchemical process that there ever was such an emperor in Rome asAugustus Caesar, or such a governor in Judea as Pilate, or such a manas Jesus; but then we are not, on this account, or any other, unableto find such kind of evidence as the nature of the case admits, andsuch as is sufficient to satisfy the candid mind. Should any one nowpretend to deny that Louis XVIth. Was beheaded, and allege as proofthat no such thing was to be credited, because it had never beendiscovered as the result of a chemical process, would you hesitate tofault his reasoning? Should it occur to your mind that you have contended that the evidenceof revelation is as different from the evidence required in naturaldiscoveries, as the subjects themselves are different, you arereminded that you have contended for this only with a view to _weaken_the force of the former, and in a way to disallow its validity. At thesame time you state that you do not undertake to deny a specialrevelation from God, but "wish only to take a review of the evidences, and see if they are such that it is _impossible_ it should be false. "Of these evidences you speak thus; "Although ever so clear at first, and ever so well supported by facts, concerning which the witnesseshad the clearest evidences, yet the evidences being of such a natureas to preclude a repetition, like those respecting a vision of thenight or any other phenomenon, are liable to suffer by passing fromone to another, " and finally "lose all their strength. " Here it seemsyou pretend to state the character of the evidences of a divinerevelation, which evidences you wish to review. Permit me to ask, dearbrother, if it would not have appeared more consistent with piety andcandor to have reviewed before you fixed the character of theevidences?--There is a proper order in which every thing should beconducted. All our researches should be kept from the embarrassmentsof prejudice. Though I feel much reluctance in entering on so great asubject as the vindication of the truth of divine revelation, fearing, I should fail in doing that honour to the subject which I am confidentit deserves, I am inclined to suggest a few things which I think areworthy of some notice. As you speak of a vision of the night, theevidences of which were clear to the person and satisfactory at thetime, those evidences would naturally lose their force whencommunicated to others and finally lose their strength. Let us supposea case. A man shall have a vision of the night, in which it shall berevealed to him that some time before the present generation shallleave the stage of life, the kingdom of Great Britain will be overcomeby the power of France; that very many of the flourishing cities ofEngland will be destroyed in a very awful manner; that London will belaid level with the ground; that the distress of the inhabitantsduring the siege will be extreme; that for some time before this greatevent, there will be wars and rumors of wars among the nations, andcertain signs very wonderful will be seen in the heavens. This mantells his vision very circumstantially and several persons write itdown. Now suppose as the time passes away, these events, one afteranother, should take place, all in the same order in which the visionrepresented them; do you feel willing to say that the evidences of thetruth of this vision, are all the time losing their force? No surelythey are not; they are all the time gaining strength and waxingbrighter. Whether I am able to satisfy you that the above case is afair representation of the evidences of divine revelation, or not, itdiscovers in some degree the ground on which, in my mind, revelationis established. Compare, if you please, the prophesy of Jesus recorded in the 24th ofMatthew, with the history of the events of which the divine messengerspake. Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. P. S. You have noticed, no doubt, in a parenthesis, that I do notallow your argument on the dissimilarity of divine revelation andprinciples of nature to have any force to do away the argument of ourbrother, to which you replied. It was evidently not his design toargue a similarity between the nature of these widely differentsubjects, but to show that no greater partiality appears in the divinewisdom, in not discovering the truths of revelation in all ages, toall nations and in all languages, than in its not leading the humanmind to the discovery of electricity or any other of the laws ofnature in the same manner. Will you endeavour to maintain that thedivine economy has nothing to do in directing means and circumstancesto the developement of the laws of nature and to the discovery ofuseful inventions? And if you allow it has, why do you not assign areason why these discoveries should not have been made in all ages, toall nations, and written or rather _printed_, in all languages thatcannot as well be applied in the other case? In this way you would doaway his reasoning and my own likewise, for as you notice, we wereboth of one mind on this subject. Before I close this postscript, I wish to remark on the subject whichyou have in view, in reviewing the evidences of divine revelation, which you say is to "see if they are such that it is _impossible_ itshould be false. " Now it appears to your humble servant, that faithdoes not require evidence of the description you lay down. I grant itwants to be satisfied and it has a right to expect it; it feels underno obligation to evidence which comes short of conviction; but it doesnot require all _possibility_ to be taken into its account. This wouldseem to go beyond the limits of faith and enter into the regions ofcertainty. If the evidences in support of faith be sufficient to giverest, peace, and consolation to the mind, and if the faith be strongenough to effect the conduct of the believer in a proper manner, theobject of faith is obtained. The hopes of the husbandman may serve to illustrate this particular. He does not know for certainty that his fields will produce him anything; he does not know that the coming season will be favourable tohis crops, yet he plants and sows in comfortable expectation. He risesearly and labours cheerfully, his expectations are full of comfort, hesleeps quietly and enjoys content. But if you ask him whether he viewsit _impossible_ that he should fail of a harvest? he will with butvery little concern answer in the negative. "The just shall live by faith, we walk by faith and not by sight. "All, therefore, that we can reasonably expect in the case before us, is to find a decided _balance_ of evidence in favour of the religionof the gospel. And to _review_ the evidences of this religion, itseems necessary first to allow that there are evidences in existencewhich go to prove it, if their validity be allowed. For instance, thefour evangelists, the acts of the apostles, together with the epistlesof the apostles are considered evidences of the truth of thisreligion. And can you reasonably require more until you are able toshow that all these come short of establishing the credibility of thefacts which they relate with apparent honesty and simplicity not to bemet with in any other ancient writings? There are a great many other evidences which serve to corroboratethose mentioned, but if you can do _them_ away, no doubt the othersmay be as easily removed. You will duly consider that in disproving the religion of JesusChrist, you disprove all religion, for I am satisfied that you willnot pretend that you are making a choice between the gospel and someother doctrine. No, the choice is between the gospel and no religionat all. Come then, strip away all the clouds of superstition, and demonstrateat once that there has been no sun in the firmament during the wholeof a cloudy day! Soar like the strong pinioned eagle, make your tourbeyond the mists of error and bring us the joyless tidings that thereis no clear sky in the heavens. Can you imagine any thing to be morepleasing than the coming of one that brought _good_ tidings? But letus have the worst of it. Show from undoubted authority that therenever was such a man as Jesus, or show that he was a wicked impostorand deservedly lost his life. Show moreover, that there never weresuch men as the apostles of Jesus, or that they were likewiseimpostors, and all suffered death for their wicked impiety! Give theparticulars of Saul's madly forsaking the honourable connexion inwhich he stood, for the sake of practising a fraud which produced himan immense income of suffering! But you say the apostles were not bad men. Very well, then let us seehow good men could tell so many things which they knew were not true, and suffer and die in attestation of what they knew to be false. Youwill see the danger of supposing that honest men can bear testimony tofalsehood under the pretence of doing good, as this would destroy alltestimony at once; even your own cannot be relied on after youmaintain this abominable principle, which has been practised a wickedpriesthood for ages. H. B. * * * * * EXTRACTS No. IV. [The objector in his fourth number begins by explaining himself insome particulars wherein he had not been fully understood, and also bymaking some concessions respecting the importance of retaining theoriginal languages in which the scriptures were written; and, bringingthese remarks to a close, he proceeds as follows:] "In regard to a revelation from God, the three propositions which youhave stated answer my mind well enough, as far as they go, to which, however, I would wish to add a fourth; and ask, admitting the threefirst propositions true. 'Fourth. Is it reasonable to suppose that theapostles had any other means of forming their opinions relative to afuture state than what passed before their eyes?--viz. The miracles ofChrist, the circumstances attending his death, his resurrection, andthe miracles wrought by themselves in his name?' "1st. Is it reasonable to suppose that God has ever made a specialrevelation to man? "You say I have acknowledged that a divine revelation 'if real, is ofall truths the most important;' hence you call upon the 'eye ofreason' to examine this proposition to see why it should be consideredmore important than the discoveries made in the arts and sciences, &c. I think these questions may be easily and correctly answered. Onerelates to the blessings of _eternity_; and the others to those onlyof _time_; hence if the truths manifested by a revelation had been ofno more importance to man than the truths in natural philosophy, reason would say, God would have left them also to be discovered, ifdiscovered at all, like all other truths, without a specialrevelation. But, you must excuse me for not being able to see theforce and conclusiveness of your reasoning, when you say that my'allowing it any importance at all, is, in the eye of reason, anargument in its support. ' Supposing I am informed of a large estatebequeathed to me by some benefactor. I acknowledge that it is veryimportant to me, if true, as I am in great need; yet I do not believeit true. Now, is my acknowledging its importance, if true, an argumentin support of its truth? If it is so, the reason of it is out of mysight. "I should think that the reason of man (the only reason with which weare acquainted) would hardly undertake to say whether a revelation iseither necessary or not necessary. The only evidence that reason canhave of its necessity is its truth; and a supposition that it is nottrue equally supposes it not to be necessary. For to suppose otherwisesupposes that God has omitted something which was necessary to bedone! Try the matter as it respects a new revelation. Who willundertake to say that a new revelation either is or is not necessary?No one who believes in a revelation will deny the possibility of suchan event. Suppose then for the moment it is true; and something isbrought to light infinitely more glorious than any thing of which thehuman mind has yet conceived; will any one say it is unimportant? Oris the 'allowing it any importance--an argument in its support?' "I am very ready to allow that a 'divinely munificent Creator wouldnot omit any thing which is of importance to his intelligentcreatures:' and on this ground I admitted the _importance_ ofrevelation 'if real;' but I am yet unable to see how this is anyargument in its support. It seems to me that this argument might beturned right the other way with equal force. If revelation be nottrue, it is not necessary it should be; and man can be made just ashappy in this world by knowing all that he can know without it, asthose are who believe in it; and admitting it not true there is nomore importance in all the stories about it, than there is in the_Alcoran_! Now, supposing you should 'allow' all this, would it be anyargument against the truth of revelation? I think not. "In answer therefore to the first particular, I must be allowed to saythat the only reason in favour of a divine revelation must grow out ofthe evidence in support of the facts on which it is predicated; for, aside from those evidences, I do not see why mankind should be taughtto believe in a future life and immortality by special revelation, anymore than they should be taught the arts and sciences by specialrevelation; yet reason does not reject the evidences of such an eventwhen they are made clear to the understanding. --Therefore, it appearsto me that your first proposition is involved in the second, viz. "2d. Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of being proved? "I should have said something more on the subject which was answeredin your first number, and which I neglected to acknowledge in mysecond, if it had occurred to me as being necessary. I will brieflystate here that your reasoning on that subject is satisfactory; and ifa revelation can be fully proved I feel not disposed to complain onaccount of its seeming partiality. Infinite wisdom dispenses hisblessings so as best to answer his benevolent designs; and were we toobject to the _manner_, merely because we do not comprehend the_equality_, we should be satisfied, strictly speaking, with nothing. "But you have excused yourself from undertaking to prove your secondproposition in a way that I did not expect, viz. By finding, as yousupposed, in my words, an acknowledgement of its truth. Here again Imust confess my misfortune in giving too much grounds for the wrongconstruction. Every one knows however the ambiguity of words, and howthe meaning of a sentence may be altered by placing the emphasis on adifferent word from what the author intended. I acknowledge that mywords will admit the construction you have given them; yet you couldbut see that it was giving up at once what I had in a number ofplaces, both before and after, considered a main question. And then, you ask me why I wish you to prove what I acknowledge to be true. Ifyou will be good enough to review the passage, and notice that theword _substantially_ was emphatic, and contrasted with_circumstantial_, a little below, you will perceive that my meaningwas simply this. No one will pretend that the evangelists were correctin every minute particular, but only correct in _substance_; and bythe ALL, by whom this will be admitted, I mean those who believe indivine revelation; that even they would acknowledge, that in point ofcorrectness, the writers were 'no more' than _substantially_ so. However: "You think if I am 'disposed to doubt, ' &c. It is my province to bringforward my 'strong reasoning, ' &c. I know of no disposition that Ifeel respecting the subject but to ascertain, if possible, the truth. If I have doubts, it is not because I choose to doubt, but because Icannot help them; and if I have faith it is such as is given me. Ofone thing I have no doubt; that is, that the truth, whatever it is, isright. But: "Admitting the scriptures are not true, I shall not attempt to guesswhat is true respecting the subjects to which they relate. For I mightguess a hundred different ways to account for what we know is true, and all of them be wrong. "My doubts on this subject are nothing more than _doubts_; they do notamount to a confirmed _unbelief_; because they admit the possibilityof the account's being true. "Yours, &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER IV. _Much esteemed friend_, --Your fourth number is hereby acknowledged;and though occasions for finding fault are in some measure extenuated, it still appears that you have lost the real connexion of yourarguments, and have made the subject of the languages one of your mainsubjects, when judging from your first number, it was no more than avestibule to the grand edifice which it was in your mind to examine. However, you having paid more than half, we will not stand about thefraction, as long as we have a profitable object in view. You call upwhat you call the subject. I suppose the main subject. This you stateas follows: "In regard to a revelation from God, the threepropositions which you have stated answer my mind well enough, as faras they go; to which however, I would wish to add a fourth, and ask;admitting the three first particulars true. --4th. Is it reasonable tosuppose, that the apostles had any other means of forming theiropinions, relative to a future state, than what passed before theireyes? viz. The miracles of Christ, the circumstance attending hisdeath, his resurrection, and the miracles wrought by themselves in hisname?" I wish, in this place, to show you that your added propositionpossesses no power relative to our argument which is not comprehendedin the last of the three which I stated. For if it be allowed, as youpropose, that my propositions are true, then you consent to thevalidity of the apostles' testimony respecting a future state, whichgranted, it makes no difference in what way the apostles come to theknowledge of futurity. When a thing is known, it is known. The meansby which it is known add nothing to either side of the argument. Ifyou allow that my argument on this subject is correct, as it seems youdo, then you acknowledge that God would not endow men with the powerto heal the sick and raise the dead, whose testimony concerning afuture state could be justly doubted. I will not be too positive thatI rightly apprehend your meaning on this subject, but as you proposeto allow my three propositions, and as you make no attempt to do awaymy reasoning, especially on my last, I think I should not understandyou according to your own proposal in any other way. The methaphor which you use to help you away from my argumentrespecting the _importance_ of a revelation from God, does not appearfully adequate to the purpose for which you use it. It might not be areasonable, a necessary disposition of property for the proposedbenefactor, to give you a large estate; it might be, in the eye ofreason a very improper donation, and one which would deprivelegitimate heirs of what they had a right to expect from a fathertowards whom they had always acted with filial obedience. --But if youwill make the case a parallel, and suppose you are an heir, a lawfulchild, and your father has a large estate to dispose of, then you willsee that it is right and just, and no more than what you have reasonto expect; that it is necessary, and that this necessity is theimportance of the subject, you will at once see that this importanceis a reason, yea an evidence that you have a right to expect it. Icalled on you to prove that no revelation was needed; I acknowledgedthat if none was necessary, a being of infinite wisdom would makenone. You venture to say, that the "only evidence that reason can haveof the necessity of divine revelation is its truth. " It is believed, sir, that this hypothesis involves too much. It is saying that reasoncan discern the necessity of nothing until it obtains it, whereas thetruth is evidently the other side of the assertion. We are frequentlyexperiencing the necessity of things which we have not alreadyattained, and by this want we are incited to use the means by which wefinally obtain them. --"Ask, and ye shall receive, seek, and ye shallfind, knock, and it shall be opened unto you, " &c. It is believed, andno doubt it may be argued with success, that the moral and religiousstate of man really required a divine revelation. Never did theparched ground, the withering plant, the thirsty herds need theshowers from heaven, more than man, that WORD of life which descendedas the rain and distilled as the dew, when the gospel was published bya cloud of faithful witnesses, called of God for that purpose. After acknowledging that your words admit of the construction which Igave them respecting the apostles stating no more than what wassubstantially true, you inform me that you meant something verydifferent; then, sir, it seems you must mean that they stated thatwhich is not true. And if so, why do you not prove wherein theytestified falsely, which would at once cast their bands from us? Bythis mean you would show that their testimony is deserving of nocredit. On the subjects of your doubts, you recollected my request, that youbring forward your reasons, &c. But in room of doing this you informme that your doubts are _involuntary_. But I wish to know if thisrenders it improper for you to state your reasons for doubting? Youfurther inform me that your doubts do not amount to a confirmedunbelief. Again, I would ask if it be necessary for you to wait untilyou are a confirmed unbeliever before you state your reasons fordoubting the truth of the testimony which Christians call divine? By these questions you will perceive that I am waiting for you, and ifI am not able to meet your arguments, I am ready on making thediscovery, to acknowledge your reasoning too strong for my weak powersto manage. Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. * * * * * EXTRACTS No. V. [After acknowledging the receipt of _Letters_ Nos. 3 and 4, andremarking on several parts of the reply to _Extracts_ No. 2, makingsome concessions, &c. As he found it necessary, the _objector_proceeds as follows. ] "But, your final conclusion, after all, comes so near what I conceiveto be the truth, that, were you as correct in every thing as youappear to be in this, I should hardly think it expedient to pursuethis controversy any further. "The Christian is enabled, " you say, "tohope for existence with God in an eternal state, and this is as muchas our present welfare requires. " Most excellent! To this propositionI cherfully assent. Yea, I would consent even to pruning it a little, which no doubt would spoil it in your view. Instead of 'this is asmuch as, ' read, 'even this is more than, ' and your proposition wouldstand exactly right. Again, you say, "'I have many reasons for not believing in the general sentiment thatsupposes the revelation contained in the scriptures was designed toprepare men in this world for happiness in another, and that a want ofa correct knowledge of this revelation here, would subject theignorant to inconvenience in a future state. Such a sentiment is animpeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God. ' "Here again, should I admit a divine revelation, I most heartily agreewith you; and also with the reasoning which follows under thisproposition. For it is more consistent with reason and good sense tobelieve (like the fool) in the existence of no God, than to believe ina God who is either partial or cruel! If such were the generalsentiment of mankind, the evils resulting from it, in my humbleopinion, would not be worse than the evils which have resulted fromthe belief in a God of the character just mentioned. One who, according to the sentiment, has let millions, even millions ofmillions, of his rational creatures die ignorant of a divinerevelation, when he knew without the knowledge of, and belief in, sucha revelation, they must sink down into eternal ruin and misery! And, so far as a revelation respects the damned, as though it was designedto aggravate and increase their misery by increasing theirsensibility, he makes known his will, by special revelation, to a few, accompanied with the gift of his holy spirit, through the divineefficacy of which, a selected and chosen number will be admitted tobliss and glory, to the utter and eternal exclusion of the millionsabove mentioned!!! "If such a sentiment does not impeach the divine character, not onlyof partiality, but of _cruelty_, I know of nothing that could. But, Sir, "Are you not aware that your sentiment, as above stated, which has metmy approbation, on the supposition that divine revelation can bemaintained, is as much opposed to the general sentiment ofChristianity, as it respects this particular, as any thing which Ihave written or probably shall write on this subject? I presume youare aware of all this, and I hope you are prepared for itsconsequences. You have more to apprehend, however, from this generalsentiment, than I have. You have levelled an arrow at the very seat oflife of what is considered _orthodoxy_ in divinity, it is impossiblebut that the wound should be severly felt. For you are not insensiblesir, that it is not only the general, but almost the universalsentiment of orthodoxy, from _his holiness the Pope_ down to thesmallest child who has been taught to lisp the christian name, thatthe revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ was designed to preparemankind in this world for heaven and happiness in another. Hence ithas been believed that those who have died ignorant of the gospel, andbeing at the same time born of ignorant or unbelieving parents, mustbe lost forever. But those who hear and reject the gospel must bestill more wretched in another world. With this sentiment, however, itseems you have no more fellowship than I. Therefore, my brother, itmay be well for both, but more especially for you, that the days ofrigorous persecution are over. For notwithstanding orthodoxy willconsider us both equally opposed to christianity at heart, yet, of thetwo, you will be considered the most dangerous character. I shall beconsidered the _open_, but you the _secret enemy_; who, under the garbof professed friendship, are doing your utmost to sap the veryfoundation of the christian's hope! And you will not be considered anythe less dangerous for your writings, being approved in any sense, byone who has the audacity, as they will term it, to doubt of the truth, of divine revelation! Instead of discovered impious blasphemy in thehonest inquiry of your friend as it will be supposed you ought to havedone, and instead of threatening him with endless burningstherefor;--or for not being disposed to receive, even truth, withoutcautious and thorough examination, you have painted christianity insuch beautiful colours that infidelity itself finds but little causeto oppose it. Should these letters therefore ever come before thepublic you must be prepared for the gathering storm. For should you beable to reconcile revelation with the above proposition, if reason benot fully convinced of its truth, it will find nothing to object tothe principles it inculcates. However, as this is not the avowedsentiment of christians, generally speaking, you must permit me toproceed. "As it respects biblical criticism, notwithstanding all I have writtenon the subject, if the object is what you have proposed, 'to get theunderstanding of the sacred text, ' I have no objection to it, but, forthose who have time and inclination, think it laudible. Your caution, likewise, that in our zeal to cleanse we 'take care and not destroy, 'is no doubt reasonable, and I trust duly appreciated. Your method alsofor curing or removing unbelief is happily chosen, and is what I amnow attempting, which, with your assistance, I hope to make a proper, if not a successful application. "Although the 'validity of the evidences' of revelation was notintended to have been granted, as I have informed you in my fourthnumber, yet I shall not press you to argue the points till I havegiven you the reasons for my doubts; for these being removed, nothingmore will be necessary. "Yours &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * EXTRACTS No. VI. [Here twelve pages or more of the objector's manuscript are omitted, as the nature of his arguments will pretty fully appear in the reply;and as he has been obliged to rescind the ground he had taken, it isnot expedient to publish his remarks. That the reader may see a littleof the manner, however, in which he has given up his part of theargument, the following is inserted. ] "Speaking however on the evidences of revelation, you have stated somethings worthy of serious consideration; which if correct, and I cannotsay but they are, give me considerable satisfaction; and are verygrateful to my feelings. 'It' (faith) say you 'does not require all_possibility_ to be taken into the account: this would seem to gobeyond the limits of faith and enter into the regions of certainty. ' "According to this doctrine, I may yet, perhaps, be considered abeliever in divine revelation, and of course in Christianity. If 'allpossibility' is not required, then certainly some _doubts_, some_possibility_ of failure, may be admited without destroying theconsistency of the Christian faith. "Here as it respects the argument, you have seemingly forclosed everything which I shall say by way of objection; at least, you haveanticipated all my arguments on this subject. For evidences andcircumstances calculated to raise _doubts_ in the mind; and shewingthe _possibility_ of uncertainty, are all the arguments which I haveexpected to produce in this case. But it may not be improper toinquire how much uncertainty, or _possibility_ of uncertainty, may Iadmit in my calculation without destroying the Christian faith? Thatthere are evidences in favor of divine revelation, and, which wouldsupport it, if there were nothing to counterbalance their testimony, is a proposition which I admit, and which I think cannot be disputed. Hence I conceive it must be admitted that there is a _possibility_, atleast, of its being true. --But after all, if the weight of evidence inthe mind of any one should preponderate against it, I doubt whethersuch an one could consistently be called a believer in divinerevelation. "You have suggested that in disproving the religion of Jesus Christ, Ishould disprove all religion; as there can be no choice between thisand any other; for if this can be proved false all may be proved false&c. Or words to that effect. In this I hardly know how to understandyou. So far as the religion of Christ consists in 'feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and keeping himself unspotted from the world, ' Iadmit, that 'in disproving the religion of Christ, ' I should 'disproveall religion:' that is to say, in other words, so far as the religionof Christ is not founded on revelation, but on the relation anddependence existing between man and man, to disprove it would disproveall religion: but if the religion of Jesus Christ consists purely andexclusively in believing in a future state of existence, thendisproving it would not disprove all religion. A man may be what thepoet calls 'the noblest work of God' i. E. 'an honest man, ' and attendto all the duties embraced in that religion which St. James calls'pure and undefiled before God and the father, ' and yet have no_opinion_, that is, no settled opinion, in regard to a future state. If a man has religion enough to be a good husband, a good neighbor, agood citizen, and can rationably enjoy all the blessings whichappertain to this life, of what consequence is it to him, or to anyone else, what he believes in regard to a future state? This is aquestion worthy of serious consideration. "The denial of revelation, much less to doubt its truth, does notrender it necessary that I should do what you have proposed; neitheris it my disposition to destroy if I could the peace even of anindividual. Hence, I have no wish to 'demonstrate that there is no sunin a cloudy day;' but only to prove that clouds and darkness are asnecessary to the well being of man as clear sunshine. Neither would Ibe the bearer of the 'joyless tidings that there is no clear sky inthe heavens;' but only to query whether our portion of 'clear sky' isnot that which reflects upon the earth; and that only during the shortperiod of our lives? Who has a right to complain, if our blessings arecircumscribed to our sphere of action? Must we enjoy nothing, becausemore is not allotted to our share? It is very probable there may bemillions of other suns, enlightening other worlds, and systems ofworlds, giving life, light and warmth to rational beings likeourselves, exceeding all imagination in number; and yet, have littleof the blessings of those heavenly luminaries that falls to ourenjoyment! They merly form a beautiful canopy over our heads. It istrue, their greatest use to us may be that of which we are mostlyignorant; in balancing systems &c. But yet we must have some knowledgeof those benefits, before me can feel grateful for them. Dost thouwish to visit them? Dost thou desire to know more concerning them thanthou canst know in this state? Calm and deliberate reason would sayunto the, 'Be content, O vain man! with thine own lot, and not try tosoar above thy proper station!' "The above is not designed as a reflection; it is only what I take tomyself. "You have proposed what I conceive you think is the only alternativeto which I must flee, when I give up the truth of divine revelation. But may I not stop to inquire whether there is not some medium betweenthe two extremes which you have mentioned? Must I believe that therewas no such man as Jesus, or if there were, that he was an impostor;or else believe all that is stated concerning him? Must I also believethe same of the apostles or else believe them impeccable? May not evengood men be honestly deceived? and being deceived, honestly leadothers into an error?--That honest men do not bear 'testimony tofalshood, ' I admit; neither could such a principle be justified evenunder a 'pretence of doing good;' yet I will not undertake to say thatno such _pious frauds_ have ever been practiced in the world, and evenamong professed christians; and how soon it was practiced after thedays of the apostles, and whether or not by some even in their day, would be very difficult now to determine. Neither is it necessary Ishould say any thing more upon the subject, as you admit thisprinciple 'has been practised upon by a wicked priesthood for ages!' "In remarking on my fourth proposition, which I added to the _three_which you had proposed, you say, 'I will not be too positive that Irightly apprehend your meaning on this subject, but as you propose toallow my three propositions, and as you make no attempt to do away myreasoning, especially on my last, ' &c. Here permit me to observe, I amwell persuaded you did not fully understand me, whatever you didyourself, on this subject. You will perceive, sir, both by my fourthnumber, and also by my fifth, that my answer to your _threepropositions_ was not completed. Probably if you had waited for thewhole of my answer you would have understood me much better, and alsowould have seen the use and propriety of my fourth proposition. "I think, as you will perceive by my fifth number that even honest menmay be mistaken. And if so, it is very important to know whether theapostles judged only from outward circumstances, or whether they hadsome internal evidence, called _inspiration_, by which they alwaysknew the truth of the things whereof they affirmed. This was theobject of my fourth proposition. "That you did not fully understand me appears by your saying, 'If itbe allowed that my propositions are true, then you _consent_ to thevalidity of the apostles' testimony respecting a future state. ' Ifthis could be allowed, it might then be admitted, that in thisargument it makes no difference how the apostles come by their'knowledge of futurity. '--But I did not know, neither do I nowperceive, that my admitting the apostles to be honest men makes itnecessary also to admit the validity of their 'testimony respecting afuture state;' unless it can be shown that honest men are nevermistaken respecting the things whereof they affirm. I admit the'_honesty_' of my good friend, in the above quoted proposition; but Ican hardly be willing, purely on this account, to '_consent_' to itstruth. "As it respects an inheritance given in a WILL, &c. I have some doubtswhether reason always carries things as far as you would wish to carrythis metaphor to make it a parallel. Reason sometimes moves in a smallcircle; and that too without being unreasonable. If the benefit issaid to have been absolutely made, and reason is informed of the fact, it has a right to take it for granted, that the donor had the propertyto give, and that it is not given to the injury of any one else. Butyet he consults his own interest, and that only, when he says, 'thisis very important to me, if true, yet I doubt, yea I have reasons fornot believing it true. ' Would any one say that such a man talkethunreasonably? "You have called on me to prove 'that no revelation was needed;' andhave acknowledged, 'that if none was necessary, a being of infinitewisdom would make none. ' And at the same time you have argued verypathetically indeed to prove the necessity of a revelation; that is, if that can be called argument which grows out of a man's ownfeelings: A man, however, of different feelings might bring forwardarguments equally energetic, and perhaps equally conclusive, butdiametrically opposite. "I know not what evidence you wish, or what evidence would beaccepted, to prove that a revelation is not necessary. Even if suchwere the fact, it appears to me to be hardly susceptible of proof. Itmay be no more difficult, however, than it is to prove that arevelation is true. I presume that nothing short of a _revelation_would convince you that a _revelation_ is not necessary! For who butGod can know what either is, or is not necessary for God to makeknown? "But if arguments drawn from our feelings are admissible, hear, foronce, the voice of simple nature, proclaiming in her simplicity byevery thing which exists either in or around you, that a revelation isneither necessary nor useful. That every thing which can be enjoyed inlife can be enjoyed equally as well, and often better, without eitherits knowledge or belief. That every duty, either to God or man, can beperformed as well, and with the same beneficial effect. And finallythat man may be brought, without either the aid, knowledge, or beliefof revelation, not only to be reconciled to his conditions and stationin life, but also to curtail all his _anxious_ desires to which he notonly _believes_ but _knows_ there is a natural possibility ofobtaining. "If one could be brought who would solemnly testify to the truth ofthe above paragraph, would you believe his testimony? I presume not. But why not? Will you say it is impossible it should be true? No onecan know this for a certainty, except those whose misfortune it is, ifit be a misfortune not to believe in a future state of existence. Ifsuch there are, however, and yet their lives are exactly correct, their examples in society equally good, and their enjoymentsapparently equally as great as other men, why should you doubt theirtestimony? Would you say they were _bad men_?--could you say they were_dishonest men_?--and if _honest_, according to your argument, why notbelieve them? I can see no inducement that any one could have to denya revelation, if he believes it true; but I can see a very greatinducement for mankind to maintain the reality of a revelation, although at the same time they may doubt its truth. "If you doubt whether the human mind can be brought to such a state ashas been mentioned above, it is only for the want of proper evidence;the fact, however, is susceptible of proof. Yea, it can be more thanproved; _the happy unbeliever_ in idle tales, but believing in eternalprinciples, knows it for a certainty. I do not mean that he knows fora certainty, that there is no revelation, but he knows for a certaintythat a belief in revelation is not absolutely necessary to a happylife. Now, if such characters exists, will you receive their owntestimony in support of the above fact? If not, it will be of no useto produce them. "In order to make a proper estimation of virtue, we should take intoconsideration the motives and inducements a person has to be virtuous. The virtue of some men seems to be predicated on the followingprinciples; on the consideration that they are going to heaven andhappiness in another world, while others, whom they conceive not sogood as themselves are going to hell, a place of never endingtorments. On this ground they can be very _pious_ also, and do a greatdeal for religion. At the same time they will tell you, as many have, if they believed all were to be alike happy in another world, theywould then stick at no crimes to obtain their object, but wouldindulge themselves in all manner of gratifications, &c. Such virtue, however, I conclude does not stand very high in your estimation. No;but you would be virtuous on a more noble scale; so long as you canbelieve that you shall have an eternal existence with God, in a happyconscious identity, you are willing every body else should enjoy thesame blessing; on supposition that this is true, or as you can believeit, you are for doing all the good in your power, and at the same timetaking all the comfort you can in doing it. You are trying to makeevery one believe what you believe, that they may enjoy what youenjoy. But the moment this faith, and this hope of yours is gone, yourvirtue is gone with it; you can now do nothing, and of course enjoynothing! "Now compare this virtue with the virtue of one whom the christianworld would call an infidel! One whose faith, and of course, hope, does not extend beyond what he knows has been the lot of some, and, asfar as circumstances will admit, may be his own; and yet he is alwaysfaithful in the discharge of whatever appears to be his duty, alwaysenjoys life, whether in prosperity or adversity, and is always, so faras it respects circumstances over which he has no control, reconciledand contented with his lot. He knows his life is uncertain, andalthough he has no real faith or well grounded hope beyond the presentstate of existence, yet the thought gives him neither anxiety norconcern. His only object is to do good; to enjoy life while it lasts, to cultivate and improve human nature for the benefit of posterity; tobear the evils and misfortunes of life with fortitude, and to beunfeignedly thankful for all the happiness of which he is madesusceptible. Therefore whether his life be for a day, or for eternity, it matters not, because, for the present, it is all the same to him:his duties are the same, and his enjoyments are the same. O how happy!How inexpressibly happy, is such a state as this! "While others are feasting their fruitful imaginations with the idleand visionary dreams of fanaticism; with a kind of chimerical heavenof which they know _nothing_, as to its certainty: this man is inheaven already: dwelling in love, he 'dwelleth in God, and God inhim. ' "Do you not wish, my brother, that you could find such a characteramong Christians? But Christianity does not afford such a character, in _full_, nor is it possible that it ever should. Such a character, however, there may be, and when the world, or any considerable part ofthem can receive his testimony, he may make his appearance. "You seem to think it may be successfully argued 'that the moral andreligious state of man really required a divine revelation. ' Thisargument, if I understand you, grows out of the ardent desires of man;which, it is admitted, would be pretty conclusive if it could be madeto appear that the desires of man are never fruitless. Man, it istrue, rationally desires happiness; for this is essential to his moralexistence; yet, may he not, through ignorance, or from some othercause, suppose things essential to his happiness, which, in fact, arenot essential, and therefore ardently desire them? But does itnecessarily follow that the particular things desired in such casesare absolutely necessary? and therefore will absolutely be granted? Ibelieve not. --And if he may be thus deceived in any one thing, why mayhe not be deceived in the supposed necessity of a divine revelation?It is believed that a perfect reconciliation to the present state ofman; to what he is, with the prospect only of what he yet may be inthis life, without either the hope or the fear of a future existence, would be infinitely better than any thing which has yet been producedby a belief in divine revelation; especially any further than arevelation is conducive to this end; and if a revelation ever wasnecessary, it was necessary only to reconcile man to his present stateof existence. But if man can be equally reconciled without the_knowledge_, or, what amounts to the same thing, without the _belief_of divine revelation, then the end of such a revelation is obtained. "It seems to be expedient that I should say a few more words, 'respecting the apostles' stating no more than what was substantiallytrue. ' "I hope, however, we shall not lose sight of the main subject indebate, by criticising on words. I say _main subject_ here, as I thinkthere will be no occasion of saying any thing more on the subject ofthe _languages_ in relation to the arts and sciences. "I am not disposed to think, sir, that you have designedly wrested themeaning of my words; nor that you are unwilling to receive my meaningwhen it is fully understood; and yet, having once explained on thissubject, I am unable to account for your remarks. "After my informing you that you had misconstrued me, and also statingmy meaning, as I supposed, more explicitly, you have informed me thatif your first construction was not my meaning, it seems that I musthave meant the reverse of it, which, I must aver, is as foreign frommy meaning as your first construction! For neither your former norlatter construction was in my mind when I wrote the sentence to whichI allude: but a different idea from either of your constructions wasin my mind, and was what I meant to state; which idea, as I conceive, is as fairly expressed by my words, and is a more just construction ofthem, taking into consideration the sentence which follows, thaneither of the ideas which you have expressed as their meaning. "Permit me therefore to state again, that whatever might have been myopinion respecting the writings of the apostles, I did not mean tosuggest, and much less to affirm in that sentence 'that they statedthat which is not true!'--Neither did I mean to acknowledge in thatsentence that they had stated 'no more' than what is true, at least in_substance_; but I did mean this, and this only, that admitting thosethings were true, all would admit that the design of the apostles wasnothing _more_ than to state the truth of those things in _substance_;because all would acknowledge that they were not careful to be correctas to every _minutiae_. But as this makes nothing either for oragainst the main point, I wish to add no more respecting it, thansimply to remark, that even if the apostles had gone on the oppositeextreme of what I meant I should not think them 'deserving of _nocredit_. ' Supposing they had descended into _minutiae_, and related, to an exact nicety, every particular circumstance (which is exactlythe reverse of what I mean to state), would they on this account havebeen deserving of _no credit_? I think not. Considering the time, however, which had elapsed after the facts are said to have takenplace, before a history of them was given in writing, I think theevangelists are entitled to _more credit_, on the whole, than whatthey would have been if their testimony had borne the complexion lastmentioned. "To close this letter, which perhaps is already too long, I would hereacknowledge that as I have expressed doubts in the subject of divinerevelation, you have a right to hear my reasons for doubting. These Ipromised to give you (as I thought) at the close of my fourth number. You have informed me, verbally, that I promised to give you my_doubts_ only. If I did so, it was only a slip of the pen, to which Iam too prone; it was my _reasons for doubting_, which I meant to havepromised you; and in my next I shall endeavor to fulfil that promise. "Yours, &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER V. _Dear sir, and brother_, --Your fifth and sixth numbers were receivedtogether, and will be noticed in the order in which they came to hand. You observe that you know of no better evidence that "there ever wassuch a story reported among the Jews, in the days of the apostles, than there is to prove the actual resurrection of Jesus, " &c. Thissuggestion leads to the following queries. 1st. Was there in the days of the apostles, such a man known in thecountry of the Jews, as Jesus Christ? 2d. Was this man put to death, as the four evangelists and otherstestify? 3d. Did the apostles declare to the people who put him to death, thatthey knew that he had arisen from the dead? 4th. If the Jews who put Jesus to death could go to his sepulchre andshow his dead body to the people, would the story of the resurrectionever have gained any credit among the Jews? 5th. If they could not find the body of him who had been crucified, would the opposers not endeavour to report something that might appearas plausible as they could, especially as they had the keeping of thesepulchre in their own hands? 6th. What would more naturally suggest itself to the imagination ofmen, in the situation of the rulers of the Jews, than the story of thedisciples having stolen the dead body, &c. Or, 7th. Was this account written long since the apostles' days, by anunknown author, who made the whole story as he wrote it? If this lastquestion cannot be answered in the affirmative without doing violenceto the most authentic testimony and also to the plainest dictates ofreason, it seems to follow that the 6th preceding question, must beaccepted in the affirmative, which furnishes sufficient evidence toprove that such a story was reported among the Jews in the days of theapostles. Whether you are correct in supposing there is as much evidence toprove the resurrection as to prove the report of the disciples' havingstolen the body, or not, it appears to me, that there is no properground on which the latter can even be doubted. Suppose a writer in vindicating believer's baptism in opposition tothe sprinkling of infants, should relate a wonderful story concerningthe persecutions of the baptists, in which he should set forth theparticulars of one of their leading characters having been put todeath by their opposers. In this account, the author says; Thosemurderers, after they put the man to death, for fear his friendsshould steal the body, went and placed a strong guard round the tombto watch for the space of three days and nights, but before theexpiration of this period, the guard came to the rulers and make knownthat the body is gone, and acknowledge at the same time, that therewere such wonders seen by them at the tomb, that they were unable toendure the sight and retain their natural powers; that the rulers gavethem money to report that a number of the baptists came while theguard was asleep and stole the body--"So they took the money, and didas they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among thePædobaptists unto this day. " Would this story appear any ways to theadvantage of a cause, with which reason and common sense have anything to do? Reason, sir, for which you seem determined to contend, is candid; itreadily acknowledges that the account of this report among the Jews isa true account. And it acknowledges also that the truth of thisaccount is good evidence to prove that the rulers of the Jews found itnecessary, in order to oppose the truth of the resurrection, to getsuch a report in circulation. You have not taken me exactly on the ground of my argument, insupposing that, by _revelation_, I mean nothing more than "what wasrevealed to me by the resurrection of Jesus, allowing the resurrectiontrue. " My design was to consider the three propositions, viz. Revelation, the resurrection of Jesus, and the truth of the testimonyof the apostles, concerning matters of fact, true, disjunctively; andalso to avail myself of whatever might arise to the advantage of myargument from the relation of these facts. All this you will, as agenerous and candid antagonist, be willing to allow me to do, on thesupposition that the three propositions, above named, be granted. Forsurely no necessary deduction from granted premises can mislead, unless what is granted be false. You will furthermore see, that bygranting the truth of divine revelation some degree of allowance isgiven to the probability, at least, of the testimony of the apostlesrespecting a future state. The confining of the subject of revelation, to that only which is revealed by the resurrection of Jesus, seems anunnecessary restriction, which can answer no purpose but to embarrassan argument which it would have no real force in refuting; for if theresurrection be admitted, which affords such an important revelationas grows out of the fact, it establishes the general truth of a DIVINEREVELATION from God to man. This being granted, all that stands in anecessary relation to it may with propriety be used in defence of anyparticular question relative to the general subject. I have alreadyargued the truth of what the apostles say of a future state, from thefacts which you grant for the sake of the argument, but you seem tomisapprehend me in supposing that I mean to contend, that what theapostles have said respecting a future state, was spoken by way of_conclusion_ from certain known facts. The known facts, such as themiracles of Jesus, his resurrection, and the miracles wrought by theapostles, I used as proof of the divine mission of these servants ofGod. This divine mission being proved, gives the ground on which Icontend for the merit of their testimony concerning a future state. You should have regarded my argument, as placing the credibility ofthe apostles' testimony concerning a future state, on the fact oftheir divine mission, and not as you seem to have done, on thesupposition, that they could not err in drawing conclusions, &c. You have misunderstood me also, in supposing that by "the guess workof men, " I had any allusion to the known miracles related by theapostles. What I called "mere guess work of men, " was the _opinions_of the apostles on supposition they were not divinely directed, in thetestimony they laid down respecting a future state. On this particularsubject, all you have said in reply to my reasoning, has no justrelation to my argument. It was expected, that in relation to the foregoing subject, you wouldhave seen the necessity of either denying the reality of thosemiracles, which, if true, prove the divine mission of Christ and hisapostles, or of granting the authority of their testimony. But in roomof finding what was so confidently expected, I find the mistakes abovepointed out, which occupy considerable space, without deciding anything, or furnishing ground on which I feel disposed to place anyargument. The next particular which demands notice is stated as follows: "Yourfinal conclusion, after all, comes so near what I conceive to be thetruth, that were you as correct in every thing as you appear to be inthis, I should hardly think it expedient to pursue this controversyany further. " You then quote me. "The Christian is enabled to hope forexistence with God in an eternal state, and this is as much as ourpresent welfare requires. " You rejoin; "Most excellent! to thisproposition I cheerfully assent. Yea, I would consent even to pruningit a little which no doubt would spoil it in your view. Instead of, 'this is as much as, ' read, 'even this is more than, ' and yourproposition would stand exactly right. " You assure me that you are insearch of truth. --Truth is the only design of your heart. It would beuncharitable in me to doubt your sincerity. You sincerely andcheerfully assent to the above proposition viz. That the christian isenabled to hope for existence with God in an eternal state, and thisis as much as our present welfare requires. This you say is _most_excellent. But notwithstanding you cheerfully assent to thisproposition, and can pronounce it _most_ excellent! Yet you think, ifthe proposition was so altered as to allow us no hope of a futureexistence with God, it would stand _exactly_ right! This variation isso small, this difference is so little that you think if I were ascorrect in every thing as I am in this, there would be no need ofpursuing this controversy any further! Let me ask dear sir, if suchreasoning as this can promise a profitable reward for our labours, anda recompence for the precious time we are spending? The eye of reason, I say is candid: it sees and knows, that if a hope of existence withGod hereafter is _more than_ our present welfare requires, such anexpectation is awfully dreadful beyond the power of language todescribe. Reason knows that there is an infinite difference between noexistence hereafter, and an eternal existence. And it knows, that ifthe former is exactly what our present welfare requires, the latter iscompletely repugnant to it. With what you here contend for, I will connect a passage from yoursixth number. "He knows that a belief in revelation is not absolutelynecessary to a happy life. " By bringing these passages together, I amled to understand what you mean by the latter viz. That a belief in ahappy future state, is not necessary to our present felicity. This iswhat you know! What then are you in pursuant of? You pretend to beearnestly solicitous to have your doubts respecting divine revelationremoved if possible; you call on me to assist in this work as if youviewed it with deep concern. --If your doubts should be removed, if youshould be altogether convinced that God has actually revealed thetruth of a a happy immortality, you know it would add nothing to yourhappiness. Furthermore you argue, following the passage quoted fromyour sixth number, that this belief in the revelation of a happyfuturity is not necessary to produce a virtuous life. Allowing all youargue on this subject, you feel sure that a real conviction of thetruth of the christian doctrine, and hope of future blessedness, wouldbe of no advantage to your virtue or happiness! I ask again, what areyou in pursuit of? You compliment me too highly in your encomium onthe sermon in which I laid down that man is so constituted that he isalways willing to exchange that which gives him trouble, for thatwhich gives him comfort. And you advert to this particular sentimentof mine, in your observations on St. Paul's conversion, and veryjustly refuse to allow him to be an exception of the general rule. Butare you not an exception of this rule? Do you not appear to besolicitous to have your doubts removed without expecting the leastadvantage by it? Are you not employing your time in writingvoluminously on a subject which you _know_ can yield you norecompence? In search after the evidences of the christian hope, youcannot say: where is that faithful, that friendly witness by which Ican believe, and believing, enjoy as a precious reality that hopewhich is as an anchor to the soul, both sure and stedfast; whichentereth into that within the veil, where our forerunner hath for usentered; which hope would enable me to sing that triumphant song; "Odeath where is thy sting, O grave where is thy victory? Thanks be toGod who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. " No, thishope would add nothing to your happiness, and what you want it for isnot for me to imagine. You can employ the powers of luminous reason in contemplating eternalnothing with sweet complacency. This is "exactly" as it should be!Varying from this the proposition would need to be "pruned!" Dearbrother, does reason countenance all this absurdity? If it be apleasure to contemplate non-existence does it not involve theabsurdity of enjoying the expectation of the discontinuance ofenjoyment? You have expressed, with interjections, the value of truth. You seemalmost disposed to arrogate to yourself a peculiar regard for thisdivine treasure. I can fancy I hear your secret addresses to thislovely divinity; in rapturous language, with aspect of eager affectionsaying; O truth, the loveliest of all attractions, thou art balsam forevery wound, antidote for every poison; thou sweetenest every bittercup; the gloomy prospect of living, in thy bright sunshine is by theechanged into the joyous expectation of soon losing sight of theeforever in the elysium of non-existence! I will not burden you with further deductions, so repugnant to thedictates of reason; but I will cherish a hope, that you will seesufficient reason for rescinding the arguments which lead to them. [1] [Footnote 1: Perhaps the reader may be a little astonished here, thatthe objector should ever have consented to publish arguments whichmakes him appear so much to a disadvantage. But an honest objector, who has been so blind to his own heart as not to perceive the realcause of a perfect reconciliation to the general providence of God, instead of feeling _chagrined_, will feel _grateful_, when his errorsare _honestly exposed_. Believing, therefore, that others may be inthe same predicament, these arguments are published to the world. ] On supposition divine revelation be true, you agree with me on thesubject wherein I differ from the general opinion, that a knowledge ofthe gospel in this world is indispensable to the soul's felicity inthe next, but you are confident that this my sentiment will be viewedby the Christian world in general, with greater abhorrence than evenyour own arguments, &c. And you hope I am prepared for theconsequences. Reply--I have little or no concern about what opinionreputed orthodoxy may entertain of the truths which reason andrevelation harmonize in supporting, nor am very careful about anypreparation to meet the consequences which may result from theinseparable companions, _superstition_ and _ignorance_. In my view, the commonly received opinion, on the subject underconsideration, is no more reasonable, than the supposition that thehappiness and wellbeing of our children, in this world, depend ontheir having had a correct knowledge of their parents, of their wisdomand parental providence for them, before they were born. The wisdomand goodness of God, according to scripture and reason, are universal. The ignorance of mortals concerning them, on the one hand, makes themno less, and their knowledge, on the other makes them no greater. Wemust duly regard, however, the evident fact, that the enjoyment ofreasonable beings, is extended by the extension of knowledge, whichrenders acquirements in science and divinity an object of the firstmagnitude. The sentiment which you express on the above subject is what I am wellpersuaded can never be refuted, and it appears to me that by placingthe system of divine revelation on the ground above noticed, it isrendered free from these absurdities which have rendered itexceptionable to the eye of reason and philosophy. The gospel of everlasting life, like all real science, has alwaysexisted, but like the sciences, has been developed by degrees, andbrought to the understanding of mankind as a mean of refinement, improvement, and of conformity to mortal principles, as expressed bythat eminent divine St. Paul, 2 Cor. 5, 18, 19, 20. "And all thingsare of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, andhath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God wasin Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing theirtrespasses unto them: and hath committed unto us the word ofreconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though Goddid beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciledto God. " Now to suppose that men, who on account of their ignorance ofthe gospel are unreconciled to God, who has undertaken the graciouswork of reconciling them to himself, not imputing their trespassesunto them, are on account of their unreconciliation excluded frombeing the objects of divine favour is a grand absurdity to say theleast. The fact is, the gospel is a dispensation of general favour, and itactually communicates many invaluable blessings to those who knownothing of its divine principles. There are millions of people in theworld who are blessed in a great variety of respects by means of civilgovernment, who know nothing of the principles of the governments bywhich they are protected. How many blessings are constantly falling, as it were like a shower, on our infants and youth in America, fromthe favourable government of our happy country, and yet these childrenknow not the difference between an absolute monarchy and a republic. How many millions of the human race are daily fed from the products ofagriculture, who know nothing of the principles which produce thoserich supplies. So there are multitudes who enjoy many blessingsprocured by the gospel of Christ, who have no knowledge of the sublimeprinciples of this religion. But here again I will repeat the remark, that our rational felicity is greatly increased by an extension of ourknowledge in the principles of the doctrine of Jesus, whichconsideration is a proper incentive to grow in grace and in theknowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Knowledge is food for the mind and nourishes and strengthens it asaliment does the body. Our youth learn to read the books which theyare favoured with in consequence of the discovery of the art ofprinting, and they obtain great advantages by means of those books, while they remain entirely ignorant, many of them, of the art by whichsuch a favour is put into their hands. But still it is healthy to theyouthful mind, to receive the knowledge of this and other arts, andeven to know that an art so extensively useful was not known in theworld four hundred years ago. A person on being informed of the firstdiscovery of this art, and of its being practiced, in the first place, with separate wooden types, might be disposed to doubt the ignoranceof men in those times. He might think it incredible that any thing soeasy, that even children can perform was unknown to the learned worldin those times when learning flourished in ancient Greece and Rome. And I am of opinion that many now, who are disposed to doubt thecircumstances which attended the first promulgation of the gospel, andeven call themselves unbelievers, do in reality, owe even theirexistence and of course every blessing they enjoy to those facts ofwhich they now doubt. Yes, sir, the light of reason, and the knowledgeof moral principles, on which you feel disposed to place so muchconsequence, I am inclined to believe are reflections of that lightwhich was the delightful theme of the evangelical Isaiah, chapters 6, 7, 8. "I the Lord hath called thee in righteousness, and will holdthine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of thepeople, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bringout the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness outof the prison house. I am the Lord; that is my name: and my glory willI not give to another, nor my praise to graven images. " Am I deceived, sir, or is it evident, that the glorious LIGHT which illuminates ourmoral hemisphere, and distinguishes our country from barbarism andsavage ignorance, is the gospel? The name of Jesus, his doctrine, thereformation, seceding from the Church of England and persecution forconscience sake, rank as causes of the settlement of New England byour forefathers, and of the existence of the men who are carrying onthis correspondence. This is mentioned with a view to direct your mindto the consideration of that course of causes and effects by which weare enabled to reason on what wo call moral and physical principles. And a hope is entertained that due regard will be paid to thisself-evident fact, that nothing ever took place without an adequatecause to produce it. With this reflection, I come to notice your remarks on the subject ofSt. Paul's conversion; for it appears to me that you have allowedcertain facts without assigning any adequate causes by which thosefacts came to exist. You make no attempt to deny that there was such aman as St. Paul, nor do you deny his having been educated, andreligiously instructed as the scripture history concerning this mansets forth. But you assign no reason why he became a believer in JesusChrist, you assign no reason for his becoming a preacher of thedoctrine of Jesus, you assign no reason why he should so patientlysuffer for the religion, the truth of which you are now calling inquestion. You allow that before his conversion he persecuted untodeath the "weak and defenceless disciples of the meek and lowlyJesus. " But you assign no reasons why weak and defenceless men shouldbecome the disciples of Jesus. You would fain insinuate that what herelates of the particular circumstance which happened to him on hisway to Damascus was a mere reverie. But you make no attempt to showhow such a reverie could produce in this learned pharisee a beliefthat Jesus, who was crucified had actually arose from the dead, whenthere were not even the shadow of evidence existing to prove such animprobable fact. You are inclined to this notion of a reverie onaccount of some experience of your own, which your good sense andafter reflection have discovered to be nothing on which dependenceought to be placed. Sir, where is the similarity of your case withthat of the learned pharisee? Do you really believe you everexperienced a reverie, that would go in the least to cause you tobelieve in the resurrection of a man who was hanged in your sight, andwho you knew was buried, and of whose resurrection you had noevidence, only a vague reverie? Do you believe you ever experienced amere imagination which was strong enough to produce the above belief, and which could continue to influence you all your life long, lead youto forsake a most honourable connexion, and to espouse a religionwhich all the prejudices of your education opposed, and to labourcontinually for its support and to suffer every thing for its defence?No, you pretend to no such thing, therefore your case is verydifferent from St. Paul's. I agree with you, that the case of this apostle comes under the rulewhich you recollect I suggested in my sermon. He undoubtedly viewedthe religion which he received in room of the one he parted with themost valuable. And to this agrees his own testimony. Phil. Iii. 7, &c. "But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency ofthe knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered theloss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is ofthe law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, therighteousness which is of God by faith. " As you promise to say more on this subject, I shall _continue_ toexpect an attempt to deny the conversion of such a man as St. Paul isset forth to have been, to the Christian religion, under all thecircumstances which the scripture account mentions; or an attempt toshow that such a conversion could _probably_ take place withoutsupposing the facts on which the religion of Christ was founded wererealities; or lastly, an acknowledgment that this conversion mayreasonably be allowed as evidence to us of the truth of the Christianreligion. Should you be disposed to disallow the account which the scripturegives of St. Paul, I will ask the favour of you to point out and showto my understanding where in Paley's Horae Paulinae fails of provingthe truth of the scripture history of St. Paul. * * * * * What follows is designed to notice your sixth number; out of which thefollowing subjects are selected, on which some remarks are made. 1st. You observe that "when we hear things, which to our understandingare improbable, the improbability of the facts raises a doubt in ourminds; and certainly there can be no harm in suspending our judgment, nor yet in withholding our belief until we are fully satisfied. " Thisfirst subject regards the degrees of evidences which are required indifferent cases, and the moral propriety of withholding the assent ofthe mind in the case of a want of evidence. 2d. You are not disposed to doubt that many of the prophets were goodmen; nor will you contend that they were not all such, and taught thepeople according to the best of their abilities--And yet you hesitateto allow the divinity of their testimony. 3d. I notice that you acknowledge that there are evidences in favourof divine revelation, which would support it, if there were nothing tocounterbalance their testimony. 4th. You hardly know how to understand me where I suggest, that indisproving the religion of Jesus Christ, you disprove all religion, &c. 5th. An inquiry whether Jesus and the apostles might not be honestmen, and yet their testimony in certain cases not to be relied on! 6th. You suppose that arguments equally energetic and equallyconclusive might be drawn from our feelings against, as in favour ofthe necessity of divine revelation. 7th. In enumerating the virtues and enjoyments of one who does noteven desire a future state, you mention unfeigned thankfulness for allthe happiness of which he is made susceptible. 8th. You assert, that if a revelation ever was necessary, it wasnecessary only to reconcile man to his present state efexistence. And, 9th. You seem to fault me for supposing that in case you did not meanas I took you, on the subject of the apostles' testimony, you mustmean the reverse, &c. These nine particulars, it is true, do not comprehend every itemcontained in your sixth number, but I believe that a candid reply toeach of them will satisfy you that a competent degree of attention hasbeen paid to this communication. 1st. Concerning the degrees of evidence required in certain cases tocarry conviction of facts to the mind; it has always been allowed bythose who have vindicated the religion of Jesus, that a belief inmiracles requires more evidence than a belief in ordinary eventsrecorded in history. Having granted this they proceed to associate theevidences, which God in his divine economy has given and preserved, and conclude with grateful assurance that the evidence of the miraclesof Jesus, his unspeakably glorious resurrection from the dead, together with the miracles with which the first promulgation of thegospel was effected, are abundantly sufficient to carry conviction tovastly the greatest part of candid minds. In the mode the last sentence is concluded, I must, in justice toothers, take the sentiment there expressed to myself; for I am sorryto say that christians, who have contended against infidelity have, generally, been less charitable than the genius of the religion theyhave, in many respects, most ably defended. I cannot find authorityfor denying candor to one who is unable to believe on the ground ofsuch evidence as may satisfy my mind of a fact. I will thereforesuppose that some who are candid, may, from some cause which we cannotanalyze, be unable to believe the great truths of the gospel, on suchevidence as is abundantly sufficient to convince others who are asscrupulous as necessary investigation requires. It is, sir, the opinion of some very learned authors, who stand in thevery first rank, for candor and erudition, that the proofs of whichthe gospel is susceptible are, in all respects, equal to what theycould have been in any other way concerted, within the reach of humanconception. This is going to a great length I confess; and yet I amstrongly inclined to their opinion. I will candidly state why I amso. --1st. Taking the subject in the gross, I am convinced of the truthof the gospel of Christ. Now as I believe this gospel is not of man, but of God, I likewise believe that God in consummate wisdom hasplanned the evidences by which it is and will be supported in theworld, until it fills the whole earth. 2d. As I believe that divinewisdom has planned, ordered and directed all the means which willfinally operate as evidences in defence of the gospel, I cannotbelieve that the wisdom or sagacity of man could have suggested achain of evidences which could so well have secured the cause to besupported. And 3d. I have spent much time in reflecting and studyingon this momentous subject, some time in reading authors on both sidesof the question, a great deal of time in reading the scriptures, andhave come to this conclusion that no set of men ever lived in thisworld that could either have planned such a scheme as the gospel, orever have invented such a chain of evidences for its support. If the single miracle of the resurrection be considered, as the facton which all other facts relating to the gospel seem to rest, it isconfidently believed that no human invention could have concerted asystem so well calculated to secure the fact to all futuregenerations, as that which has been adopted by the divine economy. Hadthe whole of the Jewish nation with their Gentile neighbours, togetherwith the Roman authorities, all confessed Christianity, being fullyconvinced of the resurrection of Jesus, and had they inscribed all themiracles recorded in the new testament on monuments which should defythe hand of time to bring them to decay, it requires but a moment'sreflection to see that all this would have vastly increased thedifficulty now to prove that it was not all contrived by man'sinvention. But let us consider the unbelief of the Jews, the violent oppositionof that ancient priesthood, its coalition with the Roman governmentagainst the gospel, the great jealousy which the acknowledged miraclesof Jesus had excited, the vigilance by which he was watched by hisreligious enemies, the careful scrutiny employed to discover fraud inhis miracles if it were possible; and then add to these considerationsthat the miracles of Jesus were publically performed, and of such anature as to admit of the easiest possible detection if they had notbeen real: and finally to disarm unbelief at once, consider that theministry of the gospel was set up by the apostles, on the bolddeclaration that God had raised the crucified Jesus from the dead! Adeclaration, which if it had not been true, mark well, sir, could havebeen as easily refuted and rendered the derision of all people as anydeclaration that could have been made. But I shall lose myself, andforget that you have not yet called my attention so directly to thissubject, as to justify my entering largely into it. What you have said on the subject of believing in the testimony ofDavid, that the "Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are overall his works, " also the same sentiment communicated by Jesus Christ, that God loves his enemies and that he requires of us the sameexercise towards our enemies, though perfectly reasonable, as I viewthe subject, seems to call up the question, how it happens thatthousands of professed Christians, who believe in the miracles ofJesus, his resurrection and the miracles of the apostles, arenotwithstanding hostile to this divine and glorious sentiment of theblessed Jesus! Being compelled, by the visible evidences of divinegoodness, seen in the rain and sunshine, they advance so far as toacknowledge that _temporal_ favours are generally distributed, butthat God does really love the wicked, they utterly deny. Now while youcan believe this great moral truth without a miracle, Christian peoplein general cannot believe it with one. You are not to suppose that Iam willing to allow that you believe this sentiment without a miracle, though you would insinuate, that this is the case. My opinion is, thathad it not been for the miracles recorded in the new testament, thetruth of which you are disposed to call in question, you and I, if wehad existed, would have had no more light on this subject than therudest savage, or what is worse, the most superstitious and contractedChristian. If you have any ground on which you can fairly refute myopinion on this subject, I hope you will faithfully perform it; ifnot, it will be expected that you will express your acquiescence. Suchis the power of natural prejudice which we know exists in the humanmind, that without a divine revelation from God, supported by the mostevident miracles, man will not extend his views of divine benevolencescarcely beyond the rivers and mountains which environ thecircumscribed vicinity of his birth. Trace the power and operation ofthis prejudice and you find it maintaining hostility against the lightof revelation itself, and it is only by slow degrees that it isbrought into submission. We reason very injudiciously when we bringourselves to believe, that by the light of reason we could know andunderstand all the moral truths which we have been taught byrevelation; we forget that revelation has illuminated our reason andtaught it how to see and understand. --Just as well might the sprightlyyouth refuse to acknowledge that its mother learned it to walk, andever gave it nourishment and strength to perform the exercise, andallege that it can walk as well as she can. As well might the learnedgraduate refuse the grateful honours due to his instructors, and say:my reason, my understanding comprehend these sciences, of what usethen are these learned professors and this college institution? Butwould not reason point him to the condition of those, to whom theblessings of instruction, which, through much difficulty had given himthe light of science, had not extended? Would it not force thecomparison on his understanding, and humble him into gratitude? It seems impossible, sir, for reason to compare our situation withtheirs, who have not been enlightened by the gospel, without kneeling, like the woman in Simon's house, at the feet of Jesus. 2d. If the prophets where not divinely inspired, will you suggest anyway by which their pretentions to divine inspiration can be reconciledwith their honesty? They all speak in the name of the Lord, andevidently aim at the high pretention of being spoken to, in a specialmanner, by God himself. Will you say: they were a set of poor deludedenthusiasts? But this would contradict your reason which can see inevery page of their writings a very different character. A passagefrom the 1st chapter of Jeremiah is here quoted for an example. "Thenthe word of the Lord came unto me, saying, before I formed thee &c. Isanctified thee; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Thensaid I, ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child: Butthe Lord said unto me, say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to allthat I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shaltspeak. Be not afraid of their faces; for I am with thee to deliverthee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched mymouth; and the Lord said unto me, behold, I have put my words in thymouth. " Here Jeremiah evidently designed to declare himself an inspiredprophet of God, by which he was justified in speaking in his name. Nowif all this was mere fiction, how can it be entitled to a bettercharacter than that of blasphemy? As a specimen of this prophet's knowledge of future events we maynotice his prophesy of the seventy years captivity. See chap. Xxv. 11, &c. Xxix. 10, &c. Compare with 2 Kings xxiv. 2 Chron. Xxxvi. Ezra i. 1, and other corresponding passages. I will ask you to consult the character of Daniel, and observe withwhat genuine humility he pretends to divine inspiration, chap. Ii. Xxx. "But as for me, the secret is not revealed to me for any wisdomthat I have more than any living, but that the secret might be madeknown, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart. " IfDaniel did not receive a divine revelation, it must be allowed that hewas deceived, or that he meant to deceive the king. But if he weredeceived, or if he meant to deceive, can you give any good account howhe could tell the king's dream and the interpretation, which reachedinto the far distant periods of time, and which has been remarkablyfulfilled in the rise and fall of the four great empires of the world, and is still fulfilling by the advances of the kingdom of Christ? Iwill say nothing of the prophet Isaiah, who speaks of the Messiah morethan seven hundred years before he was born, as if he had been hiscontemporary. Nor need I speak of Moses who foretold the dealings ofGod with the house of Israel as if he had lived now and had writtentheir history. But I must insist on your paying some nice attention tothe prophesies of Christ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. Thisprophesy is recorded very circumstantially in the 24th of Matt. Be sogood, sir, as to compare this prophesy with the history written byJosephus and let candor decide whether the author of that prophesy wasdivinely inspired, or whether he was a poor deceived enthusiast. If you allow that Jesus Christ was an honest man how is it possiblefor you to deny his being divinely inspired? He certainly pretended toforetell events; he most surely pretended to perform most astonishingmiracles. Of these facts we have as much evidence as we have thatthere was such a man. Now, sir, if he were honest, he was divinelyinspired and endued, or he was an enthusiast even to insanity. And yetin every instance, where the powers of his mind were tried, by theprofoundest learning, and sharpest wit that could be brought againsthim, he discovered a mind as clear as light. A volume of vast extentcould not exhaust the subject I am now upon, but as you have the sameopportunity and means which I have to trace it, I shall insist on yourtreating this subject with candor and shall expect you to acknowledgethat Jesus was divinely inspired, or show how he could be honest, without this divine endowment. 3d. You acknowledge, that there are evidences in favour of divinerevelation, which would support it, if there were nothing tocounterbalance their testimony. I shall here find some fault. Why doyou allow that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation, andnot state what they are? Why do you insinuate that there is somethingto counterbalance their testimony and not state what it is? When anantagonist finds his opponent candid enough to allow that someevidence stands on his side of the argument is it not necessary forhim at the same time to be informed what it is? Does he not need toknow what his opponent is willing to allow to be evidence? And does henot likewise need to know how this evidence is counterbalanced?However, as you have not favoured me with such necessary assistance, Iwill attempt to proceed without it. But here I must go partly onpresumption and partly by guess. In the first place I will inquirewhat particular circumstance recorded in scripture, which, if true, would substantiate revelation; and which you may suppose there isevidence sufficient to prove, if there was nothing to counterbalanceit? This I will presume is the resurrection of Jesus. Why I think youwould be most likely to have this particular in your mind, is, becauseon this event, I believe all will agree, depend the validity of theprophecies, the truth of the testimony of Christ himself, and theauthority of the apostles. I will then presume that you acknowledgethat there is evidence of this wonderful fact; but at the same time Iam to understand, that, in your mind there is something tocounterbalance, in some degree, if not entirely, this evidence. Having proceeded so far, I am now to guess what the evidence is thatyou think would support this all important fact, if it were notcounterbalanced. But here I find myself in difficulty. My difficultyis in finding any kind of evidence which could prove such an event, ifthere were nothing to counterbalance it, that could possibly becounterbalanced. Will you say that the testimony of the disciples, that they had seen the man alive after his death would be sufficientevidence to prove the fact? Suppose twelve men of honest fame, shouldreport, and even depose, that the last man who was publicly executedin Boston, had actually arose from the dead, and that they had ate anddrank with him a number of times since he was executed. Should yousuppose this sufficient evidence, if there were nothing to do it away?But what could do it away? If the people could go to the grave andfind the body there, the testimony of the twelve would remain noevidence at all, and therefore could not afterwards be called evidencesufficient to support the fact if there were nothing to counterbalanceit. But suppose the people cannot find the body, would it not bethought that the body might possibly have been conveyed away by designof some who might have occasion to keep it a secret? But a guard isplaced to watch the grave; but a guard might be bribed. The one wehave account of was bribed, according to the story; and if they couldbe bribed by the chief priests and rulers, why not by some body else?Finally, would the testimony of these men be sufficient to prove suchan extraordinary fact even if the body could not be found? I think formyself, that various opinions would result from such evidence. Somewould believe that these men had entered into some very extraordinaryplot, and calculated that they should be most likely to succeed bymeans of persuading the people that they were favoured with aknowledge of this resurrection. Others might believe them honest men, but by some crafty contrivance imposed on. Others might believe thatthe spirit of this man had appeared to the twelve, but that no realresurrection had taken place. But I very much doubt whether any verystable people would consider the testimony of the twelve mensufficient to support this fact if there were nothing brought, or ifnothing could be brought against it. Such a circumstance would nodoubt cause a great deal of talk, the depositions and the names of thedeponents would be published in the newspapers, perhaps for severalweeks, but after a little time it would die away. Finally, I cannot conceive of any evidence that could sufficientlysupport the fact that Jesus who was crucified, did actually rise fromthe dead, if nothing could be brought to counterbalance it, that couldpossibly admit of being counterbalanced. The question seems to remain, and the substance of it is this. 1st. IfJesus did actually rise from the dead what kind of evidence would hisdisciples need in order to be satisfied of the fact? And 2d. What kindof evidence must they be able to bring to the people in order toconvince them of the fact? I will here suppose that it is not necessary to prove that thedisciples of Jesus, who preached him and his resurrection all theirlives after they commenced at the day of pentecost, really believedwhat they preached; but the evidence by which they believed it I nowinquire for. We must notice that the disciples did not expect theresurrection, they were not believers of this fact when their masterwas crucified. They were awfully disappointed, and not _only_disappointed but intimidated, as the account fully shows. They allforsook Jesus at his trial, and Peter for fear of being involved withhim denied being his disciple. The evidence then of his resurrection must be such as will convincethose of the fact who have no expectation of the event. We will nowlook at the account. "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. " This very rational account showsas plainly as the case will admit that these women had no expectationof his resurrection. I omit here what passed at the sepulchre whenthese women were there, for this does not relate to the disciples. Theangel at the sepulchre told these women that Jesus had risen, anddirected them to go and tell his disciples. "Now when Jesus was riseneariy, the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them thathad been with him, as they mourned and wept. " This mourning andweeping could not be the effect of the pleasing expectation of soonhaving their divine master with them; no, it was the natural effect ofthe amazing disappointment which had closed all the hopes they hadentertained. "And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and hadbeen seen of her, " believed? no, "believed not. " After that heappeared in another form to two of them as they walked, and went intothe country. --And they went and told it unto the residue: neitherbelieved they them. "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they satat meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he had risen. "It seems unnecessary to quote into this communication all theinstances related by the four deponents of Jesus' being seen of theeleven; his frequently being with them, eating with them, holdinglengthy conversations with them, &c. Now as these disciples knew thatJesus had been crucified and buried, and a guard had been placed toguard the sepulchre, and moreover knowing for certainty that the bodyof Jesus was not where it had been deposited, and being favoured withhis presence on a variety of occasions for forty days, the evidence tothe disciples was of a character described by the author of the Acts. "To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by manyinfallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of thethings pertaining to the kingdom of God. " I believe, sir, that suchevidence as Jesus is said to have given his disciples of hisresurrection would be entirely sufficient to remove all doubts intheir mind, however prone they were to unbelief. I am of opinion thatsuch evidence would convince you and me of a similar fact. --Twoquestions are here necessary. 1st. Can we conceive how the evidencecould have been less without being insufficient? And 2d. Can weconceive how it could have been stronger? I will not take up time toargue these questions, I feel satisfied on them myself. I will now askwhether we can imagine the possibility of any evidence that couldcounterbalance the evidence of the resurrection in the minds of thedisciples? Thus we are brought to the suggestion, that any evidencewhich could be sufficient to prove such a fact, if no evidenceappeared against it, must be such as admits of no refutation. You will not forget, and think that I have been endeavouring to provethe resurrection of Jesus, or that the disciples even believed it; allI have been seeking for is that kind of evidence which would benecessary to prove to the disciples such a fact, and to show that suchevidence cannot admit of refutation. However, you will at once seethat, allowing our reasoning to be correct, and allowing the disciplesdid really believe the resurrection, either of which, I do not believeyou will undertake to dispute, the resurrection is proved beyond allcontradiction. 2d. Let us now inquire what kind of evidence was necessary for thedisciples of Jesus to bring to the people, in order to convince themof this all-important fact on which the whole scheme and ministry ofthe gospel rested. It seems that the disciples did not believe on thetestimony of others, though of their own intimate acquaintance, persons in whom they would place as much confidence as in any in theworld, no doubt. Of course, they could not expect other people, whohad not been the disciples of Jesus, would believe in his resurrectionon their testimony. The evidence which the disciples had wassufficient for them, but their testimony would surely be much less;and any thing less would be insufficient as before stated. We will now have recourse to the account. But first let us notice, that we are not endeavouring to prove that the disciples everpersuaded any to believe in the resurrection of Jesus; this is, as itmust be, considered a fact, not disputed. The question is by whatevidence did the apostles convince thousands of the people inJerusalem and its vicinity, that Jesus who was publicly executed, wasnot only the true Messiah promised in the law and prophets, but thathe had actually arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. BeforeJesus ascended, he, after saying many other things to his discipleswho were together in the city of Jerusalem, said to them; "Thus it iswritten, and thus it behoveth Christ to suffer, and to rise from thedead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins shouldbe preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Andye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of myfather upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye beendued with power from on high. " See the same account in Acts, "But yeshall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: andye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. " Accordingto this account, Jesus did not direct his disciples to undertake toconvince the people by their testimony, but charged them to wait fordivine power. Accordingly they did wait. Now look at the account whichwe have, of what took place on the day of pentecost. I will notmutilate this account by quoting parts, there is no need of quotingwhat you have perfectly in your memory. Take particular notice of whatPeter said to the people who had been accessary to the crucifixion ofJesus. He who was so intimidated as to deny Christ, now stands in themidst of the people and boldly asserts, that Jesus of Nazareth was aman approved of God among them by miracles and wonders, and signswhich God did by him, among them; and that they knew this to be thecase. He further tells them that they had with wicked hands crucifiedand slain this man who was thus approved of God. And he assured thewhole house of Israel, that God had made this same Jesus whom they hadcrucified both Lord and Christ. He moreover boldly declared that Godhad raised Jesus from the dead. Now add to the testimony of Peter, theastonishing manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit, asdescribed in the account, and you have the evidence by which aboutthree thousand souls were convinced of the resurrection of Jesus inone day. Here let us consider; the people had been acquainted withJesus, and had been eye witnesses of his miracles; many of them werepersonally acquainted with Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. They had been, many of them, fed by his miracles and had seen hiswonderful works. Now put all together and it is evident that they hadsufficient reason to believe. I cannot conceive how reasonable peoplein the candid exercise of their judgments, could avoid believing. Look, sir, at the account of the miraculous cure of the lame man, wholay at the gate of the temple. Notice the words used to effect it. "Inthe name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. " "And all thepeople saw him walking and praising God: and they knew that it was hewho sat for alms at the beautiful gate of the temple. " Hear what Petersays to the wondering multitude on this occasion. "Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though byour own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God ofAbraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hathglorified his son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in thepresence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But yedenied the holy one and the just, and desired a murderer to be grantedunto you; and killed the prince of life, whom God hath raised from thedead: whereof we are witnesses. And his name, through faith in hisname, hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, and thefaith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in thepresence of you all. " Here we have the evidence by which about fivethousand men, besides women, believed--that is, owned their belief. When the high priest and others called Peter and John before them, anddemanded, by what power, or by what name they had done this thing, Peter answers, filled with the Holy Spirit; "Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed doneto the impotent man, by what means he is made whole: be it known untoyou all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of JesusChrist of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is thestone which was set at naught by you builders. " Hear what these rulerssay when Peter and John were sent aside. "What shall we do to thesemen? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them ismanifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. " Such evidence as we have noticed, which the disciples were enabled tobring to the people, of the resurrection of Jesus, was sufficient toremove every reasonable doubt and to bring over to this faith, thosewho had been his murderers. I will now inquire whether it is reasonable to suppose that lessevidence would have effected such conviction?--And on the other hand, I will ask whether stronger proof could in the nature of things begiven? And lastly, to come to our object again, does such evidencepossibly admit of being counterbalanced? I understand that thesequestions admit of no other answers than such as go to show, that ifthere be any evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, sufficient tosupport it, if there were no evidence to counterbalance it, suchevidence is not capable of being counterbalanced. --You will perceivethat our reasoning must issue in the truth of the resurrection, unlesswe assume the extravagant notion, that the people who lived inJerusalem and its vicinity, at the time of the crucifiction of Jesus, were not brought over to believe it. It is hoped that no objection will be brought from the circumstance ofthe rejection of the gospel by the rulers of the Jews, and by themajor part of that hierarchy, as long as it is perfectly evident thattheir opposition and unbelief were indispensably necessary for thefulfilling of the prophecies, for the carrying of conviction to theGentiles, and for the purpose of perpetuating the necessary evidenceson which we, at this day, must rest our belief of this religion. 4th. You hardly know how to understand me when I suggest, that indisproving the religion of Jesus Christ, you disprove all religion, &c. I think I added, that there is no choosing between this religionand some other, we must have this, or none. By the religion of Jesus Christ, I mean to comprehend all that thedoctrine of the scriptures encourage us to believe in and hope for, and also all that this doctrine requires, also all that it teaches usto expect as resulting from obedience and disobedience. I am fullypersuaded that you never can disprove this religion, so as to do awayits effects on your own mind. Its maxims contain all the morality youknow of, and all that a Deist calls natural religion, he has beentaught from the revealed wisdom of God. The further you advance intothe society of man, where the light of the holy scriptures has leastextended, so much the more do you lose sight of the moral virtues; andso much the more do you lose sight of the simple unity and divinebenevolence of God. My meaning, sir, however, was not very extensive. It was to say, as ina familiar conversation, I might express myself as follows: Brother, if we disprove the religion of Jesus Christ, that is, if we give upour present belief, there is no other religion, that we have heard of, that can have the least claim to our belief. Judaism, Paganism, Mahomedanism, could neither of them have any claims; nor in fact couldwhat people call Deism, or the belief in one God. If you say there iscertainly demonstrated in the very nature of things an eternalunchangeable principle or law which governs all things; I will answer, I am surprised to hear a rational being, who cannot rememberforty-five of our short years, and knows not that he shall live in theworld another hour, talk about eternal things, use great swellingwords of vanity about unchangeability, and yet deny that God has madea revelation to man! I am really of the sentiment expressed by him whois justly styled the light of the world, who said "No man knoweth theFather save the Son, and he to whom the Son revealeth him. " 5th. You seem to inquire whether Jesus and his apostles might not behonest men; and yet their testimony, concerning a future state beerroneous. Answer, this case comes into the same argument as the caseof the prophets, to which attention has been paid. We have no morereason to believe that Jesus and his apostles were honest men, than wehave to believe that they pretended to divine inspiration, and to thepower of working many very astonishing miracles. It does not appearreasonable to suppose that these servants of God, thought they could, and did heal the sick and raise the dead, when in fact they could dono such thing. Therefore, if they pretended to do such things and didthem not, they were all impostors, and surely deserve no betterappellation. Now if I can bring to your mind my inference, it is this. God would not endue Jesus Christ and his apostles with power to workmiracles, by which the attention of the people would be drawn to themand by which they would naturally be led to place confidence in theirtestimony, and yet leave them in the dark concerning those things ofwhich they speak to the people. What you say on this subject, indicates that you did not understand meto infer the validity of the apostles' testimony concerning a futurestate, from any higher authority than their simple honesty unconnectedwith the other part of the argument, which was as plainly set forth inmy former communication as you will now find it in this. 6th. You suppose that arguments equally energetic, and equallyconclusive might be drawn from our feelings, against, as in favour ofthe necessity of divine revelation. Though I am not of your opinion, yet I am disposed to think thatdesires very fervent may in some instances exercise the human heartagainst the knowledge of divine truth. But, sir, this is the effect ofmoral disease, not of a sound mind. A foul stomach will nauseate atthe sight of wholesome food; distempered eyes are rendered painful bythe rays of light; one whose deeds are evil loves darkness for thisvery reason. Now that people affected with these infirmities should beexercised with fervent desires to avoid what gives them uneasiness issurely very natural; but that a person in health and having goodexercise should loathe that which is good and nourishing, that one whohas sound eyes should dislike the enlivening beams of the sun, or thatone whose works are wrought in God, should love darkness rather thanlight is not reasonable. You are cautioned against supposing that these remarks are designed tobe applied to yourself, for I bear you record that your exertions andassiduity for the attainment of true knowledge have been laudable, andworthy of imitation. But all this only proves to me that yourreasoning is unnatural, and that no man would be more rejoiced to knowthe truth of divine revelation than yourself. 7th. That a person who does not even desire a future existence shouldrealize the goodness of the divine Being, and feel truly grateful forall enjoyments does not stand in a clear light in my mind. I cannotconceive that it is possible that any thing could remove a desire toexist in the future, except a very strong fear that that state wouldbe awfully miserable. To be thankful to God, and to rejoice in hisgoodness, and at the same time feel no desire to continue in theenjoyment of such favour is to me a complete solecism, whichsufficiently refutes itself. 8th. Your assertion, that if a revelation was ever necessary, it wasnecessary only to reconcile man to his present state of existence, isthought to be an error of no small magnitude. If you had said thatrevelation was necessary only for the improvement of man in hispresent state it would have been more correct. As for man's present existence, it seems he has love enough; peoplewish to live here, and no doubt they would wish to stay forever ifthey had no hope in the future. By improving our present state by adivine revelation, I wish to be understood to comprehend all that ismeant by the ministry of reconciliation. This has for its object thereconciliation of man to God. But it is a soul rejoicing fact, that ofthe precious things brought forth by the sun of righteousness, thehope of immortality is its most precious jewel. This makes every thingvaluable. Hence we may lay up our treasures where neither moth norrust can corrupt, nor thieves break through and steal. Here God'sbright favour will never grow dim, nor will our love and gratitudeever decay. Do you see this celestial form leaning on her anchor, andwhile the raging waves of a restless sea dash against her, feelunmoved? Do you observe her aspect firm, and her eyes turned towardsHeaven? And wouldst you wish to cast her down and wreck her on thequicksands of dismal doubt? Go, brother, to the chamber of sickness, where life's waning embers can no longer warm the dying heart, therehear from cold and quivering lips this hope expressed, I long to bewith Christ, I long to be at rest. Would you blast this amaranthineflower? Would you plant in its stead the night shade of dispair? Do not, dear sir, listen too long to the wild suggestions of vainfancy and wandering imagination, under the specious pretence ofsearching after truth. I am apprehensive that she who persuades youthat she is truth, really deserves another name. Jesus is the way, thetruth and the life, he also is made unto us wisdom. Give me the light of this bright sun to see, All other lights like met'ors are to me; Give me that way, that pleasant path to know, I'll walk no other path while here below. Wouldst thou be wise? This wisdom learn to scan, Which brings to God, the wandering heart of man. 9th and last. You misunderstand me in supposing that I meant toinsinuate, that by what you _wrote_ respecting the apostles' statingnothing more than what was substantially true, you must mean that theystated falsehood. I meant, if you do not believe that they stated thetruth you must believe that they stated falsehood, in which case Icalled on you to make a short work of our argument by proving thatwhat they stated was not true. I wonder you should not have thought ofthis way to understand me, because there is no way to explain yourwords into the meaning which you supposed I had attached to them, while what I now suggest is fairly the necessary result of what youstated. On this subject I am disposed to say a little more. If we findourselves in serious doubts respecting any important particular of ourreligion, and we wish to have the matter cleared up to oursatisfaction, why should we spend much time and write many sheets, with no other apparent object, than to keep away from the subjectwhich labours in our minds? If you were under the necessity ofbringing a tree to the ground, and of removing it from the forest, would you ascend the tree and begin your work on the extreme twigs, orwould you cut the trunk off near the roots, when the whole mass wouldcome down together? You will apprehend my meaning. The fact is, if the Christian religionis ever overthown, it must be done, not by proving that professors ofit have held errors and have been superstitious, and have everpractised wickedness, using the name of Christ for a cloak, &c. But byproving the testimony, of the new testament false. Cut the trunk ofthe tree off at this place and the work is done. But if it were possible, in the nature of things for the testimonyborne in the new testament to be proved false, can you persuadeyourself to believe that it would not have been done? If a bookcontaining the grossest falsehood, the most palpable frauds, pretensions the very easiest to be detected of any that can beimagined, could be got up and published, and be copied by many hands, and be translated into different languages on purpose to overthrow thepopular religion of all countries where the book is sent or carried, and if in spite of truth, and all the learning of a learned age, if inspite of all sorts of superstition combined with civil government, ifin spite of reason, argument, persuasion, the tender love andcompassion of parents, interest, honour, ease, peace and quiet; if inthe face of the most cruel sufferings and most awful deaths, thisbook, with all its abominable lies, and most palpable frauds couldsucceed, its doctrines run and be glorified; if ancient superstitions, than which nothing can have a more despotic sway over the human heart, if the priests of long venerated idols with thousands of theirvotaries were humbled before this testimony, what is there now onwhich we can rely for success against it? How beautiful are reason and candor. Dr. Gamaliel gives us a handsomespecimen. "Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves, what ye intendto do as touching these men. --For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody: to whom a number of men, about fourhundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyedhim, were scattered and brought to naught. After this man rose upJudas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much peopleafter him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, woredispersed. And now, I say unto you, refrain from these men, and letthem alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will cometo naught; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply yebe found even to fight against God. " Let us remark, 1st. You will notice that this passage ranks withhundreds of others which to the understanding of sound judgment wearsevery feature of an honest and true statement of facts. I will take iton myself to say that it does not appear reasonable that men who werefabricating a falsehood, would ever have thought of such a method asthis to give it currency. 2d. You will naturally observe that thislearned doctor of the law was himself persuaded of the truth of theapostles' testimony, and though he was not willing to make so great asacrifice as he must if he professed Jesus openly, he was willing toespouse the cause so far as his learning and influence would go, without rendering himself odious to his friends. 3d. It is pretty evident, that whatever Theudas made a handle of inorder to obtain disciples, Judas of Galilee had that very unpopulartax (I do not consult any authority as it is immaterial, but onlyfollow a probable suggestion) which was collected about the time ofthe birth of Jesus, or some other, by which he no doubt, strove todisaffect the Jews against the Roman government, which they verynaturally were opposed to. But Judas did not succeed. 4th. Jesus never tried to persuade the people against the civilauthorities, nor did he ever promise his disciples any worldlybenefits, nor try to allure the people after him by holding out, asinducements, any thing that the carnal passions of men are in lovewith; and yet he succeeded though he lost his life. 5th. Dr. Gamalielwas of opinion that if the gospel were not of God, it would come tonaught, but it did not, nor is there the least probability it everwill. Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. * * * * * EXTRACTS No. VII. [In this number the objector gives the whole ground of his objections, and the reasons for his doubts: _which he states as follows_, viz. "1. Mankind, in all ages of the world, have been, and still are proneto superstition. "2. It cannot be denied, but that a part of mankind at least, havebelieved, and still are believing in miracles and revelation, whichare spurious. "3. The facts on which religion is predicated are unlike every thingof which we have any positive knowledge. " Under the first article, the objector appealed to the knownsuperstitions of the world: not only of the Pagan; but of the Jewish, Mahometan, and Christian world. He took a view of the present state ofAsia, spake of the "voluntary sacrifices of human life to the greatimage at Hugernaught!" and of women "voluntarily climbing the funeralpile to be burned with their deceased husbands!" He took a view of the_Inquisition_ in Old Spain; and finally of the various superstitiousnotions and practices among the different sects of christians in ourown country. Under the second article, he discanted largely on the pretension ofMahomet, and of their great influence and extent; and also of theparticular tone given to the Christian religion by Constantine, who, holding the reigns of government, had superior means in extending hisinfluence over the Christian world. Having made these remarks, theobjector proceeds:] "If therefore, he had happened only to have favoured the opinions ofthe Gnostics, we might have expected, and probably it would have beenthe fact, that the learned clergy of the present day would have heldthat Jesus was not a man in reality, but only a man in appearance;that he assumed a body that he could put on or throw off at pleasure;and that he died and was raised again _in appearance only_. Orotherwise, if he had been disposed to come down to the simplicity andunderstanding of the common people, then indeed Christ might stillhave been considered as the Jews' expected Messiah; yet we should haveconsidered him a man, and nothing more than a man; though 'a manapproved of God;'--'a man who hath told us the truth;'--even 'Jesus ofNazareth, the son of Joseph;' as it seems was the opinion of Peter, John and Philip. But the former opinion had been too long treated asheresy by all the bishops to be imbibed by Constantine, while thebishops themselves, on the other hand, had been too long contaminatedwith the Platonic philosophy to descend to the simplicity of thelatter; therefore we have a religion, compounded, partly of thesimplicity of the truth, and partly of Platonism. Constantine, however, being supported by a great majority of all the bishops, in agreat measure effected his purpose; though not fully to hisexpectation: for it seems he did not expect that any one would presumeto oppose the decisions of this grand council, which he had summonedand convened at his own expense, or at the expense of the empire, butin this he was mistaken; for many, even after this, would take theliberty not only to think for themselves, but also to speak their ownthoughts. "One circumstance more I cannot avoid mentioning in this place, viz, the conversion of Constantine from heathenism to the Christian faith. Great men, if turned about at all, must be turned about by greatmeans! But whatever might have been thought of Constantine'sconversion by the people of that day, the account given of it does notargue any thing very forcibly in my mind, in favour of the truth ofdivine revelation. Great men, however, are not always free fromsuperstition; and they are just as likely to be deceived respectingthings which are above their comprehension as others. This is the mostcharitable way in which I can reconcile the following account which, as Eusebius, the contemporary and historian of Constantine, says, wasstated under the solemnity of an oath. For a full account of thisextraordinary story. See the 2d vol. Of Dr. Priestley's ChurchHistory, per. 7, sec. 9. I shall not attempt to quote it in full, noris it necessary, and what I do quote is from memory only, as I writeabroad, my books not being with me. "Reflecting on the ill success of his predecessors in the numerouswars in which they had been engaged, when their priests and oracleshad ever promised them success, and also considering the bettersuccess of his father, Constantine concluded from these circumstancesthat his father prayed to, and was assisted by a different god! Whenhe prayed, therefore, he always prayed to the God of his father. Andbeing thus praying one evening, towards the going down of the sun, with his face toward the same, he saw the appearance of a _cross_ inthe sun, with these words over it in Greek, [Greek: tetw nika] _bythis conquer_. Not knowing, (or else pretending not to know) what thissign should mean, he called together some of the christian priests foran explanation; who explained it as might naturally have been supposedthey would, that it was a representation of the cross, on which Christwas crucified, and that there could be no doubt but that he had nowinterposed as God, in behalf of the christians, to deliver them fromtheir enemies, and of course from further persecution! I do notpretend to be any thing more than _substantially_ correct in the aboveaccount (by which you will further see how I use the word_substantially_, about which we have had some dispute) i. E. I may, yea undoubtedly, have differed, as to words, yet I know I am correctin the most material part, and of the use which Constantine made ofthis supposed miraculous, or supernatural appearance. He said also, the soldiers saw it as well as himself! Now, if we give full credit tothis account, what must we think of Christianity? The meek and lowlyJesus, who was led 'like a lamb to the slaughter, ' without the leastresistance, and who had suffered thousands to follow him in the sameway, now, by a miraculous interposition, arms a man with carnalweapons, and, Mahometan like, authorizes him to vindicate his cause, and avenge his wrongs, by shedding the blood of his enemies! Or, if wedo not credit this account, what must we think of Constantine? andalso of Christianity so far as it can be traced to, and made to dependon his influence? That candor and charity, however, which I ever wishto maintain, will oblige me in this, as in all other cases of asimilar nature, to take the middle course. I shall therefore supposethat there was some natural appearance, perhaps a parhelion, the causeof which Constantine did not fully understand, and, from theappearance in the sky around it, his fancy, aided by superstition, painted to his imagination the supposed cross, as also the Greekwords, which being pointed out to the soldiers they might easilyimagine the same, or, if they did not, would not like to oppose theopinion of their general. Thus circumstanced, whether he reallybelieved it to be any thing supernatural or not, Constantine wasdisposed to make the most of it he could, by turning it to the bestpossible account. [2]" [Footnote 2: "Upon the whole, " says Dr. Priestly, (vol. 2, p. 96) "itappears to me most probable, that Constantine and his friends saw anatural parhelion, and that all the other circumstances were eitherimagined, or invented; and that the story has lost nothing in passingthrough the hands of Eusebius. " Constantine also states (which Iforgot to mention above) that "Christ appeared to him in a dream, thenight following, with the very same sign which he had seen in theheavens, ordering him to make a military standard like it, andassuring him that it would be his security in battles. " "By this noteit will be perceived that I have compared what I have written with thepart of the history from whence it was taken, and that I find nothingin it materially erroneous. "] "It appears, however, after all, that Constantine was a man of greatmoderation, and on the whole, a very good man: yet, that he was notwholly clear from superstition is very evident from the followingcircumstance. Notwithstanding his extraordinary, and what was supposedby all, miraculous conversion, together with his great pretensions;and all that he had done for christianity, yet he neglected his own_baptism_ till he found he was very nigh his end; when he dressedhimself in white, and the bed on which he lay, also all in white, inwhich dress he was baptised and partook of the _sacrament_! and thushe continued in _white_ till he died. This was undoubtedly from amistaken notion, that there was something really purifying in thoseoutward ceremonies, and also from the doctrine of the Navatians, acertain sect, whose opinions it was supposed he favoured, though notvery openly, i. E. If a person committed sin after having been thuspurified he could not die in union with the church. "You may perhaps object here and say, all this is to no purpose, aschristianity was well established before; and had existed for nearlythree centuries, and increased too, notwithstanding the many mostbitter and cruel persecutions. Therefore what you say respectingConstantine only proves that christianity has been corrupted, but itis no objection against its truth. Very good. If the facts abovestated are admitted, let them prove what they will, I am not theauthor of those facts, nor accountable for what is proved by them. Theconversion of Constantine, however, if correct, bears some analogy tothe conversion of St. Paul: hence, the supposition that one is notcorrect, brings a little doubt over the mind respecting the truth ofthe other: for both being by means which were supernatural; if bothare supported on equal testimony, why should they not both share thesame fate in our minds? Both were equally possible; it is the want ofprobability, therefore, arising from the want of equal evidence in itsfavour, which leads us to reject the truth of the circumstancesattending the conversion of Constantine, rather than those attendingthe conversion of St. Paul. The conversion of Constantine also, ifgenuine, seems to have been designed for a very different object, andwas attended with a very different effect. This would incline me tobelieve in the validity of that of the apostle's, rather than that ofthe emperor. Nevertheless, as it respects the facts; he who caused alight at mid-day, above the brightness of the sun, might as easilyhave painted the sign of the cross on his disk; and he who spake toSaul from Heaven, with an audible voice, in the Hebrew tongue, mightas easily have painted letters and words in Greek, so that they mightbe distinctly read in the firmament! "Leaving all ancient miracles and revelation, I will come down tothose of our own times, and in our own country. --Strange to tell, there is a sect of people now among us, who sprang up less than half acentury ago, whose religion is professedly founded on miracles andrevelation. On miracles wrought by the first founders of the sect, asby Christ and his apostles, and on a revelation also made directly tothem, and through them to the believers, as by the inspired writers ofthe new testament. They appear to be something similar in sentiment, as it respects the person of Christ, to the ancient Arians; with thisdifference only, they conceived that as Christ made his firstappearance in Jesus, the son of a _carpenter_, so he has made hissecond appearance in Ann, the daughter of a _blacksmith_, whom theycall _mother_; and they consider their church the _New Jerusalem_, that holy city which was to come down from God out of Heaven. In the year 1808, about the same time after their first rise as it wasafter the days of Jesus to the writing of the new testament, theypublished a history of their sect, in a work entitled '_Christ'ssecond appearance, ' or the New Jerusalem Church_, setting forth theirrise, progress and present state; together with their principles, customs and mode of worship. This work contains an account of theirmother _Ann_, and the first elders; and particularly an account of themiracles said to have been wrought by them. If my memory serves me, (as the book is not by me) there is an account of about _forty_miracles, all of which are well attested, and though they acknowledgethat most of them are inferior to those wrought by Jesus and hisapostles, yet they contend that they are no more inferior to thosethan those are to the miracles wrought by Moses. They contend that forthe plagues in Egypt, the dividing the red sea, bringing water out ofthe rock, feeding Israel forty years in the wilderness with bread fromheaven, and that there should always fall a double portion on thesixth day, but none on the seventh, that that which fell on the sixthday, should keep two days, but on all other days it would keep butone, and that afterward, some of the same bread or manna was laid upin the ark of the covenant which kept for ages, as a memorial; alsothe dividing the waters of the river Jordan, and the fall of the wallsof Jericho; yea most or all of these, according to reason or humanappearance, are as much greater than the miracles wrought by Jesus andhis apostles, as those are greater than those wrought by Ann and herelders! It is true, they did not pretend to raise the dead, but eitherthese accounts are all fabrications and lies, or else they had amongthem the gift of healing, and that too miraculously. A woman who hadfell with her horse, by the falling of a bridge, and had brokenseveral of her ribs, besides being otherwise very much bruised, wascured in one evening, so that she joined in the dance! A boy who hadcut his foot so that a person might have laid his finger into thewound, which bled very profusely, was cured in a few hours so thatnothing was to be seen of the wound excepting a white streak, aboutthe bigness of a common thread! and many others of a like kind, toonumerous to be mentioned in this place. "You will readily perceive that I allude to the _Shakers_; a peoplewho are enjoying privileges among us which no other people enjoy, except the Friends, called also _Quakers_: and who are debarred fromno privileges excepting those from which they either religiously or_superstitiously_ debar themselves. Thus people, in consequence oftheir religion, have entirely changed their manners, customs, andmodes of worship. They have also endured considerable persecution; andthat they have not suffered martyrdom in defence of their religion, isno fault of theirs. There can be no doubt but that there has beenfanaticism enough on their part to have done it, if there had beenonly bigotry and cruelty enough in the people, at that time, to haveput it in execution. Let the same spirit reign among the people for ashort time, which reigned in Boston when the _Quakers_ were put todeath for their religion, and the _Shakers_ also would be able toboast of their martyrs in defence of the truth of their particularsect, and of course of the miracles and revelation on which it is saidto have been founded. "And here I wish to remark a little on _martyrdom_, seeing it is oftenbrought in defence of the truth of divine revelation. I am aware thatgreat stress has been laid upon this, and it will still be consideredas one of its main pillars. I apprehend, however, that more stress hasbeen laid upon martyrdom than what it will justly bear. If this is atest of the truth of religion, there is scarcely any religion but whatmay be proved true. Only make death honourable, of any kind whatever, in the eyes of the people, and there are always enough who are readyand willing to die for the sake of the honour which will be inconsequence attached to their names. But only let any particular kindof death be considered, in the eyes of the people, _meritorious_, andthe sure and certain road to _endless bliss_, and there will not onlybe enough found willing to undergo this death, if they can find any toinflict it upon them, but they will absolutely court it! Insteadtherefore of having my faith strengthened by reading the book ofmartyrs, as I thought I had some reason to expect, it has produced aquite contrary effect. Notwithstanding these accounts were taken downby the friends of the martyrs, and by them have been handed down tous, who, as we may well suppose, were rather prejudiced in theirfavour, yet nevertheless, it is impossible to disguise the spirit andmotives with which many of those infatuated people eagerly sought andmet death. "In all those accounts it is but too clearly discovered, what has beentoo often the fact, that the most bitterly persecuted would havebecome the most violent persecutors, if there had been only a chancefor them so to have done, and if there had been, in their view, anequal occasion. The persecutors of people for their religion havealways considered the persecuted, either heretics or infidels; who ifpersecuted by heathens, unless they could be brought to sacrifice totheir heathen gods, or if by christians, unless they could be broughtto acknowledge the particular faith embraced by the _orthodoxy_ of theday, were considered as mere nuisances or pests to society; andtherefore for the public good, it was thought necessary to take themout of the world! While on the other hand, the persecuted have alwaysconsidered that, if they suffered death in defence of their religion, they were certain of being raised to great honour and dignity inanother world; a privilege which they undoubtedly believed theirpersecutors would never enjoy! And, whatever was the opinion of Christand his apostles on this subject, it cannot be denied but that theidea very soon become prevalent among their followers that thedistinction between them and a wicked world, particularly theirpersecutors, would be eternal! Under these circumstances, I do notwonder at all that men have been found willing to die for theirreligion; yea, and even to court death by all the means of which theirown consciences would approve! "But, you may say, all this does not account for the death of thefirst martyrs. Very true. I admit that it does not. But it shews that, only let the work be begun, from any cause whatever, there is nodifficulty in its being continued. "Suppose then, if you please, that the first martyrs were killed by a_mob_, a mere _rabble_, without any legal process, or even form of_trial_; as, from which appears by the account, was the case with thedeath of _Stephen_, the first christian martyr; and, according totradition, most of the other apostles: (and it may be remarked here, it is only by tradition that we have any account of the death of theapostles; as all authentic documents on the subject, if there everwere any, are lost:) I say, let such a circumstance as the death ofStephen take place in any country, and in any age of the world; butmore especially in that age and country in which he lived; and thenlet the same honour, and the same supposed consequences be attached tosuch a death, as undoubtedly were attached to the death of Stephen;and there can be no doubt but that others would be willing to followthe example. "Only let the blood once begin to flow, no matter how, and then onlyattach eternal consequences to it, and hold out inducements of aneternal nature, and persuade men to believe them (which is not sodifficult a thing as some may imagine) and you will never want forvictims, so long as you can find a zeal sufficiently blind and _mad_;as to continue the slaughter. In this way, I conceive martyrdom, ofevery species and kind, may be rationally accounted for. "But it may be said all this does not disprove the miracles andrevelation on which the christian religion is founded. "I acknowledge it does not; neither do I expect to disprove them. Iadmit that revelation, and of course the christian religion maypossibly be founded in truth, notwithstanding the truth of all that Ihave as yet urged, or shall urge against it. But I call on you, sir, to disprove the miracles and revelation which I have mentioned, of amore modern date, or else acknowledge their truth. If you acknowledgethe truth of those miracles, I shall expect you will conform to thereligion predicated upon them; and of course forsake your bosomcompanion (which I presume would be a much greater cross than ever youhave yet taken up, ) and also your darling offspring (or else take themwith you) and go and live with the _Shakers_!!! But if you prove themfalse, it will only be that people may become so infatuated as tobelieve in miracles which are spurious. "For notwithstanding the smallness of the numbers of this people, which by the way, are considerable; and notwithstanding thecontemptible view in which they have been, and still are held by theworld; yet, you may find it more difficult to prove the falsity oftheir pretended miracles than at present you are aware; for they arevery well attested; and some of the witnesses are still living, orwere so when their testimony was first published; as also, if Irecollect right, some of the persons on whom the miracles were said tohave been wrought; who, no doubt, would still testify to the samethings. If they testify falsely, who can help it?--Although thousandsmay _believe_ to the contrary; many of whom being too in situations, probably to have known these things, if true; yet I believe it wouldbe difficult, and very difficult indeed, to find any who couldabsolutely say that those things did not take place. "And if there is a people now existing among us, in different parts ofthe country, and in different, but large extensive families, whosemanners, customs, and worship are all very different from ours, andwho believe in miracles on which their religion is said to have beenfounded; and if those miracles, although not founded in truth, cannotnow be proved false, notwithstanding they are said to have taken placein our own country, and ever since we were born, I would ask, oughtany one to be censured for not giving full credit to miracles said tohave been wrought, all of them nearly two, and most of them abovethree thousand years ago; and among a people too, of which we know butvery little? I say, ought any one to be censured for doing this, although he should not be able to prove any of those miracles false? "I conclude I shall not be censured for not believing in the miraclessaid to have been wrought by the Shakers; but let the governmentundertake to annihilate that blind and superstitious class of people:let them increase their numbers by persecution, which, like theeffects of all other persecutions, undoubtedly they would; let them, in the course of two or three centuries, get the reins of governmentinto their own hands;[3] let them then follow the example ofConstantine in demolishing the temples of the heathen gods; let themdemolish every steepled meeting-house, and introduce an entire neworder of things; let them also remake their scriptures, change in somedegree their mode of worship and manner of living, and fix every thingto the policy of the state; let the old opposition be entirelyextinguished, and new sects spring up among themselves; let this bethe order of things for a number of centuries, and then let a man callin question the truth of Shaker miracles or Shaker revelation, and hemust do it as his peril! It would undoubtedly cost him his life! [Footnote 3: Were it not for other causes besides that ofChristianity, I should think this full as likely as it was thatChristianity should ever get the reins of government, judging fromwhat Christianity was when it had existed no longer than the Shakers. ] "I might also mention here another person now living in the westernpart of the state of New-York, who also makes pretensions to be Christin his second coming, and in imitation of him has chosen _twelve_ asimmediate apostles, and who has a considerable number of followers. But as this person is still living, and it is uncertain whether thesect will take much root, I choose to pass it over in silence. "I shall only call your attention to one circumstance more, and thendismiss my second proposition. "You very well recollect, I presume, the account given by Mrs. A----, of W----, N. H. In which she affirms that she saw and conversed withher husband, Mr. John A----, for about an hour and a half, whoappeared to her some considerable time, I believe about three months, after he had been dead! This is no fiction. Mrs. A---- is stillliving, and still affirms to the truth of what she has testified;which account you know was published by two respectable witnesses whotook it down, for that purpose, from her lips. "It is true, there has been but very little said in the worldrespecting this matter, and I presume, for this plain and obviousreason; the account did not correspond with the views of what istermed _orthodoxy_ in Christianity. If if had, i. E. If he had broughtas much tidings concerning the supposed _hell_ in another world, as hedid respecting the supposed _heaven_, the account would have beenpublished in every magazine, in every religious tract, and in everyperiodical work throughout the globe! Why not so, as well as manyaccounts which were similar in other respects? But as this account didnot favour such views, it is left to die in oblivion. "As the particulars of this account, however, make nothing either infavour or against my present purpose, I shall not occupy time and roomto relate it. Suffice it only to say, if there were no mistake ordeception in the matter, this account can be nothing short of arevelation from God; as much so as any revelation which has ever beenmade from God to man. "For no one can believe that Mr. A. Could appear to his wife, after hewas dead, unless God sent him; and if God sent him, no one can doubtthe truth of his testimony. No one can well conceive of any motiveMrs. A. Could have in giving this account, unless she fully believedit. Her daughter also was able to corroborate the account in somedegree, by saying that she heard her mother conversing in the bedroom, but heard no other voice; and she interrogated her on the subject whenshe came out, by asking with whom she had been talking, &c. Butsurprised on being informed that it was with her father, andsupposing, as she naturally would, that her mother had been talking inher sleep, she requested her to say nothing about what she had eitherseen or heard, saying, that no one would believe her if she did. ButMrs. A. Was able to convince her daughter that she had not beenasleep, by telling her of persons who had gone by her window duringthe time; one man in a soldier's dress, and another driving a yoke ofoxen. I state these things from memory only, for I have not seen theaccount since soon after it was published, or at least within three orfour years, that I now recollect; yet I believe I could state thewhole of it nearly verbatim as it was published. Now I do not believethat Mrs. A. Ever designed to state, or that she now has the leastidea that she has stated any thing incorrect on this subject. And yetafter all, I doubt of its reality! "Such is my incredulity; and I see no way to avoid it. If it be afault in me, may God forgive it; though I am wholly unconscious ofit's being one. "When one of two things presented to the mind must be true, and thetruth of one absolutely excludes the truth of the other, a rationalman will always believe that which to his own understanding is themost probable. Concerning therefore the account given by Mrs. A. Itstands, in my mind thus: either it is all a reality, i. E. That herhusband did absolutely appear to her; that he did give her the accountwhich she has stated; and that that account is in fact true; or else, it was nothing more than the power of imagination, which a certaintrain of ideas and reflections had produced in her mind, which, like akind of reverie, seemed to her like a reality. And although I shouldnot have made the same conclusion once, yet from my present knowledgeof human nature, together with my own experience, I do not hesitate toreject the former idea, and believe the latter. If in judging thus, Ido injustice either to Mrs. A. Or to the truth of God, I can only askforgiveness of a wrong, which, in truth, is by no means intended. Butin justice to my own understanding I could not state differently, if Iknew this would be the last sentence I should ever write. "Hence after making proper deduction for all that can be accounted forin this way, laying out of the question at the same time all that wemay justly suppose were the mere glosses of the historian, or thelubricous figures of the poet, which are very peculiar to the ancientstyle of writing; after making due allowances also for interpolations, or what in more modern times have been considered _pious frauds!_ andafter rejecting every thing (if any such there be) which savors ofgross imposition! if there be any thing left to support the truth ofdivine revelation, then it may rationally be believed. "3. The facts on which revelation is predicated are unlike every thingof which we have any positive knowledge. "Of the truth of this proposition you must be sensible; yea, unlessthe revelation had been made directly to ourselves, it is impossiblethat it should be otherwise than true. Neither of us have ever seenany thing miraculous! The ancients, however, were carried away withthis _supposition_; the same as the moderns have been with the idea ofwitches, wizards, ghosts, apparitions, &c. And many things which oncewould have been considered _ominous_, are now rationally accountedfor. In this way, things once supposed to be _miraculous_ also, mayhave lost their supposed divine qualities. "This much, however, I believe, and of this much I have no doubt, thatPaul and the other apostles were convinced of the truth and thesalutary effects of the moral precepts which had been taught andpractised by Christ; and they were willing to preach and enforce themby all the means in their power, even at the risk of their lives. Believing this, and practising accordingly, constituted them wise andgood men; and happy would it have been for the Christian world if theyhad always followed in their steps, without ever undertaking todictate to others, either modes or forms of worship, or to usecoercive means to compel men to the faith. "That the apostles also believed in the resurrection, and also ineternal life, I have no doubt; this sentiment, however, was neithernew nor peculiar to them, but had been held long before, not only bythe pharisees, among the Jews, but by some of the Grecianphilosophers; and the truth of it I am not at all disposed to dispute;yet nevertheless, whether the evidences on which it was founded werenot originally mere _visionary_, like the appearance of Mr A. Beforementioned, is the subject under consideration. "There may be, and undoubtedly are principles in nature which are notyet understood by any; and many more which are understood only by afew. The operations of these principles would undoubtedly, even at thepresent day, appear miraculous to thousands; and must appear veryextraordinary to every one until they are understood. But this Iconclude is not what is meant by miracles. Respecting miracles, I haveonly to ask myself this question, viz. --Which is the most likely to betrue; either that men should have been honestly deceived, in the firstinstance, or otherwise facts should have been so misrepresented, thatfabrication should have been honestly believed for truth; or else, that things so contrary to every principle of which I know in nature, should have taken place? Let reason only dictate the answer. "Another source of evidence in support of divine revelation isprophecy. And here, notwithstanding I think it very probable that muchimportance has been attached to many writings, under the idea of theirbeing prophetic, which are nothing more than the poetic effusions of afruitful imagination; yet I have long been of opinion that there havebeen, and perhaps still are men in the world who are endowed, bynature, with gifts and faculties differing from men in general; andparticularly, say if you please, with a _spirit of prophecy_, which, however, I must consider nothing less nor more than a _second_ or_mental sight_. By this sense, or faculty of seeing, they are enabledto bring events which are yet future, as well as those otherwise outof sight, present to their minds; and thus they can behold them withtheir mental eye, as clearly as we behold objects at a distance. "This, you may say, is visionary indeed. And you may wonder how I candoubt of the truth of miracles, if I can believe in such a chimericalidea as this! "But stop, my dear sir, you believe in such a power some where orother; for without it there could be no such thing as prophecy, and ifsuch a power exist, even in the universe, why may it not exist in man?For myself, I cannot account for the spirit of prophecy in man, (andit must be in man, or else men could not be prophets) in a morerational way. I should not be disposed, however, to consider such apower, sense, faculty, or by what other name it might be called, anymore supernatural than the organs of sight and hearing. If the naturaleye is so formed that objects may be painted on it, simply by theaction of vision, to the immense distance of the fixed stars, so thatwe are enabled to behold them, why may not the mental eye be soconstituted as to bring future events present to the mind with equalcertainty? "If such a power, however, were once known to exist, it would belikely to be counterfeited; and hence we may suppose, arose that hordeof impostors, by the name of soothsayers, sorcerers, necromancers, magicians, &c. "But even where this power exists, if it be a natural power, it musthave its limits, and some may have it to a greater degree than others, and also some may make a good use of it, and others bad. "Accounting for prophecy in this way, you will readily perceive thatit is no certain evidence of a future state; for although the time maycome when all creatures in all the vast dominions of God may be madehappy in the enjoyment of his blessings, yet it does not necessarilyfollow that you and I shall _exist_ at that time! i. E. In consciousidentity! "If I am asked why I wish to explain every thing upon naturalprinciples, without admitting the immediate agency of the Deity, myonly answer is, because to my understanding it is more rational, andof course more likely to be true. "That men could divine, or foretell future events, or declare presentthings which are beyond their sight by intuition, all of which seemsto be embraced in the word _prophecy_, is an idea which has existedperhaps from time immemorial; and however unaccountable it may seem, yet, to a certain degree, at least, we are obliged to admit the fact;but whether, after all, this is any thing more than the effect of thatkind of foresight or ratiocination, which all men (idiots excepted)have to a greater or less degree, but some much greater than others, is still a question. But should I be obliged to admit the truth ofprophecy, in the sense in which it is generally understood, I shouldaccount for it in the way you have seen. "I do not perceive, at present, how a revelation could be made to theunderstanding of any man only through the medium of the operations ofnature. Unless it were made to some of his outward senses, how couldhe know whether it was any thing more than a chimera of his own brain?If there were any faculty in his mind by which he could view thesethings over and over again, (the same as we look at the heavenlybodies) and did he always behold them in the same light, then he wouldfeel safe in declaring that such things did exist; and unless theprophets had some such criterion by which they could determine on thetruth of their predictions. I do not see how that even _they_, andmuch less _we_, should feel safe in placing any real confidence inthem. "The prophecies of our Saviour, however, concerning the destruction ofJerusalem, are more clear and striking than any thing else we have ofthe kind; and if it were certain that these were written before theevent took place, it would be a very strong proof of something morethan what any one can suppose could have been the result of humanforesight. There must, at least, on such a supposition, have been afaculty of seeing which we do not possess. These predictions, however, if made by Jesus, must have been made in the hearing of John, as wellas Matthew; and of course, he must have known them with more certaintythan Mark or Luke; who, in consequence of not being personallyacquainted with Jesus, could have known them only from hear say; andas it is pretty generally agreed, that John wrote his gospel more thantwenty years after the event took place, it is very remarkable that heshould be entirely silent on this subject! John, as we must suppose, knowing of this prediction; knowing also that it had been recorded byall three of the other Evangelists, (though Luke is not veryparticular on the subject) and knowing also that they had all writtenbefore the event took place; and he living to see the whole verified, and then wrote his gospel afterwards, how natural it would have beenfor him, first to have recorded this prediction, at least, insubstance, and then to have mentioned its fulfillment, as aconfirmation of the prophecy! But not a word on the subject. "This, however, is no evidence that Jesus did not deliver thosepredictions, and that they were not written by Matthew and Mark, andalso hinted at by Luke before the events took place; yet still itraises a doubt and a query in the mind whether these are notinterpolations, or else the books wholly written after the events tookplace, and of course these predictions put into the mouth of Jesus bythe historian. When the copies were few in number, and those kept bythe Christians only, interpolations might have been made without muchdanger of detection. The heretics were early accused of interpolating, altering, and forging the scriptures; and although they, i. E. Themajority of the believers, as it is likely would be very careful todetect any thing which contradicted their views in point of doctrine, yet whether they would be equally careful respecting thoseinterpolations which favoured the Christian faith is a question worthyof consideration. "In Calmet's dictionary of the bible, under the word gospel, we havean account of between thirty and forty gospels, of which he givestheir names, but none of which are now extant. Neither is there anything, which I now recollect, of any disputes about the validity ofthe writing of the apostles, except what is merely traditional, untilabout the year 180, when Celsus undertook to disprove the whole. I maybe incorrect, in this, however, if I am, you will correct me: forexcepting barely the bible, as I have informed you before, I have nobooks by me on this subject. "Another circumstance must be taken into consideration, and whichbears great weight in my mind. That is, the great and astonishingdifference there has been made in the state and condition of mankindby the discovery or invention of the art of printing; an art for whichwe cannot be too thankful, nor too highly appreciate its benefits. Forit would be very difficult now to realize the situation of mankindprevious to the invention of this art. "Writing, it is true, as we may rationally suppose, was carried to agreater state of perfection at that time, than it is at present; forit was of more use, yet its use must have been very limited, and it isreasonable to suppose that a very great proportion of the commonpeople could neither read nor write. For it could be of but little useto them, as they had nothing to read, for books of all descriptions, and upon all subjects, must have been, comparatively, very few. This, as you would readily perceive, would have a tendency to cause thecommon people to place great confidence in any thing that was written. Hence, generally speaking, it was sufficient barely to say, concerningany matter, [Greek: gegraptai], _it is written_ to gain full belief. "It is with all ancient sects, as it is with ancient nations andkingdoms; their history may be traced back until we find it veiled inmystery, and mingled with fable. We are not to suppose, however, thatthese things were done at the time, with an intent to deceive; butafter the events, whatever they were, had passed away, and theimagination had been long in operation respecting the traditionsconcerning them, they are dressed up with all the appearance of realhistory; and might so be construed and believed, were it not forimprobability. The probability is, that when such histories were firstwritten, they deceived no one, or at least, no one thought it worthwhile to undertake to detect them, because, not knowing what effectthey would have, they considered their errors were of no materialconsequence. The Shaker Book has been published nine years; andalthough I conclude that very few, if any, except the Shakersthemselves, believe the miracles therein recorded; yet no one that Iknow of has thought it expedient to undertake to refute them. Andunless the sect should grow to more consequence than it is at present, I presume that no one will give himself much trouble on the subject. If it should be thought necessary, however, to refute these pretendedmiracles, in order to prevent those in scripture from growing intodisrepute, then it will alter the case. "I am perfectly reconciled and willing, however, that whatever istruth should be true; and have not the least inclination, even if itwere in my power, to alter one truth respecting eternity. This is thestate of my mind exactly; a state into which it has been growing, gradually, for many years; and, strange as it may seem to you, I canassure you in the fear of that God before whom I stand or fall, and bywhom I have been supported hitherto, it is the most happy state ofmind in which mortals can be placed! "Gloria in altissimis Deo, et interra pax in homines benevolentia. " Luke ii. 14, Beza. "Whatever may be your opinion concerning miracles, I believe it mustbe admitted that there was no more of a miracle in the production ofman, originally, than there was in the production of other animals;and as nature has not provided man with clothing for the body, whichit does for other animals, especially those which inhabit coldclimates, it is evident that man was originally produced under thetorrid zone; and that he could not have lived in any other part of theworld, had it not been for art. What alteration the discovery of thearts has made in the original constitution of man, it would hedifficult now to determine. "What man must have been previous to the discovery and use of _fire_, is difficult now to conceive. We can trace man down, however, fromgrade to grade, until we are at a loss to determine whether such arace of beings belongs to the human species. "I have long desired, and should be glad if some one of sufficientlearning and skill would point out to me the line of demonstrationbetween the human and brutal creation; and say where the human ends, and where the brutal begins! "Naturalists take care to say but little on this subject, and Ibelieve the task would be more difficult than what people in generalimagine. "Come then, ye learn'd, ye great and wise, Unfold the soul to mortal eyes; Say where eternal life shall end, Or where eternal death begins! For death eternal theirs must be, Whose souls no future life shall see! And why should mortals vainly weep For creatures wrapt in endless sleep? They've had their day, they've had their bliss, Their life, their joy, and happiness, And now must we forever mourn, Because their life will not return! "O foolish man! go, and be wise! Learn where the source of greatness lies; To be content is to be blest: A cure for woes is endless rest. If God be good to all the race Of animals before his face, Although the life of some be short, (One day begins and ends their sport) Shall we presume he is less kind To human souls of nobler mind, Unless he lengthen out their days To endless years in future maze? "It cannot be! His love is such, Whate'er he gives, little or much, Is always good: faith, hope, desires; Or any grace which he inspires. All, all are good: for man indeed, (Whilst here) such gifts, such helps may need! All bring him to his final goal, Where nature's law winds up the whole! "But you will say, does God inspire man with faith and hope barely todeceive him; and does he not mean that he should ever realize the'things hoped for?' which must be the case, unless the hope is foundedon a reality. Answer: Let us rather say, unless the _hope_ be areality. The hope of man is in fact a reality, as much so as any thingelse which exists. It is, however, what it is, i. E. _hope_; and notwhat is not, i. E. The 'things hoped for. ' But hope never deceives anyone, it continues as long as the creature has any use for it; and itis never taken away from any (except a disordered mind, to which allmen are liable) as long as it can be of any service to the creature. "That hope is given for thy blessing NOW. "--_Pope_. "Mankind, if ever, are very seldom made unhappy and wretched inconsequence of doubting the existence of a future state. Thousands, nodoubt, think they should be wretched in this condition: but, althoughI have been acquainted with a number of this description, I never sawone made unhappy in consequence. It is the _fear of endless misery_which produces so much wretchedness in the world. --This idea, it istrue, beggars all description! It produces that fear which hathtorment. It disturbs the brain; destroys the mental faculties; and, bydistracting the imagination, fills the soul with horror! It isinfinitely more to be dreaded than _endless death_! But what fear ordread can there be in the idea of _endless sleep_? Surely none. Peopleare too apt to confound the idea of the absence of immortality withendless misery, believing this to be the only alternative. This is notcorrect. Mortality and death are the only opposites to immortality andeternal life. The former I know is true, and yet I am satisfied withknowing, (i. E. For an absolute certainty) nothing further;nevertheless, as I feel truly thankful for my present existence, should I be so happily disappointed as to find all my doubts, foundedin error, I trust, as I should be inexpressibly happy, so I should beinexpressibly thankful for a future life. " "Yours, &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER VI. _Dear sir, and brother_, --In replying to your seventh number, Ipropose taking the advantage which you have favoured me with, by thedivision of your subject. I hope by this, to be able to compress myremarks on your reasoning, and avoid any unnecessary protraction ofthis epistle. You allow, that a "general view of the whole ground" on which thescriptures seem to rest, would be sufficient to support the truth ofdivine revelation, were it not for the following considerations. 1. Mankind, in all ages of the world, have been, and still are proneto superstition. 2. It cannot be denied, but that a part of mankind, at least, havebelieved, and still are believing in miracles and revelations whichare spurious. 3. The facts on which revelation is predicated, are unlike every thingof which we have any positive knowledge. If I rightly apprehend your meaning of "the whole ground" in which thescriptures seem to rest, a general view of which would be sufficientto support a belief in revelation, were it not for the threeconsiderations above quoted; it occupies, at least, propheciesconcerning a Messiah and the fulfillment of those prophecies by aMessiah, according to the account which we have in the New Testament. As it will serve to circumscribe the bounds of our present reasoning, it is thought best to direct our inquiry to the consideration of thefacts recorded in the New Testament, presuming if these be admitted, the prophecies will not be denied. But have I not occasion, sir, to be surprised to find your firstproposition adduced as evidence unfavourable to the christianscriptures? Was there ever a time when the world of human kind, bothJews and Gentiles, was more deeply involved in the darkness andstupidity of superstition than when the Messiah entered on his publicministry? If the doctrine of Jesus had been pleasing to thesuperstitious Jews, if it had accorded with the idolatrous notions ofthe Gentiles, (which was impossible) if his Messiahship had beenespoused by both, and by their consent and influence had been handeddown, and declared to have been evidenced by all the miracles recordedin the four Evangelists, do you not see that your first propositionwould be of Herculean strength against this religion? On the contrary, it being well established, from unquestionable authority, that as St. Paul observed, Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews, andto the Greeks foolishness, the whole force of Jewish and Greeksuperstition, as it opposed, serves to strengthen the evidences of ourfaith. Will you be so good as to read the account which is recorded of themiracle which Jesus wrought in giving sight to the man who was bornblind, and inquire carefully from beginning to end for any thing thatlooks in the least as if the writer was endeavouring to write afalsehood in a way to have it deceive the reader. This request might, as I humbly conceive, be made in respect to any of the other miracles;but what I had in view, particularly when this subject came to mymind, was the following words, spoken by the pharisees to him who hadbeen blind; "Thou art his disciple: but we are Moses' disciples. Weknow that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow we know not fromwhence he is. " Is it not plain from this as well as from many otherscriptures, that in the same degree that the pharisees' superstitionrun in favour of Moses, it operated against Jesus? I know the objectormay say, the Jews expected a Messiah; but then they did not expectsuch a character as was Jesus. They also expected Elias to come first, but they did not expect such a character as John. You, and all theworld know that the protestant clergy in Europe and America used topray for the downfall of the Pope; but when he was humbled, they alljoined in fervent prayer to set him up again. How did thisinconsistency happen? Answer: The way in which it pleased God tohumble the Pope, was not the way which clerical wisdom and prudencehad planned; and we all see now, that they are better pleased with thePope and the Inquisition, than they were to have him lose his power ina way which endangered their own. Now, sir, if liberal principles doobtain, and if the cause of civil and religious liberty should finallytriumph, in spite of popish and protestant clergy with monarchyunited, do you believe that this triumph will ever be imputed to thesuperstition of king-craft and priestcraft? On the ground of yourfirst proposition this would be your conclusion. The pharisees andthose who adhered to them, built the sepulchres of the prophets, whomtheir fathers killed, and said; "If we had been in the days of ourfathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood ofthe prophets. " These _holy_ men were sure that they were much betterthan their fathers who persecuted the prophets; they had nodisposition to persecute; all the wealth in the world could not havetempted these _godly saints_ to kill a prophet of God. However, St. Paul writing to the Thessalonians, says, "For ye, brethren, becamefollowers of the churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus:for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even asthey have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and their ownprophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and arecontrary to all men. " But the Jews would not have put Jesus to deathif he had been a pharisee, and had not departed from their traditionsand superstitions. But he was not a pharisee, nor did he adhere totheir superstitions; and for this cause he was to them "a root out ofdry ground. " To them, he had no form nor comeliness, no, nor had heany beauty that they should discern him. Say, brother, is not this thesuperstition which you are urging as unfavourable to the evidences ofchristianity? And does not the passage above quoted from Thessaloniansgo to prove what all ecclesiastical history as well as the NewTestament proves, that the Christians were persecuted by the Jews andby the Gentiles? Did any thing but superstition ever persecute? Itsurely does not aim to build up that which it persecutes: andtherefore in room of its being evidence against the genuineness ofwhat it opposes, is justly admitted as a valid evidence in its favour. It is well known that our Christian doctors, clergy, and laity havebeen long persuaded that a glorious day of universal peace and gospellight is not only promised, but fast approaching; and if their prayershave any influence, it is evident that the time is hastened by theirmeans. All this looks very well, and a man would be thought to beimpious, if not insane, who should intimate that these saints weresuperstitous or illiberal, or that they possessed the spirit ofpersecution. --But what has been their spirit for, say, twenty-fiveyears past towards a doctrine which teaches universal peace on earthand good will towards man? Is there any thing bad which they have notspoken against this doctrine? Have they not treated its preachers withall the contempt and even ridicule of which they were capable? Havethey not used all their influence to keep the doctrine from beingpreached in their meeting houses, and have they not dealt with churchmembers who have believed this benign doctrine of love, withexcommunications attended with as many aggravations as they couldinvent? In a word, is there one bitter herb in all the ground whichwas cursed for man's sake, that has not been used against what iscalled the poison of this abominable heresy? If they had the power ofthe pope, if the inquisition were at their command, would they letsuch power lie dormant for want of zeal? Balaam smote his ass with a_staff_, but said: "I would there were a _sword_ in mine hand, for nowwould I kill thee. " But after all that has been said and done against this doctrine ofuniversal benevolence and grace, its progress confounds its enemies, encourages its friends, and calls to mind the parable of the mustardseed. Suppose for a century to come it should continue its advancesaccording to what it has gained for the twenty-five years abovementioned, is it not evident that the knowledge of God would cover theearth as the waters cover the sea? But would any body then, beingacquainted with the history of these times, think of making use of thesuperstition of our clergy to oppose the evidences of this doctrine?Would such a one say, it is probable that in those times ofsuperstition, the clergy who had great influence with the commonpeople, might alter many passages of scripture, and in room of usingthe word _elect_, interpolate the words _all men_? If I understandyour argument, this is the use you make of superstition. But, sir, Iam satisfied that the superstition of our times will be sufficientproof to future ages, that the scriptures which so abundantly provethe doctrine of universal salvation, were not the production of asuperstitious clergy who were known to oppose this doctrine with alltheir learning and influence. Now if you please, you may indulge in strengthening your hypothesis, and prove by the faithful histories of different nations, that Jews, Greeks, and Romans were most stupidly superstitious. Also that India, Turkey, and Arabia are now groaning under the ponderous weight of thisvanity. Go on and enlarge on all that you have said, and point out allthe superstitions of which we read or know; show how powerful thissuperstition is in the human heart; how it renders its votaries blindto reason and the principles of moral truth; show how hard it is tobreak in upon this almost invincible phalanx; but consider, sir, theblacker you represent this cloud, the brighter you render theevidences of the religion of Jesus. You need not be informed, what the Christian world all knows, that thedoctrine of Jesus Christ, founded on the miracles recorded in the fourEvangelists and in the Acts of the Apostles, was propagated among Jewsand Gentiles, whose superstitions, though various, rendered them bothhostile to this new religion, and incited them to persecutions whichsubjected the "weak and defenceless disciples of the meek and lowlyJesus" to trials and sufferings, fears and temptations of which we canhave but a faint conception. --The grand hypothesis on which the gospelwas advocated, and by which it succeeded in obtaining vast multitudesof Jewish as well as Gentile converts, was the resurrection of Jesus, who was publicly executed on a cross by the Roman authority instigatedby the rulers of the Jews. All this must be accounted for in arational way. The facts are as well attested as any thing of whichhistory gives any account. The four gospels have been commented on, and quoted, and adverted too by a greater number of controversialwriters, than any other book of which we have any knowledge. Theepistles of St. Paul when compared with the Acts and with each otherhave all the necessary characteristics of being genuine, and ofrelating nothing but realties. You, sir, allow that the authority on which this religion rests, wouldbe sufficient to support it, if it were not for the consideration ofyour three propositions, the first of which, I trust, you willacknowledge stands in its vindication. Your second proposition may now be noticed. That part of mankind have believed and still are believing in miraclesand revelations which are spurious, we have no interest in denying, but we feel under no obligation to admit this fact as any evidenceagainst Christianity, or of any force to counterbalance the evidenceswhich stand in its favour. What would you think of such kind ofreasoning as should contend, that as it is evident that many havebeen, and still are imposed on by counterfeit money, it justifiesserious doubts whether there ever was any true money in the world?Would you not reply, that as the counterfeit is entirely dependent onthe true for its imposition, in room of being evidence that there isno true money, it demonstrates that there is? It being well known, nor ever doubted by the friends or enemies ofChristianity, that its founder and his apostles proved the divinity oftheir missions by miracles alone, it was nothing more than might berationally expected, that impostors would rise up under those sacredpretensions, with a view to establish themselves. But if this religionof Jesus Christ, had not at first been built upon this foundation, impostors would never have thought of imposing on people with suchpretensions. Impostors, therefore, together with all their deceptions, cannot, as I humbly conceive, be admitted as evidence _against_ thegenuineness of the gospel, but in _favour_ of it. As to Mahomet of whom you speak, I have always understood that he madeno pretensions to miracles. He pretended to hold correspondence withthe angel Gabriel, and to receive revelations from God in this way;but he never attempted to sanction his divinity by miracles; andindeed there was no need of this, for he declared he was commissionedfrom heaven to propagate his religion by the sword, and to destroy themonuments of idolatry. His kingdom was of this world, therefore didhis servants fight; but they did not fight always alone, for he foughtat nine battles or sieges in person, and in ten years achieved fiftymilitary enterprizes. He united religion and plunder, by which heallured the vagrant Arabs to his standard. He asserted that the swordwas the key of heaven and hell; that a drop of blood shed in the causeof God, a night spent in arms are of more account than two months offasting and prayer. He assured those who should fall in battle, thattheir sins should be forgiven at the day of judgment, that theirwounds would be resplendant as vermillion and odoriferous as myrrh, and that the loss of limbs should be supplied by the wings of angelsand cherubim. But what you can find in Mahometism which in the leastmilitates against the evidences of Christianity I know not. It isaffirmed by writers, that he collected his ideas of God and of moralsfrom the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. From Mahomet you go to the conversion of Constantine, takingparticular notice of the account given of his seeing the sign of across in the sun, &c. And as we are now on the subject of miracles, wemust not forget the miracles of the _Shakers_ which seem to _shake_your faith! Two _notable_ miracles you have honoured with a place inyour epistle, or honoured your epistle with them, which, I shall notundertake to determine. A bridge fell with a horse on it, which fellwith the bridge; the rider was a woman; by the fall several of herribs were broken, and she was otherwise bruised; but she wasmiraculously recovered so as to be able to dance in one evening. A boycut his foot, the wound bled profusely; the boy was miraculouslyhealed in a few hours. These are the miracles; but whether mother Ann, or some of her elders performed these miracles you do not inform me. It seems to be allowed that _most_ of these Quaker miracles areinferior to the miracles recorded in the New Testament, but not moreinferior to them, than they are to the miracles of Moses. Doctor Priestley, with his usual candor, endeavours to assign anatural cause for what Constantine saw, and you are inclined to hisopinion, to all of which I have no objections to make; and I am by nomeans certain, that a proper attention to the pretended miracles ofthe Shakers, might not issue in assigning a natural cause for them. But however this may be, I cannot see how the matter affects ourbelief in Jesus Christ. Do you not discover a difference too widebetween the case of Jesus and his doctrine, and Ann Lee and herprinciples to admit of the comparison which you seem inclined to make?You have also mentioned the case of Mrs. A----'s seeing her husbandand talking with him after he was dead, which you would draw into thesame comparison. That Mrs. A---- may have satisfactory evidence of herhaving seen and conversed with her husband since his death, I am notat all disposed to dispute; but here the matter ends. God has not seenfit to endue her with the power of working miracles. If this womanshould come into a public assembly and work astonishing miraclesbefore all the people as an attestation of her having seen herhusband, and you and I should be present, and see these marvellousthings with our own eyes should we doubt the woman's testimony? I have already, in a former communication shown that the declarationof the apostles of the resurrection of Jesus, until it was accompaniedwith power from on high, was never even communicated to the public, orordered to be communicated. But in fact the disciples were strictlycommanded to tarry at Jerusalem until the gift of the Holy Spirit. Constantine would have had no occasion to depose under the solemnityof an oath, concerning the sign of the cross, &c. If he had had powerto evidence his declaration by miracles. If Ann Lee's disciples willheal the sick, restore the lame, and raise the dead in so public amanner that the people at large may know these facts, then, sir, theywill no longer need to purchase poor children in order to increasetheir societies. And if God should see fit to call me from my wife andchildren by such evidences as these, I hope I should not disobey hisdivine mandate. But will you reply, that miracles having ceased, we have no right toexpect them? In return it may be asked, how we are assured thatmiracles are not now necessary as they were twenty or thirty yearsago? Will you retort this question and ask why miracles are not now asnecessary to evince the truth of christianity as in the days of Jesusand his apostles? To this we reply: the miracles on which the gospelwas founded, or propagated, were of the most extraordinary kind; theywere of extensive publicity, and of ocular notoriety; they were vastlynumerous, extending to the infirmed of all descriptions; and they werecontinued long enough to answer the purpose for which they wereintended. You will feel satisfied that the _enemies_ of Jesus and his apostlesknew for certainty, that those miracles wrought by them wererealities; and that they, in room of imputing them to the divineagency, violated their own reason, by referring to an evil agent suchpower and acts of goodness; I say you will feel satisfied of all this, if you will set down and read all the accounts relative to thissubject, in the four gospels, carefully regarding this question: Dothese writers discover any marks of deception or fraud? In no instance do the evangelists betray the least anxiety for fearwhat they relate will not be credited. Even when they pen theastonishing miracles of which they pretend to be eye witnesses, theymake no pause to clear up any thing; but tell the whole as if thewhole was publicly known. In a word, this history, this sacredtestimony, carries its own competent evidence within itself. It has been noticed by those who have written on this subject, asevidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the real authors ofthose books which bear their respective names, that a great manypassages are alluded to or quoted from the evangelists, exactly as weread them now, by a regular succession of Christian writers, from thetime of the apostles down to this hour; and at a very early periodtheir names are mentioned as the authors of their respective gospels;which is more than can he said of any other historian whatever. SeeLardner and Paley. I will not call up Ann Lee in this place, but Iwill suppose an attempt should be made now in New-England to convinceTrinitarians of the error of supposing there are three persons in theGodhead. This shall be undertaken by men who are wicked enough toattempt to deceive by pretended miracles. One is selected as a leader, and the others to the number of twelve profess to be his followers. The leader pretends to a revelation from God, the substance of whichis, that Jesus Christ is a created being and dependent on the Father. This doctrine he preaches and directs his followers to go into everytown in New-England and proclaim this truth to the people, and exhortthem to repent of their former doctrine and turn to God. This impostorpretends to work miracles in confirmation of his divine mission; andalso pretends to give his disciples power to work miracles. He informshis friends that he is to lose his life and that they must losetheir's, in order to establish this doctrine. Stop, we have come to anabsurdity. Who would undertake to deceive their fellow creatures forno other reward than the loss of their lives? But let us pursue on. This leader pretends to give sight to blind people, to heal the sickwith a word, and to raise the dead. It is reported all round thecountry that many such cases have actually taken place; that the blinddo receive their sight, the sick are raised to health at once, and oneman in particular who was dead four days, has been called out of hisgrave. People now are waked up; many believe the reports; thousandsare flocking from place to place to hear this man and to see hismiracles. In this case who would be most likely to place themselvesvery near to this pretender? Who would one expect to find near hisperson? Answer, some of the Trinitarians; chosen ones too; men ofsound judgment, and who could be depended on as able to detect anyfraud. How long is it reasonable to suppose these pretensions couldpossibly continue with any success? It may be asked likewise, whetherall honest, reasonable, and candid Unitarians would not express theirabhorrence of such pretensions? Are you, sir, of opinion that such afraud could possibly be managed in a way to insure success? A moment'sreflection is sufficient to put the question to rest. But we will still pursue our supposition. The Trinitarians enter acomplaint against this teacher, to the authorities, alleging that heis guilty of treason; he is arrested, convicted, and publiclyexecuted. At the time of his arrest his disciples all forsake him, andone being found near him denies that he knows the man. All is overnow, and people go about their common avocations; once in a while aword or two may be dropped on the subject of the impostor, but thething is dying away, till all at once the twelve disciples of him whowas executed came boldly before the public and proclaim theresurrection of their leader, charge the rulers of the people ofhaving murdered him, and declare that God has raised him from thedead, and appointed them to be witness of this to the people, and topreach Unitarianism. What would be thought of these men? Would thedoctrine of the divine unity be likely to triumph over its opposite, the Trinity, by the preaching of the twelve? Would there be anyattention paid to these men, except by authority, to disperse them andcause them to desist from such madness, and go about some honestbusiness? But now they pretend to work miracles in confirmation of thetruth of the resurrection! Enough. Suppose, sir, I should tell youthat I believe such pretensions might be so managed as to succeedcompletely, would you not reply, that the success of such pretensionsbeing altogether a fraud, would itself be as great a miracle as isrecorded in scripture, with the addition of absurdity? You willremember that you suggested that it would require a miracle todissuade me from my belief; and I hope you will see that you mustbelieve in a miracle in order not to believe with me! Will you say that the foregoing does not come to the difficulty, thatthe question is, was not the account we have of those things in thegospels, forged long since the days in which they are represented tohave taken place? Then, sir, in room of the above supposed fraud, undertaken to propagate _Unitarianism_, you may take the suppositionof a forged book published by the friends of that doctrine, in whichjust such a story is told of the first propagations of the sentimentas is told in the New Testament of Jesus and his apostles--and theTrinitarians shall be made to act the part of the old pharisees. Canyou, sir, conceive that the book would meet with any better successthan the impostors themselves? Would our learned doctors of theTrinitarian school be silent while such a book was in circulation? Would they suffer it to be handed down to posterity unanswered andunrefuted? Would they see their churches imposed on in this way, theirdoctrine sat at nought, and this most extravagant imposture obtaincredit? Ask likewise on the other side; would honest Unitarians payany attention to such a book? Would they impose on their fellowcreatures in this way? Would they instruct their children to believewhat they knew to be a lie? It should be kept in mind that when the gospels were written and formore than two hundred years afterwards, christianity was hated andpersecuted beyond what we can easily conceive, by the emperors of Romeand their wicked governors, who being authorized by special edicts forthat purpose put to the most cruel tortures and horrid deaths thefollowers of Jesus. The superstitious priests of heathen idols, wereconstantly active with all possible inventions calculated to excitejealousies and sharpen the edge of persecution against a doctrine thatwas calculated to subvert their order and demolish their temples. Itwas not until A. D. 311, that Maximin Galerius, who had been theauthor of the heaviest calamities on the christians, published asolemn edict, ordering the persecution to cease, which hisindescribable horrors and painful sickness compelled him to do. Thenext year Constantine, and his colleague Licinius granted to thechristians a full power of living according to their own laws andinstitutions. For nearly three hundred years then the gospel ministry, founded onmiracles, which, if not real, were as easily detected as any falsehoodwhatever, was oppressed by cruel edicts acted upon by the bitterestenemies. Where was all the boasted learning of this learned age? Wherewas all the sagacity of the sagacious? Could not a priesthood, forages improved in scarcely any thing but imposition and fraud, succeedin detecting pretensions, which, if not real, were too grossly absurdto impose on the most artless? You, sir, are entirely right in saying you cannot prove this christianrevelation and the miracles on which it was founded, false. For ifthis could ever have been done, there can be no reasonable doubt thatit would have been by its enemies in its first rise; but the day ispast for the detection of this fraud, if it be one; for the age inwhich all the means of detection were in possession of its enemies, has long since passed away and those means are lost. The imposition, possessed at first of no solidity, might have been blown into the airwith a breath of common sense, has magnified and petrified till itpromises to fill the whole earth, and is as hard as an adamant. We hear of no writer's undertaking to disprove Christianity till aboutone hundred years after the apostles' day, when Celsus wrote a violentwork against the Christians, who were, at the same time, sufferingsevere persecutions. But this author, though a bitter enemy to Christ, allows his miracles; but like the old pharisees imputes them to adifferent power from that of God. Why should this enemy of Jesus, hisreligion, apostles and followers allow those miracles?--It seems thatthere can be no good reason for this unless they were realities. Yousay, "that no miracles or revelations that have come down to us aresupported by so good authority as those recorded in the New Testament, I admit. " But how can you conceive of _any good evidence_ of suchmiracles as are recorded in this book? We have no account of anytestimony under oath that they were realities. And even if we had, could the solemnity of an oath be admitted as good evidence? I thinknot. Indeed there was no authority that would allow the apostles todepose in favour of the resurrection of Jesus; but there were noauthorities that could prevent their bearing a mere convincingtestimony. I have endeavoured heretofore, to show that there can be nogood evidence of such a fact as the resurrection, which is capable ofbeing refuted; and I will here add, of admitting reasonable doubts ofthe fact, in the mind. It is a question which properly belongs to thissubject, and which should be often called up, whether the evidences ofthe resurrection were not as strong as they could have been, both tothe disciples and to those who believed on Jesus through theirtestimony; and furthermore, whether we can conceive how the evidencescould have been stronger on which we believe, without perpetualmiracles, which not only seems an absurdity, but would, if as powerfulas they were at first, preclude the exercise of our reasoningfaculties and the necessity of investigation, which is one of the mostrational enjoyments of which we are capable. I grant, if the vulgar error, that our eternal salvation depended onour being correctly acquainted with this subject, were true, it wouldfollow, of course, that the least difficulty in the way of our knowingthe whole matter, might be attended with fatal and awful consequences. And for myself, should I adopt the popular opinion that those who goout of this world not understanding the doctrine, or believing inJesus Christ, must hereafter be forever excluded from the blessedimmortality which is brought to light through the gospel, it would bedifficult for me to account for the least obscurity nameable, and muchmore difficult would it be to account for the limited circle in whichdivine truth has been caused to shine. But I have before intimatedthat the consequences of our unbelief here, can with no more proprietybe carried into an eternal state, than the consequences of ourignorance of any science. It is derogatory to the sacred loveliness ofdivine truth, either to promise any further reward to those who seekand find her than the enjoyment she brings to the soul in her ownnative sweetness, or to threaten those who neglect so divine atreasure with any other inconvenience than the loss of such felicityduring their foolish neglect. It becomes the philosopher and perhaps more the christian to exercisepatience, but patience is sometimes tried with the bigotry andnonsense of the self-righteous, self-wise, and self-knowing, whoprofess the religion of Christ, yet stand tiptoe, like James and John, to call fire from heaven to consume all who do not receive theirmaster. But the true spirit of our religion rebukes such blind zealand foolish arrogance, by showing that such a disposition is themalady which the gospel is designed to cure. While the Christianclergy have spent their breath and wore out their lungs inanathematising with eternal vengeance, those whom they call infidels, have been worse than infidels, and brought a greater stigma on thename of Jesus, than his open enemies from _Celsus_ down to T. Paine. Iwould by all means except from the above remark a goodly number whohave done honour to our religion by treating its opposers, as itsspirit dictates, with candor and sound argument well mingled withdivine charity. Indeed I think I see much reason to look on what is called infidelity, with a charitable disposition for this plain reason, it has greatlycontributed to enlighten the Christian commonwealth, by calling intoaction the very best of human abilities and directing them to searchfor the true grounds on which our faith securely rests. I hardly know how I ought to reply to what you say about thepersecution of Stephen, &c. At one time you write as if you woulddoubt the authenticity of those New Testament accounts; then again youadvert to them for assistance. But why should you go over such ground, on which so much depends, as if you did not realize that the subjectwas worthy of a pause for consideration? When you advert to the martyrdom of Stephen by a mob, (which by theway was _the council_), you take no notice of the cause of his beingarrested, accused or condemned. Let reason and candor look at the account. "And Stephen full of faithand power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Then therearose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of thelibertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Celiciaand of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist, &c. Then they suborned men, which said, we have heard him speakblasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred upthe people, and the elders, and the scribes, and come upon him, andcaught him, and brought him to the council, and set up falsewitnesses, which said, this man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous wordsagainst this holy place, and the law: for we have heard him say, thatthis Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and change thecustoms which Moses delivered us. And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of anangel. Then said the high priest, are these things so?" Here followsthat admirable speech of Stephen before the grand council of hisnation, which defies all conjecture of forgery, and enraged hisenemies against him. And they stoned him for pretended blasphemy. Theconcluding clause of this speech is particularly worthy of notice. "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they haveslain them which shewed before of the coming of the just one; of whomye have been now the betrayers and murderers; who have received thelaw by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. " Now, sir, isthere any more evidence for believing that there was such a man asStephen stoned according to the above account, than for believing thathe was stoned by the authority of the council, and for what is hereset forth? This council which put Stephen to death, was the same before whichPeter was arraigned on account of the miracle wrought on the impotentman; which according to Dr. Hammond was the Sanhedrim. But you seem much engaged to prove that martyrdom does not prove thetruth of a belief for which the martyr dies. Here you have not beencareful to distinguish cases. A _Papist, who has been brought up tobelieve in the divine presence_, might perhaps suffer death ratherthan renounce it; and yet we should not consider this sufficient toprove the doctrine of _transubstantiation_; but no candid person woulddoubt the _sincerity_ of the martyr. But why should we hesitate tobelieve the doctrine for which he suffered? Answer, the doctrine isnot a subject of which he could have positive knowledge. He could notbe eye nor ear witness of the fact. But the testimony for which thedisciples of Jesus suffered, was a testimony concerning a matter offact, of which their eyes and ears could take proper cognizance; andif their sufferings are allowed to prove their sincerity, then it isgranted that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus. If the entireunbelief of the disciples in the resurrection could be overcome, andthey brought to believe that they saw Jesus and talked with him, andate with him, and were frequently in his company after hisresurrection, for forty days; and if they were willing to sufferpersecution and death rather than desist from troubling the peoplewith this testimony, it appears to me that reason will allow that thisis, at least, some evidence of the truth of this astonishing fact;though this was not the evidence which carried conviction to so manythousands of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles. This we have beforeshown was the manifestation of the mighty power of God in themiraculous wonders which God wrought by the apostles. You speak of the honour, which was no doubt attached to the martyrdomof Stephen, as being an inducement to others to submit to thisexample, &c. You hereby allow that the testimony for which he sufferedwas surely believed, otherwise no honour could attach to those whosuffered for it. Why then do you not attempt to show the probableground on which this testimony was erroneously believed? I humbly conceive that your observations which regard to theuprightness of the apostles are too indefinite. You say, "This much, however, I believe, and of this much I have no doubt, that Paul andthe other apostles were convinced of the truth and the salutaryeffects of the moral precepts which had been taught and preached byChrist; and they were willing to preach and enforce them by all themeans in their power, even at the risk of their lives, " &c. And thisyou think, "constituted them wise and good men. " Here, sir, do you notleave room for the notion that the apostles would enforce their moraldoctrine with the testimony of the resurrection of Jesus and theirpretensions to miraculous powers, when they had no belief in theformer, and knew the latter to be an imposition? If these menendeavoured to enforce any principles by practicing such impositions, however pure those principles were, these men were vile impostors, andmerited all their sufferings. I solemnly protest against the wisdom orgoodness of any man who is an impostor. I proceed to notice your third proposition, which is as follows: "3. The facts on which revelation is predicated are unlike every thingof which we have any positive knowledge. " "Of the truth of thisproposition, " you say I "must be sensible. " You must indulge me, sir, in saying that you have made a mistake. I am insensible of thecorrectness of your statement. The FACTS on which the Christian faithis predicated, are of that description which come within theobservation of the outward senses of men. I know of no fact on which Jesus called the people to rest theirfaith, that they could not as easily judge of, through the medium oftheir senses as of any facts in nature. See John v. 36, "But I havegreater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hathgiven me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, thatthe Father hath sent me. " 10th, 24th, 25th, "Then came the Jews roundabout him, and said unto him, how long doest thou make us to doubt? Ifthou be the Christ tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, theybear witness of me. " 37th, 38th, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe theworks; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I inhim. " All the works of which Jesus spake, were such as the people could knowand examine by seeing and hearing, and concerning which there was nonecessity of their being ignorant or imposed upon. See the account ofJohn's sending two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he were theChrist. Luke vii. 20, &c. "When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, art thou he that shouldcome? or look we for another? And in that same hour he cured many oftheir infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many thatwere blind he gave sight. Then Jesus, answering, said unto them, goyour way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how thatthe blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. " Of suchfacts the people were capable of judging, and on such facts theMessiahship of Jesus rested. And furthermore, it was on such factsthat the testimony of the apostles concerning the resurrection ofJesus rested. Now it is evident that those facts on which divinerevelation is predicated, are like facts of which we have positiveknowledge, in all respects as it regards the case of knowing them. Itwas just as easy for people to know those things, as it is for us toknow the things which are familiar to our senses. If you mean by the above proposition, simply that miracles are notwrought before our eyes, it is granted; but have you shown that a_continuance_ of miracles would more rationally vindicate the gospel, than the divine economy has done by preserving the _variety ofevidence_ which is now at our command? If this cannot be done, thenthe discontinuance of miracles is no reason why we should doubt thetruth of this revelation. How then is your third proposition, even inany sense in which it can be true, to be understood unfavourable todivine revelation? It may not be improper to notice some reasons why the continuance ofthe miracles, on which the gospel was first propagated, would notcomport with the divine economy. 1st. As has been before suggested, it would, if combined with theforce it first had, preclude the exercise of the mental powers ofinvestigation. 2d. This power of working miracles must have been distributed tovarious sects and heresies, or by being confined to one order, preventthe existence of any other, which would be another preventive ofimmense reasoning, and tend to circumscribe the sphere in which thehuman mind is capacitated to move. 3d. The continuance of those miracles must have changed the order ofnature, and continued men on earth forever, or from generation togeneration; for if this power had been exercised on some and not tothe advantage of others, it would look like the partial systems ofmen, and in room of commending the impartial goodness of God, wouldhave refuted it. But, the manifestation of this divine power, in those miracles onwhich our religion is founded, while it is attended with none of theevils which a continuance would evidently produce, besides forming animmoveable rock on which so glorious a superstructure is safelyfounded, furnishes an immense subject for the power of ratiocination. You will excuse me for not noticing particularly all you say aboutmodern pretensions to revelations and miracles, as I think it wouldoccupy time that may be better employed. But I will observe on youropinion, that it is remarkable, that Saul when he was converted, didnot go to Jerusalem to inquire more fully into the circumstances ofthe resurrection, that if he had done this, you would not havehesitated to make use of it against his declaration recorded in Gal. I. 11, 12. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which waspreached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. " Why do you mention that we have not a particular account of St. Paul'sconversion written by his own hand? Do you think that what a manwrites of himself is more to be depended on, than what his biographerwrites of him? Your suggestions on this subject seem to indicate, atleast, some scruples respecting this conversion, but not in a way toshow where the ground of scruples lies. What is there for me toanswer? Why do you treat this subject with such neglect? In a formercommunication, I requested your attention to it in a special manner, with a view to confine our reasoning to our subject, and to avoidrambling from one thing to another without making ourselves acquaintedwith any thing. In your reply you never attempted to give any accountwhy Saul should embrace the religion he had persecuted; you made noattempt to give any reason why he preached Jesus and the resurrection;nor did you assign any reason why he should be willing to suffer theloss of all earthly enjoyments and endure persecutions for Christ'ssake; nor did you attempt to prove that there never was such a man andsuch a conversion. The subject you considered still before you, and inthis seventh number you have spoken of it again, but have paid noparticular attention to it. What you say on the subject of prophecy, does not appear to me, eitherto reflect any light on it, or to call up any question of importance. Your query whether the books of the New Testament were not writtenafter the destruction of Jerusalem, which would suppose that theprophecy of the destruction of that city was written after the eventstook place of which the prophecy speaks, is an old suggestion in whichI am unable to see any thing very reasonable. And I will remark here, that men who seem to lay an uncommon claim to reason, ought to makeuse of it when arguing on such momentous subjects. What differencewould it make whether St. Matthew wrote his gospel before, or afterthe destruction of Jerusalem, as it respects the prophecy which Jesusdelivered concerning it? You allow St. Matthew to be an honest man. You do not doubt then but Jesus did deliver such a prophecy before hisdeath, which was certainly before the destruction of the city. Thensurely it makes no difference whether the prophecy was committed topaper before, or after the fulfilment of it. Besides, you seem to urgethe _silence_ of St. John on the subject as unfavourable to theaccount, because he wrote his gospel after Jerusalem was destroyed. Asto interpolations which you think might have found their way into thegospels, it appears to me, sir, that a candid consideration of thissubject would issue in this conclusion; if any importantinterpolations had been admitted, they would have produced such adisagreement as to effectually destroy the validity of the books; forif one heresy could be indulged, it is reasonable to suppose thatanother would be, and so on, which in room of allowing us thescriptures in their present consistent form, would either havedestroyed their existence altogether, or have varied so as to confoundtheir ideas. For a candid, learned, and impartial view of the scriptures of the NewTestament, I refer you to Paley's evidences, and in particular to hiseleven propositions, which he has proved in a manner satisfactory, asI conceive to the candid inquirer. These propositions begin on page 103, and are the following. 1. "That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning therebythe four gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alludedto, by a series of christian writers, beginning with those who werecontemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, andproceeding in close and regular succession from their time to thepresent. 2. "That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted oralluded to with peculiar respect, as books _sui geneus_, as possessingan authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive inall questions and controversies among christians. 3. "That they were in very early times collected into a distinctvolume. 4. "That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles ofrespect. 5. "That they were publicly read and expounded in the religiousassemblies of the Christians. 6. "That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out ofthem, different copies carefully collected, and versions of them madeinto different languages. 7. "That they were received by Christians of different sects, by manyheretics as well as catholics, and usually appealed to by both sidesin the controversies which arose in those days. 8. "That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistlesof St. Paul, the first epistle of John, and the first of Peter, werereceived without doubt, by those who doubted concerning the otherbooks which are inclosed in our present canon. 9. "That the gospels were attacked by the early adversaries ofChristianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religionwas founded. 10. "That formal catalogues of authentic scriptures were published, inall which our present sacred histories were recorded. 11. "That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books, claiming to be books of scripture; by which I mean those books whichare commonly called Apochryphal. " The first evidence adduced by this celebrated author to prove hisfirst proposition, proves that the gospel of St. Matthew, whichcontains a very particular account of the prophecy of Jesus concerningthe destruction of Jerusalem, was written before the event took place. This evidence is a quotation from the epistle of Barnabas, St. Paul'scompanion, in the following words: "Let us therefore, beware lest itcome upon us, _as it is written_, there are many called, few chosen. "St. Matthew's gospel is the only book in which these words are found;and you will perceive by the expression, "as it is written, " thatBarnabas quoted the passage from an author of authority. Barnabaswrote his epistle during the troubles which ended in the destructionof the Jews and their city. This epistle of Barnabas is quoted byClement of Alexandria, A. D. 194: by Origen, A. D. 230. It is mentionedby Eusebius, A. D. 315, and by Jerome, A. D. 392. (Paley's evidences, p. 106. ) Your insinuations that the origin of the christian scriptures isinvolved in fable and mystery, should have been accompanied with aclear refutation of the arguments used by Lardner, Paley, and others, who have with much learning and labour traced the stream to itsfountain. I must say something on the subject which you introduce concerningman, as a species of being, or you may think me inexcusable for theneglect. There seem to be two main questions suggested on thissubject; the first inquires what man was farther back than historyreaches; and the other directs the mind to a "line of demarcation"between the human and the brute. We have no account that I know of when the use of fire was not known. We read Gen. Iv. 22, that Tubal-cain was an instructor of everyartificer in brass and iron, and if reason has any thing to do in thiscase, we may suppose that the use of fire was known to thesemechanics. The date to which this reading belongs, is 3875 yearsbefore Christ; but there can be no reasonable doubt but that the useof fire was known long before, and that it was used in the offeringswhich were made by Cain and Abel. That the discovery of arts and the progress of science have changedman from what he originally was, is no more reasonable, than tosuppose that the education which a child acquires by degrees, by thesame degrees changes him in respect to his nature. That the arts andsciences serve to improve and extend the human intellects isreasonable enough, but that they add any thing to the naturalprinciples or faculties of man is not conceivable. In fixing the "line of demarcation" between the human nature and thebrutal, I will suggest two characteristics which you have noticed bywhich the distinction may be ascertained. The first is the power or faculty of improving from generation togeneration his condition by means of art, and knowing how to advancefrom one degree of science to another. This I will suppose belongs toman and is peculiar to our race of being. We know of no other animalon earth that has ever improved his condition by the discovery of thearts or an increase of science. The other characteristic is one of your propositions, on which youbuild your system of doubting, viz. _Superstition_. This is found inno creature but such as is susceptible of religion. Man is the onlyreligious animal, if I may be allowed this form of expression, foundon the earth. The progress which man has made in arts and sciences, and the progresshe has made in divine or religious knowledge distinguish him from thebrutal creation. As in the former he has run into thousands of errors, so in the latter he has wandered in darkness, with now and then ablessed ray of light which improved his mind. When the knowledge ofthe arts became generally defused by means of the extension of theRoman government, it pleased our blessed Creator to cause the sun ofdivine light to rise on the Jew and Gentile world. And gave him acovenant of the people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the gloryof his people Israel. Your opinion that men are seldom made unhappy in consequence ofdoubting a future existence, may be true in a comparative sense, for Ibelieve there are few in comparison with the whole, who do doubt onthis subject. Generally speaking, it is the few, who like thephilosopher that rendered himself blind by endeavouring to find outwhat the sun was composed of, thought there was no sun nor any light, that so far give up a hope of futurity as to be miserable in theirbelief. That the idea of endless torment, such as our clergy have represented, and with which they have most horribly terrified thousands and driventhem into black despair, is more horrible than no existence at allwill be allowed by every candid mind. But in contemplating an infinitesource of divine benevolence, and his means of giving and perpetuatingexistence, and of rendering existence a blessing, the mind is notdriven to the necessity of selecting between these two evils. No, sir, the mind thus employed has sweeter themes and brighter prospects--inbelief of that invaluable treasure, that divine testimony of theinspired apostle: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all bemade alive;" which sentence you nor I ever heard a preacher of endlesspunishment recite in a sermon in our lives, the soul rises by faithinto sublime regions of future peace and everlasting enjoyment, whendeath shall be swallowed up of life. I need not tell you, my brother, that it has been through many trials, afflictions, doubts, and temptations, that your feeble humble servanthas found the way to this rock; you cannot be altogether ignorant ofthis travail of mind. Permit me then to call to remembrance thebondage we have escaped, the sea through which we have passed, thesweet songs of deliverance and salvation which we have chanted to ourRedeemer in the faith of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. And herepermit me to request your assistance in giving me support, and instrengthening my hands in the work of the Lord. Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. * * * * * EXTRACTS No. VIII. "In regard to the story reported among the Jews, respecting the bodyof Jesus, I admit there is a greater probability of there being such areport, especially if the body could not be found, and the apostlesaffirmed that he was risen from the dead, than there is that theresurrection, should be actually true: hence, perhaps, I was not somuch on my guard in the expression as I ought to have been. What Iparticularly had in my mind was, that I might find it difficult toprove even the existence of such a story, i. E. In the days of theapostles; and still more difficult to prove, even on the ground thatthere was no resurrection, that this story was true; and thereforethere could be no use in urging the truth of this story in order toinvalidate the truth of the resurrection. I do not conceive, however, that because I doubt the _fact_, I am under obligations to account forthe _fallacy_. It always belongs to the advocates of the truth of anystory, to bring forward sufficient evidence to prove the same. I canthink of a solution, however, that would appear to my understandingmuch more probable, than to suppose, as mentioned in your seventharticle, the 'account written long since the apostles' day;' yet itmay, perhaps, be attended with equal or greater difficulties, viz. That the body was not stolen by the apostles, but was taken away byother persons, who were willing that Jesus should be _deified_, according to the then common acceptation of that word among theGreeks, and who studied this stratagem with an express design todeceive the Jews, as a punishment to them for so cruelly putting himto death, and also to deceive his disciples, in order to inhance thehonour of the name of Jesus. "This might have been done, as I conceive, by persons who never becamehis open followers, so far as to suffer death on his account, but werecontented in having gained their object; to do which, it was onlynecessary in the first instance to frighten the soldiers. It may bedifficult after all, as I have observed concerning the human species, to say where the truth of the account ends, or where the fallacybegins; but that some such thing should have taken place is moreprobable to my understanding than that the literal resurrection ofJesus should have been true. But I perceive that my expression, concerning the report among the Jews, was a little too strong; andcarried rather more in it than what I was aware. For even on myhypothesis, as well as on every other which admits the absence of thebody, such a report would appear very probable. "It must be granted, as you have suggested, that there was such areport among the Jews at the time when that record was made, or elsethat record would not appear at all to 'advantage' in support of thetruth of christianity. "That 'reason is candid, ' I also admit; and if I am blundering inmaking mistakes, I believe you will have the goodness to acknowledgethat I am candid in retracting them again when they are so pointed outto me that I can see them. "Respecting divine revelation, it is true, I understood you to meansomething more than barely what is predicated on the resurrection ofJesus; yet in the second proposition of the three which you made, viz. 'Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of being proved, ' I understandyou to state one single fact, on which you are willing to rest thefinal issue of the argument. This being the most important fact, relative to the truth of christianity, and which, probably, is asdifficult of proof as any, I do not perceive any disingenuousness inconfining you _now_ to this proposition till it is either proved oradmitted. Neither do I perceive how this can embarrass your argument, as you have proposed to consider them 'true, disjunctively, ' as wellas conjunctively. When therefore you have proved the threepropositions _disjunctively_; particularly the second, above named, then I shall be willing you should avail yourself of their_union_. --You may say, perhaps, I have proposed to admit the truth ofyour three propositions; but you will also perceive, it was only forthe sake of introducing a fourth proposition, which it will not benecessary for you to consider until the three first are proved true. "I conceive that reason has no more to do in this case than to judgeof the evidences of facts; and then, if the facts are supported, reason can judge of their relation one to the other; but to assume, inthe first place, the truth of revelation, and then infer from _that_the probability of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, appears tome to be unreasonable. Therefore, if you attempt to prove the truth ofrevelation, I conceive you must in the first place prove, 'disjunctively, ' the truth of the resurrection. If, therefore, youhave considered yourself excused from proving the facts on which thetruth of revelation seems to rest, because I have granted them for thesake of the argument, you have misapprehended my meaning. I grant_nothing_, respecting the main question, until it is _proved_. "Notwithstanding what you have said about 'the known facts, ' and'facts which you grant, for the sake of the argument, ' &c. You willperceive by my seventh number, that I do not consider the 'miracles ofJesus, his resurrection, and the miracles wrought by the apostles, 'either granted or proved, i. E. In relation to the main question; andhence, whatever weight your argument may have, when you have succeededin that (if you should succeed at all) at present they seem to behardly conclusive. I know it would save you much time, if you coulddraw from me an acknowledgement of the truth of the facts on which yourely; and you seem to argue, if I understand you, as though that wasalready the case; but whatever you may have understood, I mustdistinctly disavow any such acknowledgement; and I shall still expect(unless it is done in answer to my seventh number) when you come toreply to this, that you will state distinctly, and together, theevidences and arguments on which you mostly rely. "If, however, you have meant nothing more by all this than to pointout the use you shall make of the miracles, &c. (which have beengranted for the sake of the argument) when those miracles, &c. Shallhave been either proven, or else acknowledged true, in relation to themain question, then I have no fault to find; but otherwise, yourargument in this place seems to be a little premature. "You say, 'the known facts, such as the miracles, &c. I used as proofof the divine mission of the servants of God. This divine missionbeing proved gives the ground on which I contend for the merit oftheir testimony, concerning a future state. ' "Here you will perceive, sir, that, according to your own statement, to prove this divine mission, you must first prove the certainty ofthose miracles, &c. On which the truth of the divine mission ispredicated. And these are things about the truth of which, as Iindicated all along, there may be serious doubts. "I am at a loss also to understand, what you mean by a 'divinemission. ' You inform me that I misapprehended you 'in supposing that'you 'mean to contend, that what the apostles have said respecting afuture state, was spoken by way of _conclusions_ from certain knownfacts. ' Here, I must confess, I am really at a loss to understand you:how that either Jesus, or his apostles, could understand a divinemission, even if they had received one, unless it were by_conclusions_ from _certain known facts_, that is, facts well known tothem, I cannot conceive; and therefore must have some furtherexplanation on this subject before I can fully answer you. For I mustbe better informed than I am at present, what you mean by a _divinemission_, before I can see the necessity of 'denying the reality ofthose miracles--or of granting the authority of their (Christ and hisapostles) testimony;' that is, in regard to a future state. But evenif I should be made to see this, it would be of no use for thepresent; because as it respects the final issue of the argument, Ihave not, neither do I now admit the reality of those miracles: as youmust have seen by my seventh number. "The next particular which demands notice is the quoted passage whichI pronounced _Most excellent_! "Here a serious query suggests itself to my mind. I ask myself: am I, or am I not, as capable of writing my sentiments, so as to beunderstood by a rational man, as those plain illiterate men who wrotethe gospels? And yet if my words are so wrested by logical_twisticisms_ (if I may be allowed to use that expression) so as tomean what never entered my heart, and all this with apparent seriouscandor too, what may have been the fate of the writings of theevangelists? Now this is something in which I cannot be deceived, i. E. As it respects myself; for any man of common sense does know hisown meaning, whether his words fully express his meaning or not, orwhether they may be made to mean something else or not. "Permit me therefore once more to explain. The expression, _Mostexcellent_! was not so much intended to have been applied to thesentence preceding it, as to the author of that sentence, whosegoodness, in stating so explicitly what he understands by thechristian faith, I commended. And you must excuse me for not beingable to see any inconsistency, absurdity, or contradiction in my wordswhich follow that expression. Suppose a case. You have a good andfaithful servant, who feels happy in your service, and is perfectlycontented with his fare. You promise him with some favours which youhad never before made known to him. He is elated with the idea of yourgoodness, which he has never doubted, but did not know till now thatit was to be manifested in this particular way. You tell him that aknowledge of this, with his former knowledge, 'is as much as hispresent welfare requires. ' He very readily assents to the truth of theproposition; and further adds, it is even 'more than is necessary forhis present welfare, ' for he was contented and happy before. Would anyrational man say that your servant talked unreasonably? Would he saythat such reasoning was absurd? I think not. Your servant does notdespise either your goodness or your bounty; he considers that hismaster knows best, what is best for his servant; and he receives withgratitude whatever is bestowed. Your argument would have appeared tome more just, if, after fully understanding me, which I perceive, bythe use you have made of the quotation from my sixth number, you nowdo, you had proved from well known facts, or from conclusive argument, the absolute necessity of the hope of a christian in order for the'present welfare' of mankind. In doing this you would have ingenuouslyrefuted the proposition which I say would have been _exactly right_. "You do not seem, sir, yet to have fully understood me as to my objectin searching for truth. You ask, saying, 'Do you not appear to besolicitous to have your doubts removed, without expecting the leastadvantage by it?' You must know, sir, that this is only onsupposition, that my doubts are founded in error; in which case Ishould reap the advantage, as my object is truth. You will recollectthat my first object was to search for _moral truth_; without being atall solicitous where, or on what ground it shall be found. Truth_only_ is my object. In this _only_ I feel at all interested in thisargument. Hence I shall be just as much obliged to you to _confirm_ mein my doubts, admitting they are founded in truth, as I shall to_remove_ them, admitting they are founded in error. "I once thought just as you, viz. That the idea and contemplation ofenjoying future life was absolutely necessary to present enjoyment;but I am now fully convinced, yea, more, it is absolutely known to bea fact, that the idea is altogether visionary and illusive. I admitthat a knowledge of the truth, so far as the truth may be known, isperfectly _congenial_ with the present happiness of mankind: though itis often the case that a partial knowledge of the truth, in relationto any particular subject, produces distress and misery rather thanenjoyment. I now am very happy in knowing some things, which, once, only the idea of their being true would have given me pain. I aminclined to think that the idea of _now_ enjoying the pleasures, or_now_ enduring the pains of a future life is altogether chimerical. Ican enjoy the life or lives of others in a future tense just as wellas I can _now_ enjoy my own future life. I have as much reason tobelieve that rational intelligence always did exist, as I have tobelieve it always will; yea, one idea is just as certain to me as theother, and no more so. And as I cannot reflect on the idea of eternitypast, only with a kind of reverential _awe_ mingled with sublimepleasure; so the idea of eternity to come produces in me the samesensation; yea, feeling myself equally ignorant of both, (which mustbe the case on the supposition that revelation is not true. ) I canperceive no difference. I feel anxious to know, however, every thingwhich can be known on this subject; and yet, at the same time, I aminclined to think I should _doubt_ of every revelation of which I canhave any conception, unless it should be so made that I could see itstruth, (or at least the evidences of its truth) over and over again, and that they should still remain by me at all times, so that I couldexamine them, and re-examine them, the same as I now look at the starsin the firmament. "Thus I have opened my mind to you, more fully than I have ever donebefore, on this subject; and notwithstanding your writings may be verybeneficial to others (as well as mine, for some may stand in need ofone, and some of the other) yet, here comes up my doubts again, if Iam benefited by them, I expect it will be in a different way than thatof being any more persuaded of the truth of divine revelation. Nevertheless, I am no less anxious to continue the correspondence onthis account. "Your address to TRUTH, which you are pleased to put into the mouth ofmy argument, is closed with an idea which does not grow out of myhypothesis. 'The joyous expectation of soon losing sight of thee (i. E. Truth) forever in the ellysium of non existence!' _Non-existence_, sir, does not _exist_! Neither does the term convey an idea to myunderstanding of any thing. I know of no existence, neither can Iconceive of any, except that which I believe to be eternal in itsnature. And the idea of _something_ being formed or made out of_nothing_, or of something's returning to nothing again, I have longsince exploded. Every thing, however, excepting first principles, isliable to _change_. Hence arises the various modes, states, circumstances, conditions and situations in beings and things: alsotheir different properties, relations and dependences. "I know not whether consciousness is a being, or whether it be only amode of being. If it be the former, it always did, and always willexist, in some state or other; if the latter, the state of the beingmay be so changed that although identity exists, yet consciousness isnot there. And there is no more absurdity in this idea than there isin supposing that the same matter which forms a _cube_, may become a_globe_. I can as well conceive of a conscious being to day, becomingunconscious to-morrow, as I can conceive of a person in a sound sleep. But _non-existence_ (strictly speaking) sounds to my understandingsomething like the _falsity of truth_! "I now come to your reply to my sixth number; and in my remarks, whichwill be but few, I shall follow the arrangement which you have made. "1st. The candid concessions which you have made, and the charitywhich you have extended towards doubting Christians, or candidunbelievers (for such I conceive there may be) is honourable both toyourself and to the cause which you have espoused, and your writing, of course gains a much more favourable reception than the writings ofthose who appear to be filled with a spirit of acrimony, and are readyat once to deal out anathemas against every thing of which they cannotapprove. But, sir, you will permit me to say, we ought to be cautious, lest our personal attachment to an author, and his charitable feelingstowards us be such, as imperceptibly to blind us to correct reason, and cause us to imbibe his errors, merely because they are his, andmistake them for truth. "I am well aware that I should find it difficult to prove that I nowbelieve what I do without a miracle, as you have suggested; for ifmiracles have existed they may have, indirectly, more influence in mymind than I am at present sensible of; and therefore I will notundertake to say that I am not principally indebted to them for mypresent views of the character of the supreme Being. I am disposed toacknowledge in humble gratitude all the blessings which I havereceived, and am made sensible of, let them come to me by what means, or through what channel soever. But I do not see how you had a rightto expect that I should either _refute_, or else _acquiesce_ in youropinion on this subject. --What! must I either prove that there havebeen no such things as miracles, or else admit their truth! Must Ieither refute your notion that they have had great influence on myfaith and practice, or else '_express my acquiescence_' that such isthe fact! Hard lines! I choose to take the easier course, and confessthat I am too ignorant to do either. I am willing, however, still tobe instructed. "2d. I have nothing at present to say on the subject of prophecy; i. E. To reconcile the pretensions to it with the honesty of the prophets, without admitting divine inspiration, better than what I have writtenin my seventh number. When I have received your answer to that I mayhave something more to write. I would suggest, however, here, that asyou frequently make use of the expression 'divine inspiration, ' I wantthe expression more fully defined and explained. I have no distinctidea, that I know of, of _divine inspiration_. I suppose you mean thesame by it which you did by the 'divine mission, ' given to theapostles, or at least something similar; but still I am ignorant ofthe subject. You have sometimes spoken of divine revelation, as thoughit was something distinct from this divine mission, and which was aproof of it; but, you must excuse me, I am still all in the dark aboutit. Do be so good as to inform me how you suppose the prophets, orapostles, or even Jesus, could know for a certainty that they weredivinely inspired? "3. When I acknowledged that there are evidences in favour of divinerevelation, I did not suppose it necessary to state what thoseevidences are; because some of them, to say the least, are veryapparent. The bare report of any thing, I conceive to be evidence ofthe report's being true; and would be sufficient to acquire beliefshould nothing arise in the mind to counterbalance it: and as I hadrepeatedly promised to give you the reasons for my doubts I expectedto have been indulged a little longer before I should have been againfaulted on this subject. But as it respects this matter I am allpatience and submission, if it may be so that truth shall finally cometo light. "Under this article you have gone into a very lengthy discussion toshew that the evidence by which the apostles believed in theresurretion could not be counterbalanced, &c. And if I understand whatyou have written it amounts in my mind to about the following, viz. The apostles could not have been convinced of the fact of theresurrection by any evidence short of the fact itself. 2dly. If thefact did exist there is no evidence which can conterbalance it. _Ergo_. As the apostles were convinced of the truth, the fact didexist. This is pretty much like saying, if the fact were _true_, itcould not have been _false_! But I spoke of the evidence in relationto _ourselves_ rather than the _apostles_: we believe or disbelievefor ourselves, and by such evidence as _we_ have. You think if twelvemen should testify in favour of a resurrection, and the body could notbe found, 'various opinions would result from such evidence. ' If so, some might believe the account true; and they might persuade others tobelieve it; and only let it be reported and believed that some one haddied for the truth of it, and it would make no difference after this, as it respects the influence of faith, whether the account was true orfalse. "You will excuse me for making no further remarks on what you havewritten under this article till you have answered my seventh number, and also given me a more clear definition of _divine inspiration_. "4. What you have written under the fourth article, generallyspeaking, is satisfactory, till I come to the last sentence; and evenwith that I have not much fault to charge you with. It is true we maybe mistaken as to our ideas of the eternity or immutability of anything; but then, as it respects argument, it is just as well as thoughwe were correct, as no one can prove us otherwise; no, nor even raisea reasonable doubt on the subject. But even if it could bedemonstrated that there is not a rational being now in the universewho existed two centuries ago, or one who will exist two centurieshence, I conceive, as the fact could not, so the knowledge of the factought not to make any difference in the relation, dependence and moralobligation between man and man. Man learns by his own experience, aswell as from the experience of others; and _vice versa_; hence weprofit by the experience of those who have gone before us. "When man shall universally learn this great moral truth that much ofhis happiness is inseparably connected with the happiness of hisfellow beings, which is one of the immutable principles of moralnature, then each individual will strive to the utmost to promote thegeneral welfare; for in so doing he increases his own individualhappiness, and also the happiness of posterity. "5. What you have said under the fifth article, for reasons alreadygiven, will be considered in my next number, when I hope I shall hefurnished with more light on the subject. "I will only observe here that a miracle, as I conceive, must beperformed agreeable to, or else it must be a violation of the laws ofnature. If the former, whatever it might be to others, to those whounderstood the means of its operation, it could be, strictly speaking, no miracle; and if no miracle, no evidence, to them, of divineinspiration: but if the latter, and those who performed the same wereignorant of the power by which they were performed, I do not see howthat the performance of a miracle could give them any knowledge offuturity. And if not, what did give it to them, and in what way was itgiven? "It will still be recollected that I do not admit the existence ofmiracles, although I speak of them as though they were true, merely toshew that even if they were true I should still have my difficultiesrespecting the truth of divine revelation. "6th. Your remarks under the sixth article are satisfactory, thoughthey have not convinced me of the incorrectness of my opinion; becausethat which is founded in _truth_ is, after all the only thing that is'good and nourishing' to the understanding. The sound mind pants onlyafter truth; and as he knows eternal truth is unalterable, he is notfoolish enough even to desire, it should be what it is not. The reasonwhy we often desire that which we cannot have is because, not knowingthe whole truth, we do not know but that we may have the things wedesire. "7th. As it respects 'not even deserving a future existence, ' I wasnot fully understood. I only meant an _anxious_ desire, as I expresseda little before, and as also I expressed _anxious concern_ a littleafter; that is a desire which is incompatible with reconciliation totruth whether that truth gives us little or much. Had not truth beenfavourable to our existence we certainly should not have existed; andI can see no reason to fear a truth which has been so favourable as togive us being. It is true, a desire to exist as long as we can enjoylife seems to be inseparably connected with our moral nature; and yetI can see no terror in that which takes away our sensibility, whetherit be for a night, for ages, or for eternity. I should just as soonthink of being terrified at the idea of a sound and sweet sleep. Ifthe truth be what I suspect it is, I see no good reason why it shouldbe revealed to us, any more than the hour of our death! This truth iswisely concealed from us. "8th. You have seen me so long in the dark that I begin to doubtwhether you would be willing to own me correct, even if I should comefully into the light; i. E. According to your understanding. Is itpossible sir, that you should suppose me capable of writing so great asolecism as the following, viz. : If a revelation were ever necessary, it was necessary only to convince mankind that a revelation is nottrue! But it seems that such must have been your construction, or verynear it, or else you could not have found the error of so greatmagnitude, of which you speak. Although I did not express my idea sofull and explicit as I might, and perhaps ought to have done, yet Ican assure you that, by reconciling man to his present state, I meantnothing less than what you have expressed in a former letter; and Imeant to include all for which you have contended in the article nowunder consideration. For 1st. If divine revelation were necessary, thething revealed is undoubtedly true. 2d. If true, I am fully satisfiedwith your views on the subject. "9th. Your explanation relative to what you suggested in a formerletter (i. E. _that I must mean that the apostles stated falsehood_)is satisfactory; though what you now say you meant, as I have alreadyinformed you, was not exactly my meaning. The fact is, I did not meanto express any opinion as to the truth or to the falsity of theapostles' testimony. I very readily grant, however, that, if I 'do not_believe_ that they stated the truth' 'I must believe that they statedfalsehood;' unless (which would be very extraordinary) the weight ofevidence be so exactly balanced in my mind that it is impossible forme to form an opinion on the subject. --But supposing I disbelievedtheir testimony altogether; what could I do more than to give myreasons for not believing it? Would it be reasonable to call on me toprove their testimony false? It is a very hard thing to prove anegative! "You will have already perceived by my seventh number that I have noidea that the facts on which the Christian religion is said to havebeen founded can now be proved false. No, whatever might have been thecase in the time of it, they were neglected too long before anyattempt of this kind was made, though the accounts should have beensupposed ever so erroneous as to promise any success in theirrefutation. And I am inclined to think that one century _then_ wouldinvolve facts in as much obscurity as five centuries would _now_. ButI have already expressed my doubts whether the facts on which thereligion of the _Shakers_ is said to be predicated, although not halfa century standing, can now be proved false; and yet if they are truethey are nothing short of miraculous. "The Christian religion therefore, true or false, undoubtedly willstand, in some shape or other, and be believed more or less, as longas man remains upon the earth. For if it was introduced without anyviolations of the laws of nature, i. E. Without miracles, whichprobably was the case, if false, we cannot expect any such violationsfor the sake of destroying it; and without such violations I do notsee how it could be destroyed, because the believers of it, invariably, believe it to be established on such mysterioussupernatural principles; and I expect but very few, comparatively, will ever have sufficient strength of mind to throw off the mysticveil. "Yours, &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER VII. _Dear sir, and brother_--Desiring to bring our present correspondenceto a close as soon as the merits of its subject will admit, I proposein replying to your 8th number, to remark only on the most essentialparticulars, taking no particular notice of two classes contained inyour communication, viz. That which seems to grow out of amisconstruction of my arguments and that in which you appear to agreewith them. Indulging in this liberty, the subjects to which I willendeavour to confirm myself are the following. 1st. Your method of accounting for the absence of the crucified Jesus, from the sepulchre where it was laid and guarded by the Romansoldiers. 2d. What you suggest respecting the divine mission of Christ and hisapostles, the miracles which were wrought by them in attestation ofthe Messiah, and the credibility of their testimony regarding a futurestate. 3d. What you contend for respecting the _utility_, or _inutility_ ofthe christian hope of future felicity. 4th. Something on the instructions of Jesus to his disciplesrespecting their conduct toward their enemies. 5th. What you suggest respecting Jesus' not being known to the twodisciples, &c. 6th. Your criticism on my argument respecting the evidences of theresurrection, &c. 1st. You propose to account for the absence of the body of Jesus, bysupposing, that some persons by frightening the guards were enabledthereby to convey the body away, which they did being willing thatJesus should be thought to have risen from the dead, whereby he wouldbe deified, according to the notions of the Greeks respecting deifyingmen after they were dead, &c. Those who thus stole the body were notthe disciples of Jesus, but some persons who were desirous thereby topunish the Jews for so cruelly putting Jesus to death. Here you have proposed two subjects as forming the cause, in the mindof those who stole the body, of their undertaking so hazarduous anenterprise, neither of which appears to me to wear the necessary marksof probability. --1st. If they wished to have Jesus deified accordingto the notions of the Greeks, there was no need of establishing thebelief of his having rose from the dead. This was not the case withthose who among the Greeks were deified after their death. The tombsof their heroes whom they placed among the gods, remained among thepeople. 2d. Who that then lived in Jerusalem or its vicinity could look on thecrucifixion of Jesus as an act of cruelty? Others than Jews would notfeel very much interested in this affair, as Jesus had confined hisministry to the Jews, and directed his disciples not to enter into anyof the cities of the Gentiles, this matter was a case which seemed toconcern the Jews only. Now look at the case. The Jews expected aMessiah, a deliverer, one who should become their prince, and deliverthem from the bondage of the Romans. Jesus pretended to be sent of Godas their Messiah of whom the ancient prophets had spoken; he pretendedto work miracles in confirmation of his divine mission; but in room ofdelivering the Jews from the Roman yoke, he prophecied of theirdestruction by the Romans. Now, sir, if Jesus made all thesepretensions without divine authority for so doing, if he caused to bereported that he wrought miracles when he never wrought one in hislife, if he kept the people in a continual uproar driving about thecountry from one extreme of Palestine to another all by his frauds andfascinating deceptions; and in order to quiet the people, and havethings go on in a regular order, those who were charged with thepublic concerns brought about the crucifixion of this impostor, whoknowing all these things, being a Jew would think of accusing thesegodly pharisees and rulers of cruelty for so doing? If Jesus did notdo the works which he pretended to do, he certainly was an impostor, and it is in vain to attempt to save him from such a charge. And if hewere such a _blasphemous_ impostor as to pretend to work miracles bythe power of God, when he knew he had no such power, it appears veryplain that he deserved to die according to Jewish customs. If themiracles of Jesus had been of a different description, there mighthave been some deception. That is, if such miracles had been pretendedas you state of the Shakers; in such a case nobody would trouble theirheads about the matter. Some would say, the good woman perhaps wasbadly hurt, and she thought her ribs were broken, when in fact theywere not, and with a little good nursing she was able to join thedance; others might be extravagant enough to suppose that somethingmarvelous had taken place, but who would know? Or, I will add, whowould care? But will you undertake to argue that the most learned andartful could impose on people by pretending to have power from God toopen the eyes of the blind, to heal all manner of diseases with aword, and to raise the dead from their graves? No, sir, if Jesus didnot perform the miracles which he pretended to perform, there is nopropriety in believing that any body was disposed to charge the Jewswith cruelty for ridding community of such an impostor. But after all, even allowing your proposed method of accounting for the absence ofthe body, which by no means is half as probable a story as thatreported by the Jews, as this does not account for the disciples'believing that Jesus had actually arose from the dead. What is to bedone with this circumstance? Are we to suppose that as soon as thedisciples found that the body was missing, they took it into theirheads that he had actually arose from the dead without any furtherevidence? Well if they really believed it they could honestly statetheir belief to the people. You will remember that you have agreedthat the apostles were honest men. But then the apostles go further, they assert that they were certified of the real resurrection of Jesusby many _infallible_ proofs, that they saw him, conversed with him, ate with him, heard his discourses in which he expounded thescriptures of the law, of the prophets, and of the psalms whichrespected his passion and resurrection. Will you allow these men tohave been honest men, and still suppose that somebody stole the bodyof Jesus from the sepulchre? The boldness of the disciples indeclaring the resurrection, their willingness to suffer all manner ofpersecutions for the name of Jesus, show plainly that they did believein his resurrection. Here I refer you to my former arguments in whichI have attempted to make it appear that the disciples could not havebeen deceived. But even allowing, that the body was stolen, and that the discipleswere deceived, there is still, if possible, a greater difficulty toaccount for, viz. The success of the preaching of Jesus and himcrucified. Here I wish, in a special manner, to call your attention. The four evangelists and the acts of the apostles were written in thelife time of the disciples of Jesus; this, Paley, in his Evidences ofChristianity, fully proves. He likewise proves beyond any reasonabledoubt that they were written by the men whose names they bear. Thesehistorians then relate all the miracles recorded in the four gospels, and inform us that Jesus actually performed them. They give each ofthem an account of the crucifixion and resurrection of their divinemaster. They relate the things of which they were eye witnesses. Butsupposing they were deceived, which I humbly conceive, is notsupposable, can we reasonably believe that these gospels in which suchbarefaced falsehoods were recorded would ever gain credit among apeople whose religious education was to be all overthrown by cominginto the belief of those writings? But the apostles had not these books to assist them in their ministry;they went on in preaching Jesus and the resurrection, first in thecity of Jerusalem, and throughout all Judea, and among the Gentileswith astonishing success before they wrote the accounts which we have. Now, sir, on the supposition that the body was stolen will you accountfor the people's being persuaded that Jesus rose from the dead?--Is itpossible to conceive of any thing to which the Jews could have beenmore opposed, than to the testimony, that the man whom they hadcrucified was the Messiah, and that God had raised him from the dead?Now turn to the account given in Acts, chap. Ii. And let reason andcandor have their voice in the matter under consideration. "Thereforelet all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made thatsame Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. " Can youconceive of any thing that could have been more trying to the feelingsof the people? Observe, "whom ye have crucified. " Bring the matterhome to yourself. Suppose you had been active in the prosecution ofone of your fellow creatures, and the prosecution should haveterminated in the execution of the accused, how would it try yourfeelings for your neighbours to come and tell you, that you had beenthe murderer of a good and innocent man? But in the case underconsideration there are circumstances that heighten the importance ofthe subject. The great Messiah in which all the Jews were educated tobelieve, as much as we are educated to believe in Christ; thispersonage is the subject. See the account, "Now, when they heard this, they, were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to therest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?" Why do wehear this exclamation? "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Whyshould the people now feel thus affected? Why do they not cry outagainst the men who accuse them of having done this wickedness, asthey did against Jesus a few days before? Can you, sir, believe thatall that caused this, was the body's having been stolen from thesepulchre, the disciples having gotten the whim into their heads thatJesus had arose from the dead, now run about like mad men and accusethe people of having murdered the great Messiah, the anointed of God, affirming that God had raised him from the dead, when barely theabsence of the dead body was all the evidence on which this could befounded? Not only did the testimony of Peter, on this occasion, whichwill remain a most memorable one while the world stands, carry pungentconviction to the very hearts of the people, but it happily issued inthe glorious triumph of faith in the risen Jesus in about threethousand of the then present audience. In the fore part of this chapter we have an account of themanifestation of the mighty and miraculous power of God which was theevident cause of the conviction of the people; and to no other cause, I humbly conceive, can we impute such consequences. Permit me to remark here, that all that ingenuity has ever inventedabout how the body of Jesus was disposed of, can have no weight at allagainst the doctrine of the resurrection which the apostlespropagated. The body's being absent from the sepulchre never convincedone reasonable being in the world, of the fact of the resurrection. Itdid not convince those who first saw the sepulchre empty. "Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping; and they (the angels)say unto her, woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto him, becausethey have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesusstanding, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She supposing him to be thegardner, saith unto him, sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell mewhere thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith untoher, 'Mary. ' She replied, 'RABBONI!'" How naturally is this accountgiven. In what an artless manner is the story told. I so much admirethe sincerity and unaffected love of Mary to her master that thefollowing reflections demand a place here. The person who but threedays before was crowned with thorns, was reviled and spat upon, wasmost ignominiously crucified between two thieves and laid in thesepulchre is so much the object of Mary's affection that she appearssolicitous for the body. I cannot doubt the truth of Mary's beinghere, for the story is told without any design. But why is Mary here?If Jesus was an impostor she never knew of his working a miracle inher life. But if Jesus was in fact what he pretended to be and if hewrought those miracles which are recorded of him, all is explained. But it is evident that Mary had not thought of Jesus' having beenraised from the dead, when she saw that he was absent from thesepulchre. When Jesus spake to her, and called her by name as he hadfrequently done before, she knew him. When this Mary and the otherwomen that were with her went to the eleven, and told them the story, they did not believe it, nor does it appear that Peter believed in theresurrection, even after Mary and others had certified him, and he hadbeen himself to the sepulchre and found it empty; but he went away"wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. " The evidences by which the disciples believed in this all-importanttruth were equal to its importance and to its extraordinary character. These evidences have been noticed. 2d. The mission of Christ and his apostles, the miracles wrought bythem in attestation of that mission, and the credibility of theirtestimony respecting a future state may now receive some notice. You are disposed to call on me to inform you what I mean by thismission, to which I reply; I mean a divine appointment to act in acertain official character, accompanied with certain powers by whichthey were _enabled to evince_, by miracles, this their appointment. Jesus was appointed by God himself to reveal the divine character, nature, and will of the Father to the world, by his preaching, by hismiracles of mercy, by his sufferings, by his death and resurrection. The apostles were sent by Jesus Christ on the same mission, on whichJesus himself was sent. See his prayer, John xvii. "As thou has sentme into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. "Those who believed in Jesus, and acknowledged him to be the Messiah, believed on account of the miracles which he wrought, and as I havebefore argued, Jesus never required of any a belief in him, barely onhis testimony of himself, but on the evidence afforded by the workswhich he did in his Father's name. So likewise, those who believed onJesus through the ministry of the apostles, never were called on tobelieve but by the authority of as great wonders as were wrought byChrist himself. I need not say much on this particular, as you mustknow that the ground on which I have here placed this subject, is theground on which the New Testament places it. The absurd notions which have been erroneously adopted by Christiandoctors and councils concerning the mission of Christ to appease thedivine wrath, to reconcile God to man, to suffer the penalty of thedivine law, &c. &c. Which have rendered the gospel a mystery and amist, in room of a high way for the ransomed of the Lord to return toZion in, is chargeable to the enemy who sowed tares among the wheat. These opinions with a multitude of studied inventions about amysterious work of sovereign elective grace wrought in certainindividuals, in an unknown way and frequently in an unknown time allwhich is to be followed by a system of mysterious sanctification, connected most mysteriously with final perseverance, together with allthe intricate unknown items set down in the Westminister Catechism, have only served to perplex some, puff others up with spiritual prideand exalt them in the kingdom of spiritual wickedness in high places, to drive some to despair, and to disgust reason and common sense inothers. There is not a word of all the above jargon in the sacredscriptures, which give us a most rational account of the great objectof the gospel ministry. This object is the redemption of mankind frommoral darkness, which is the whole occasion of moral evil, and toproduce that improvement in the religious world which science isdesigned to effect in the political. It is to bring truth to light, tocommend the character of God to man, to lead all men into the trueknowledge, spirit, and temper of the divine nature. Thus we discoverin Jesus no partialist, no sectarian, no friend to any onedenomination, more than another. And when he had accomplished, by hissufferings, what the prophets had foretold, he then sent his gospel ofthe love and mercy of God to the whole world. His divinely inspiredapostles followed the examples of their leader and preached theuniversal, impartial goodness of God to all men, and confirmed theirmission by similar miracles to those wrought by Jesus. You further inquire the grounds on which we are to believe Jesus andhis apostles respecting a future state. Reply, on the same ground onwhich we believe them in other matters, viz. Because they have provedthe divinity of their mission or appointment to teach truth by thepower of the God of truth. See 2 Cor. Xii. 12, "Truly the signs of anapostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. " You need not be told that an _apostle_ is amessenger, and that a messenger must have a mission. What then werethe signs of St. Paul's mission? Answer, patience, signs, wonders, andmighty deeds. Jesus is said to be the great _apostle_, and high priestof our profession, and he evinced his apostleship by signs, bywonders, and mighty deeds. Now, sir, as these signs were designed toprove to us that Jesus and his apostles were divinely inspired, sothey are the ground on which we may safely believe their testimony inall things. If your inquiry extends further than the plain statements and factsgo, you will at once see that they go beyond the demands of reason, for it is an unreasonable thing to require of an uninspired person anyfurther account concerning the way by which an inspired man knows whathe says to be true, than it has pleased God to enable his messenger tomake known. When the pharisees asked the man who was born blind, to whom Jesus hadgiven sight, "What sayest thou of him? that he hath opened thine eyes?he said, he is a prophet. " How comes this man to believe that Jesuswas a prophet? Because the sign of a messenger of God had been given. If the pharisees had asked him, how he knew that Jesus was a prophet, would he not answer them by the miracle wrought upon him? If theyshould further ask him of particulars, how Jesus could be a prophet, how he knew things which others did not know, would they havediscovered any wisdom in their questions? or would he have discoveredany in attempting to answer them? If I may further remark on the mission of Jesus and his apostles, itseems reasonable to say that it comprehends the whole doctrine of thegospel, that is to say, they were appointed to preach the gospel whichcomprehends the whole ministry of reconciliation, or a manifestationof reconciling truth. There is, therefore, no truth in the gospelwhich is not calculated in its nature to reconcile man to God, whensuch truth is understood. If our heavenly Father had from all eternity predestinated far thegreatest part of mankind to a state of endless un-reconciliation, therevelation of this to them who were thus destined, could have noeffect in reconciling them to God. What had Jesus or his apostles todo with such doctrine as this? Nothing. They make no mention of anysuch thing. If according to the vain traditions received from thewisdom of this world that cometh to nought, our tender babes weredoomed to everlasting wrath for the sin of the first man who lived onearth, the manifestation of such a truth could reconcile none of thosevictims to this God of unmerciful vengeance. But what had Jesus to dowith such blasphemous doctrine? See him as the representative of God, as the great apostle of heaven to man, notice what he does and what hesays. He takes young children in his arms and blesses them, he sayssuffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for ofsuch is the kingdom of heaven. If our Creator was full of wrath andvindictive vengeance towards sinners, the manifestation of such atruth would by no means reconcile sinners to God; but when Godcommendeth his love towards the sinner through the mission, ministry, or dispensation of Jesus Christ, such truth when revealed, naturallyreconciles the sinner to God. God is eternally the same, his love isthe same, his will to do his creatures good is always the same, andhis means to carry his good will into effect are always at hiscommand. Jesus taught sinners, enemies to God, that God to whom they wereenemies, loved them. This he demonstrated by the rain and sun shinewhich was communicated to the evil and the good, and this impartiallove of God, he urged as the perfect pattern for our imitation, andset it up as the mark where lies the prize to be won by our Christianvocation. I say unto you love your enemies, pray for them that use youspitefully and persecute you, that ye may be the children of yourFather which is in heaven; that is, that you may imitate him in yourconduct and moral character. Now, sir, what has all this to do aboutreconciling God to man? What has it to do about appeasing divinewrath? If Jesus taught the doctrine of God's love to sinners, and ourdoctrine taught by our Christian doctors of God's wrath and hatredtowards sinners be true, the matter is settled at once. These doctorsbeing ministers of divine truth, Jesus may be any thing else, but hecannot be an apostle and high priest of God. But I need not extend this article, you are as well persuaded of theerroneousness of these doctrines of men as I am; but it belongs tothis subject, to take a general view of the ministry of Jesus and hisapostles. It is so especially, because this view shows at once thenecessity as well as the nature of this divine ministry. If you viewthe nature of truth as you have heretofore expressed it, and as I amconfident you do, you cannot reasonably doubt the necessity of havingit manifested to the world. It was necessary then for God to endue one with this ministry oftruth, it is reasonable that others, being taught by him should beappointed to the same ministry; but you will see at once that truthcould not be preached to the Jews without moving the superstitiousscribes, pharisees, and doctors of the law against it, this oppositionhid its natural tendency, and terminated in the death of the divineteacher; and if the disciples had gone on and preached the samedoctrine, reason would suppose that they would all have been put todeath immediately, and the work of reformation would have stopped. Now, sir, if I am able to reason at all, it was necessary for God tomake a display of divine power in vindicating truth, which would placeit on ground too high for all the superstition of the world to remove. You contend that the voice of reason should be heard. What does itsay? It says that God produced man in the first place on this earth, in a different way from that by which man is now multiplied. Reasonsays, there was a necessity for this; but it does not say that themeans of procreation now do not answer even a better purpose than tohave man multiplied by the same means by which he came first to exist. The same reason will contend that in the establishment of the gospelministry in the world, different means were necessary from those whichare successfully employed in perpetuating it. 3d. You contend that the Christian hope of a future happy existence, is not necessary to our present happiness; and that there is nothingmore disagreeable in the thought of an eternal cessation of existence, than there is in the thought of reposing ourselves in quiet sleep. Notwithstanding what you say about non existence, all your play onwords makes no difference about the thing talked of. Nor do I see thatreason in your observations on this subject, for which you contend. You very well know that to cease to possess an identity of being andof intellect is what we mean by non-existence, and this is just thething for which you argue. Now when we contemplate taking refreshmentin sleep, it is in hope of awaking again in a better condition forenjoying ourselves and others, and for the performance of our duty. But the contemplation of passing out of existence, never to haveanother thought is certainly very widely different as to the nature ofthe subject, from the former. Now, sir, why should not these differentsubjects produce different sensations in the mind? And wherein one isentirely repugnant to the other, why is it not reasonable that thecontemplation of them should be attended with effects in the mind asrepugnant to each other as are the subjects? If it be a pleasure to aparent to contemplate, when he retires to rest with his family, theexpectation of seeing them again in the morning, all refreshed andinvigorated anew is it not reasonable to suppose that a contemplationexactly reverse from this would produce mental pain? I can conceive, without any violation of my reason or senses, how a fond mother cantake satisfaction in nursing her babe to sleep, knowing that thetender being needs this repose; but I cannot conceive how the sameaffectionate mother could be equally pleased with the thought that herchild would never wake again in time or in eternity. I feel gratefulto the giver of every good and perfect gift, that he has given thatblessed hope which is as an anchor to the soul, whereby the Christianin his dying hour is enabled to take a short farewell of his friends, expressing his hope of meeting them soon in a better world. And Ithink it unreasonable, even in the extreme, to suppose that a rationalperson could, in a similar situation, feel as well satisfied with anexpectation of an extinction of being. You fault the address to truth, which you say I put into the mouth ofyour argument, but this you do without the least occasion, nor is itin your power, sir, to show that your argument does not afford all Ihave made it say. You might, or rather you have varied the language alittle, but the sentiment is preserved entire. The address to truthwould, as before, extoll her existence, express the most ardent andconstant love for her divinity and finish the climax by _soaring down_to non-existence, which you can contemplate with as much satisfactionas you could an eternal existence in the enjoyment of the object ofyour love! But you contend that truth is lovely, and if your doubts areconsistent with truth you shall be happy to be confirmed in them; &c. This hypothesis, sir, is too large to suit your own views; for youhave before decided a choice between the doctrine of eternal miseryand that of, I will call it, annihilation for this is its truemeaning. You have revolted at the thought of eternal misery, but yourhypothesis allows you no such liberty. Truth is lovely, and if thedoctrine of eternal punishment, with all the fire and brimstone thathas ever been preached by the most zealous advocates of torment betruth, your hypothesis compels you to embrace the goddess, andcontemplate eternal misery with the same pleasure that you donon-existence, or with the same you would everlasting felicity did youbelieve in it! If we would reason well, we must reason from what we know. We knowthat man is capable of being miserable, he is capable of greatsufferings; likewise he is capable of being happy, he is capable ofgreat enjoyments. Now to pretend that he has no choice, that it is aswell for him to be miserable as to be happy, as well for him not toexist as to exist, is the reverse of reason. 4th. As Jesus, in the instructions which he gave to his disciples, respecting their conduct towards their enemies, had no design reachingto the laws of a body politic, but only to the conduct by which theministry of the gospel would best succeed in its early beginning, while it was _necessary_ for it to be persecuted, by which we are nowfavoured with its evidences, we may now err in applying thoseinstructions differently from their primary design. St. Paul, as muchas any of the disciples of Jesus, submitted himself to the directionsof non-resistance, yet he insists on submission to the higher powers, because they were the ministers of God, even revengers to executewrath upon them that do evil. 5th. With a confidence rather unusual, you challenge me to account forJesus' not being known by the two disciples while he walked with themon their way to Emmaus; you bring a comparison, and urge the subjectin a way to signify that you have found something in the scriptureaccount that "_refutes itself_. " You might have considered Mary's casetoo as a similar one. She saw Jesus with whom she had had a familiaracquaintance, but she thought it had been the gardner, and talked withhim without knowing him, until, in the same manner as he used toaddress her, he said _Mary_, when in a moment she knew him. So the twobrethren walked on the way with Jesus, and attended to hisconversation, which must have been of considerable length, yet knewhim not until he performed an office at table in which no doubt, heappeared as he had done many times before, which led them to know himat once. But I am called on to tell how they could walk and discoursewith him and not know him. Well, sir, do you not understand that yourquestion is asked on supposition that the miracle of the resurrectionwas a fact, and on the supposition that Jesus could appear anddisappear to persons as he pleased? We are informed that when the twobrethren knew him, "he vanished out of their sight. " On thesupposition then, that Jesus could appear and disappear at pleasure, is it at all difficult to allow that he could appear to hisacquaintance as a stranger, if he pleased? It seems to me, sir, a little unaccountable why you should take holdof this subject with so much seeming earnestness. Is it possible thatyou should suppose that the fate of this particular should have anypower on our general subject? Without the least concern for theargument in which I am engaged, I might allow that St. Luke waswrongly informed respecting this particular, but that he wrote it justas he understood the matter. And what would follow? Would this proveany thing false on which christianity rests? I am unable to see how itaffects the argument one way or the other. I am not the less inclinedto believe the account, because it does not affect the truth of theresurrection; and I should think that as this story does not seem atall necessary in proof of that fact, it would be considered anevidence that the writer of it was not endeavouring to make a storyfor such a purpose. If we read the several accounts of theresurrection, we shall perceive that the writers probably put down asmany particulars as come into their minds at the time of writing, without thoughts coming into their minds how the truth of theresurrection would be proved by the incidents which they wrote. Thereis no design of this sort in what they have written that we can see. They write as if they knew for certainty that Jesus rose from thedead, and as if the matter was out of all dispute. They discover noconcern for fear the account they were giving would not be believed. There is not one instance of an attempt to guard the story by clearingup any difficulty. Would impostors write in this way? It is notbelieved that there was ever the instance. Imposture is like a thiefwho starts at his own shadow, and discovers guilt by endeavouring tohide it. But truth having no concern of this sort, discoversnone. --And this is in all respects the apparent character of the fourgospels. 6th. Your criticism on my argument respecting the evidences of theresurrection I shall now endeavour to show to be incorrect. You criticise as follows; "The apostles could not have been convincedof the fact of the resurrection by any evidence short of the factitself. 2d. If the fact did exist there is no evidence which cancounterbalance it. _Ergo_, as the apostles were convinced of thetruth, the fact did exist. This is pretty much like saying, if thefact were _true_ it could not have been false!" The first member of your criticism supposes that I contend that theapostles had no evidence of the resurrection but the fact itself. Thesecond member of your criticism supposes that I contend the fact ofthe resurrection could not exist without proving itself to theapostles in such a way that no evidence could counterbalance it. Nowin both of these you are under a mistake, I never urged the fact ofthe resurrection as evidence of itself to the apostles. I neverpretended that they saw him rise. We have no account that any body sawthis act performed. If the apostles had stood by the sepulchre and hadseen the body of Jesus rise up and walk out of the house of death, then their evidences of his resurrection would have been the factitself; but this was not the case, nor did I use any intimations ofthis nature. So the first member of your criticism is an error ofyours. 2dly. If Jesus had rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and never had given any proofs of this to any one, would the fact ofhis having risen be any evidence of itself to any person? It surelywould not. Nor have I suggested any thing which intimates that theresurrection could not have been true without proving itself to be soto the apostles. What seems a little remarkable respecting thissubject, is, you profess to care for nothing but simple truth, and yetyou seem to study how to avoid it, as the above criticism seems toevince. I say _seems_ to evince, for I am not prepared to accuse youof such a fault--I would charitably believe that you thought yourcriticism would hit something or another nearly about right, withoutunderstanding what the amount of it is. After having laboured, in a lengthy manner, as you acknowledge, toprove that the evidences which proved to the apostles the truth of theresurrection could not be counterbalanced, you must reasonably supposethat I feel a little disappointed that you should condescend to pay noother attention to my reasoning than the above criticism. If I did notmake my argument clear why should you neglect to point out to mewherein it was wanting? Why should I not expect to have my errorscorrected, as well as to be called on to correct my brother's? Shouldnot these kind offices be reciprocal? If you conduct in this way, Ishall certainly grow vain, and boast of doing more for you, than youdo for me. Having noticed in a brief manner, the several particulars which wereproposed on my first page, I will occupy a few more with someobservations on the evidences which we are favoured with, on which tobuild our belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I have in one or two instances referred you to Paley, who has, withabilities and learning suited to such a task, brought forward theauthorities on which the credibility of the gospels rests. I have setdown his eleven propositions respecting the scriptures, and I humblyrequest you to examine the proof which he has brought to support them. If he has fairly supported all these propositions, as I humblyconceive he has, will you show why the scriptures of the New Testamentare not worthy to be credited by us? I am loath to attempt to present the evidences on which I conceive ourfaith rests, because in the first place they are vastly numerous;2ndly, I do not believe that I am capable of doing that justice to thesubject which it justly claims; and 3dly, Paley has done it by theassistance of Dr. Lardner's works, to so great an extent, that itrenders unnecessary any attempt of mine. However, as there seems a particular sort of pleasure in it, I willhere make a little addition to what I quoted in my formercommunication, and notice that, following the passage from the epistleof Barnabas, Paley mentions an epistle written by Clement, bishop ofRome, [4] another of St. Paul's fellow labourers. "This epistle isspoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and asIrenæus well represents its value, " "written by CLEMENT, who had seenthe blessed apostles and conversed with them, who had the preaching ofthe apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions beforehis eyes. " In this epistle of _Clement_, he quotes Mat. V. 7, xviii. 6. Next to _Clement_, Paley notices _Hermes_ who is mentioned by St. Paul, Rom. Xvi. 14, in a catalogue of Roman Christians. Hermes wrote awork called the _Shepherd or Pastor of Hermes_. [5] Says our author, "Its antiquity is incontestible from the quotations of it in Irenæus, A. D. 178, Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, Tertullian, A. D. 200, Origen, A. D. 230. " In the epistle there are allusions to St. Matthew's, St. Luke's, and St. John's gospels. [Footnote 4: Paley's Evidences, p. 107. Referred to Dr. Lardner'sCreed, vol. 1, p. 62, et seq. ] [Footnote 5: Paley's Evidences, p. 110. Lardner's Creed, vol. 1, p. 111. ] Next to Hermes our author mentions IGNATIUS, who became bishop ofAntioch, about thirty-seven years after the ascension of Christ; andwas without doubt personally acquainted with the apostles. Epistles ofIgnatius are referred to by Polycarp his contemporary. Passages, foundin the epistles now extant under his name, are quoted by Irenæus, A. D. 178, by Origen, A. D. 130. In these epistles there are variousundoubted allusions to the gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Ofthese allusions the following are clear specimens: "Christ wasbaptised of John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him. ""_Be ye wise as serpents_ in all things, _and harmless as doves_. ""Yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it knows whenceit comes, and whether it goes. " "He (Christ) is the door of theFather, by which enters in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and theapostles and the church. " Ignatius speaks of St Paul in terms of highrespect, and quotes his epistles to the Ephesians by name. Next to Ignatius, our author mentions POLYCARP who had been taught bythe apostles; had conversed with many who had seen Christ, was also bythe apostles appointed bishop of Smyrna. This testimony concerningPolycarp is given by Irenæus, who in his youth had seen him. "I cantell the place, " saith Irenænus, "in which the blessed Polycarp satand taught, and his going out and coming in, and the manner of hislife, and the form of his person, and the discourses he made to thepeople, and how he related his conversation with John amid others whohad seen the Lord, and how he related their sayings, and what he hadheard concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and hisdoctrine, as he had received them from the eye witness of the word oflife: all which Polycarp related _agreeably_ to the scriptures. " In one short letter of Polycarp's, there are near forty clearallusions to books of the New Testament: which is strong evidence ofthe respect which Christians of that age hear for these books, andpositive evidence that the gospel had been written before thisepistle. Papias, a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Irenæusattests, and of that age, as all agree, expressly ascribes therespective gospels to Matthew and Mark, in a passage quoted byEusebius. He informs us that Mark collected his gospel from Peter'spreaching, and that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. This authorityfully shows that the gospels bore these names at this early period. The authors which are here mentioned, all lived in the days of theapostles, that is, when the apostles were aged men, these were theirpupils in the gospel, and their epistles which have reference to thegospels are very justly used to prove that the gospels were written bythe men whose names they bear. From these most early authors, Paleygoes on, and brings down, by regular succession, the christianauthors, until he comes into the fourth century, when they are vastlynumerous. By the foregoing authority, together with an innumerable multitude ofcorroborating circumstances, we are led to entertain no doubts butthat the gospels of Matthew and John were written by these eyewitnesses of the things which they relate; and that the gospel of Lukewas written by a person of this name, who had his information fromundoubted testimony of the apostles; and that Mark wrote his gospelfrom St. Peter's mouth, and that this gospel may be called the gospelof Peter. Those eye witnesses then wrote what they saw, and if they were honestmen they wrote the truth. We, sir, do certainly know as well as we know any thing which ancienthistory records, that the testimony of the miracles and resurrectionof Jesus was believed in the age to which these things are referred, and that this testimony was sealed by the sufferings and death of vastmultitudes of believers. It should be noticed, that according to all accounts which have cometo us, there were no worldly motives of any sort by which thepropagators of the gospel were induced to labour in this cause. But onthe contrary, every earthly consideration was direct against them; andfurthermore let us remember, that the whole hierarchy of the Jews andall the superstition of the Gentiles were in arms against thisreligion, as I have before observed, nearly 300 years. Hoping, dear brother, that these hasty remarks will be favourablyreceived, and duly considered. I remain, Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. * * * * * EXTRACTS No. IX. [As the objector here begins to give up his ground, his letters fromthis place will be given nearly entire. He commences this number asfollows, viz. ] "_Dear sir and brother_--Your reply to my seventh number has beenreceived, and hereby duly acknowledged. I have just given it a secondreading, with peculiar care and attention; and I must add, generallyspeaking, with peculiar satisfaction too; for as it has tended in somedegree to revive my almost extinguished faith in divine revelation, soit has in the same ratio served to obliterate, in some degree, thosedoubts which seemed to be rising _mountains high_, in my apprehension, and portended ere long to overturn all my former faith. "There are some of my objections, however, which seem not yet to havebeen fully met on their proper ground, and of course not fullyremoved; and I must therefore be yet indulged with a few remarks. "1st. Notwithstanding all the learning of the Greeks and Romans, inthe days of Jesus and his apostles, yet, as you very justly insinuate, I am inclined to believe there never was a time in which 'the world ofhuman kind, both Jews and Gentiles, was more deeply involved in thedarkness and stupidity of superstition than when the Messiah (i. E. Jesus) entered on his public ministry. ' And notwithstanding yourargument drawn from superstition, is admitted as good, and weighty, asfar as it goes; yet, as it is conceived, it does not fully come to thepoint. "For, in the grossest ages of superstition it is reasonable to supposethat there are always some who entertain serious doubts and scruplesin regard to the propriety of many of the superstitious notions oftheir leaders. These will be more easily wrought upon. And althoughthey may be directed by various circumstances to fix the mind uponsomething much better in point of moral principle, yet how far thiswould prevent them from connecting many of the superstitious notionsof the age with those moral principles, only giving them a differentdress, I am not able to say; neither do I see how the superstition ofthe Jews and Gentiles, generally, would be likely to prevent a thingof that kind. --It is the suspected superstition of the apostles andprimitive christians and not the superstition of their opposers, towhich the proposition alludes. Men, I conceive, may be honest, and yetsuperstitious; they may also give up one superstition, by beingconvinced of its error, and yet another will gradually grow in itsstead. I am sensible, however, that this argument will better apply tothose who were converted to christianity after the days of theapostles, when it is agreed that miracles had ceased, than it will tothe apostles themselves. "But, from what you have written, together with my furtherinvestigation of this subject, I cannot but perceive that thisargument, even on its proper ground, does not contain all that forcewhich, at first view, I thought it might: because, 1st, it must applyto the apostles, or else, as it respects the main question, it doesnot seem to have any real bearing on the subject; and 2dly, the changeof the appostles appears to have been too sudden, and tooextraordinary, to be accounted for in this way. That superstitions, however, have arisen, even in the christian church, you do notundertake to deny, but seem rather to admit; and it was on this factthat the first proposition was founded; but I perceive there is adifficulty in carrying this objection back to the apostles; for thenthe doctrine was new, and without precedent; and (unless the miracleson which it is said to have been founded were real) without anycertain prospect of success. Although therefore the religion of thedespised _Galatians_ (for such were the christians called by theRomans) was considered by their persecutors, to be nothing more than agross, and even impious superstition, yet no one can expectsuccessfully to account 'in a rational way, ' for the facts, whetherreal or supposed, on which that supposed superstition is said to havebeen founded. Hence the doubts growing out of my first propositionseem to be rendered equally, if not more doubtful than the reality ofthat truth, the evidence of which this objection was supposed in somedegree to counterbalance. "2d. The truth of my second proposition, viz. That a part of mankindat least have been and still are believing in miracles and revelationswhich are spurious, you seem not disposed to deny; but yet, at thesame time you think you are 'under no obligation to admit this fact asany evidence against christianity. ' That a spurious or pretendedmiracle does not invalidate a real one I admit; yet if a spuriousmiracle may obtain credit, and be in fact believed, it raises a querywhether there have ever been any others but spurious. Your argumentrespecting 'counterfeit money' is admitted good in relation to thatsubject, but whether it will apply with equal weight to the subject ofmiracles may admit of a doubt. I do not see how the pretended miraclesof the Shakers are at all 'dependent' on the miracles of Jesus fortheir 'imposition. ' "I meant nothing more by the miracles of Mahomet than his pretended'correspondence with the angel Gabriel, ' which I considered, if true, _miraculous_; as I conceive every revelation must be let it becommunicated how it will. "I have nothing to object to the picture which you have given of thelife and religion of Mahomet; and as to what I have said in regard tothe conversion and influence of Constantine, in giving a particulartone to the christian religion, you are not disposed to disagree withme: and at the same time you are 'by no means certain that a properattention to the pretended miracles of the Shakers might not issue inassigning a natural cause for them. ' Of all this I have no doubt. But, that these miracles are believed by the Shakers, you do not undertaketo deny; nor that their religion, their faith in Ann, as being Christin his second coming, and that their present mode of worship are allpredicated upon them. They do not deny the miracles of Christ and hisapostles any more than Christians in general deny the miracles ofMoses and the prophets; but appeal to _theirs_ as being equally ofdivine origin, and thereby clothing their religion with the samedivine authority. Now, unless these things can be accounted for 'in arational way, ' which you seem to think may be the case, though you donot attempt it, they certainly raise a query in the mind at leastwhether the miracles recorded in scripture rest upon any betterfoundation. "If a thing is absolutely known or believed to be miraculous, it ismiraculous; (at least to those who thus believe) and whether any thingcan be justly argued from the inferiority or superiority of a miracle, I know not. In the raising of Lazarus, it is true, though the effectwas the same, we discover as great a miracle, and perhaps greater, than in the raising of a son of the Shunamite by Elisha the prophet; 2Kings iv. 34, 35, but the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus canhardly be said to have been wrought either by Jesus or by hisapostles, and therefore that was not particularly referred to in thecomparison of miracles; neither do I know that the comparison, in anysense, has much weight. Whether Lazarus ever died again or not we arenot informed: neither do I recollect of ever hearing an opinion on thesubject; but, if he died, it seems that his resurrection must havebeen very different from the resurrection of Jesus; i. E. To animmortal state, so that he 'dieth no more. ' "You admit, if I understood you, that the testimony of the apostles, concerning the resurrection of Jesus, had it not been accompanied withplain and astonishing miracles in the open day, and before thesurrounding multitudes, who had ocular demonstration of their truth, would have been entitled to no more credit than the testimony of Mrs. A----, respecting her conversation with her deceased husband. Foralthough it might have been true, and we could have no good reason todoubt the sincerity or belief of the witnesses, yet after all, itstruth would solely rest on their mere _ipse dixit_, which would not besufficient to establish so important a truth in the world. Hence, asyou very justly observe, 'the declaration of the apostles of theresurrection of Jesus, until it was accompanied with power from onhigh, was never even communicated to the public, or ordered to becommunicated. ' "In this manner I understood your reasoning, and I think I understandyou correctly; and all this appears to be very candid; it isacknowledging all I would wish you to acknowledge on this subject. Buthere comes the difficulty. Miracles in process of time cease; and nowpeople must believe, if they believe at all, without the testimony'sbeing 'accompanied with power from on high. ' And how can we believe inthe miracles said to have been wrought by the apostles, without thetestimony's being accompanied by miracles any more than they could atfirst believe in the miracles of the resurrection of Jesus without thetestimony's being accompanied by miracles? You have alreadyanticipated this objection, and have endeavoured to answer it byarguing that 'perpetual miracles would, if as powerful as they were atfirst, preclude the exercise of our reasoning faculties and thenecessity of investigation, which is one of the most rationalenjoyments of which we are capable. ' Although this argument, it isconfessed, has considerable weight, yet it does not seem wholly toremove the difficulty. I feel very much like those Jews who proposedthe question to Jesus; 'how long dost thou make us to doubt? If thoube the Christ tell us plainly. ' I am not satisfied that the evidenceof the truth of the resurrection is as great, at this day, whatever itwas then, as it could have been. If Jesus had remained on the earthtill this time, or if he had appeared to every generation since, itappears to me the evidence would have been much greater; and yet notso great as to 'preclude the exercise of our reasoning faculties. ' "In your statement respecting the controversy between _Unitarians_ and_Trinitarians_, it appears to me you have left out some very importantcircumstances which ought to have been taken into the account to havemade it any thing near a parallel. You seem to have forgotten thedestruction of the Jews by the Romans about the time the books of theNew Testament are said to have been written; during which calamity, asthe history of those times inform us, about one million one hundredthousand Jews were cut off, and among whom, it is more than probable, all their leaders, who were then concerned in the death of Jesus, wereincluded; and only about ninety-seven thousand, not a tenth part, weretaken prisoners. The Jews in the adjacent countries, however, probablyare not taken into this account, but they were all equally subdued tothe Romans. And if the power of the Jews were so limited at thecrucifixion of Jesus that they could not lawfully put a man to deathwithout liberty from the Roman governor, what must we suppose wastheir power after the destruction of their city and temple? On areview of the subject, therefore, I think you will perceive that yourcase, however plausibly stated, falls very far short of being aparallel. We may well suppose, I think, that the Jews were so humbledby the Romans, that, 1st, they had not the power; and, 2dly, theymight not under these circumstances be inclined any longer topersecute and put to death the christians. And this was the only wayit seems, at that day, that either Jews or Gentiles thought of puttingdown what they considered heresy or superstition. I consider thereforethe destruction of the Jews as giving a very favourable opportunity toget up a new system of religion, partly or wholly based on theirs, buta little removed from it, so as to neglect the use of sacrifices, which, if I mistake not, according to the Jewish traditions, couldonly be offered at Jerusalem. And the long lapse of time, before thedogmas of this new sect was attempted to be refuted by argument gavean opportunity to involve the supposed facts on which the christianreligion is predicated in such obscurity, that it stands now in nodanger of refutation from that source. Some may be made to doubt, others to disbelieve, but nevertheless no one can prove it false. "If it be proved true, however, it must be proved from the recordwhich we have; for I know of nothing which can now add much weight tothat testimony, unless it be the fulfilment of some sinking prophecieswhich yet remain to be fulfilled, or else the return of miraclouspowers and a new revelation in further confirmation of what we alreadyhave. And if what we have be true, it seems we have a right to expect, ere long, something of the kind. The ten last chapters of the prophecyof Ezekiel, I think no one will pretend has ever been fulfilled, asyet; and when fulfilled, the events will prove the divine inspirationof that prophecy. But if it should never be fulfilled, or itsfulfilment be delayed till the Jews every where should give up allhope and expectation of any thing of this kind; and should, throughunbelief, neglect their present customs, as many of them already havedone, by intermarrying with other nations, and thereby should becomeboth lost to themselves and to the world, which would be the same asthough they were extinct, I apprehend that no confidence would beplaced in that part of the prophecy after such a period. In likemanner the fulfilment or the non-fulfilment of the following wordswill have a similar effect. 'This same Jesus, which is taken up fromyou into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him gointo heaven. ' Some pretend to say that even this prophecy has beenalready fulfilled; but we have no evidence of it, and I think we maysay the prophecy in Ezekiel, above mentioned, has been fulfilled, withas much propriety. But this is rather off the point. "In regard to the death of Stephen, notwithstanding his trial seems tohave been by the council, yet the manner of his death, as stated, seems to have been rather turbulent than otherwise. 'When they heardthese things they were cut to the heart, and _they_ (whether thecouncil, or the spectators I cannot say) gnashed on him with theirteeth--then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city andstoned him. ' Such proceedings at this day, as this appears to havebeen, we should be inclined to call a _mob_, let it bear what otherappellation it may. "That the first martyrs, however, did, from some circumstance orother, believe in the resurrection of Jesus, on which all their hopeseems to have been predicated, I think cannot admit of a rationaldoubt. For to suppose otherwise, supposes such madness and folly inthose unfortunate men, who suffered every thing which could beinflicted upon them rather than to give up their testimony; that itseems nothing can be a parallel, unless it be the madness and folly ofsuch unreasonable doubts. [6] And this seems to be all for which youcontend, as it respects the present query; because you seem to thinkthe first believers in this all-important truth could not havebelieved by any evidence which could have existed had it not been forthe truth of the fact believed in. Now here is the mistake, as Iconceive, if there be any; i. E. In supposing that the apostles andprimitive Christians could not believe short of such indubitableevidence. Only suppose the resurrection to have been actuallybelieved, by any evidence, or any circumstance whatever, no matterwhat, for it makes no difference in this argument, and the reportwould naturally be like all other reports of such an extraordinarynature. Both zeal and imagination would be enlisted on the side of itstruth. Extraordinary discourses would be put into the mouths of themartyrs, after they were dead, as well as extraordinary deeds intotheir hands; and altho' contradicted ever so many times by theirenemies and persecutors, yet the contradictions would never so out runthe report but that many would still believe. When much strength oftestimony had been thus added, by verbal reports, during twenty orthirty years, let a few men undertake to paint up real histories andletters in the name of the first disciples, and let these be kept inthe hands of those who are strong in the faith, and let them be readfor a long time, only in their own assemblies or churches althoughthey might contain something of which they had not before heard, thisis only what would be natural for them to expect, and as it containedthe main thing which was the object of faith, and those other things, if true, went to establish their faith still more, who would be likelyto call the truth of such writings in question? Not those who believein the main question certainly. They would be a thousand times morelikely to pass over in silence things of which they had some scruples, for the sake of the main question, then they would be to endanger thetruth of the main question, as they might think they should, bycriticising on mere circumstantial things. I am not now speaking ofthe apostles, whom I have considered _honest_ men; yet I shouldsuppose that even these men might have much good at heart, althoughthey should conduct exactly in the way which I have suggested. And howlittle time would it require to put this matter beyond all possiblerefutation? Not so long, I conceive, as did elapse before that workwas attempted by Celsus. [Footnote 6: I have here expressed myself in strong terms, with a viewto check my doubts and prevent their running wild. ] "You will see by this, sir, in what light my argument views theapostles. It does not suppose 'that the apostles would enforce theirmoral doctrine with their pretentions to miraculous powers, ' althoughthey might with the 'testimony of the resurrection of Jesus, ' but itsupposes that their successors might contend that the apostles workedmiracles, and many of them might believe that they did, just as theapostles believed in the resurrection, when no such thing as theresurrection or the miracles of the apostles ever existed in fact. This is what the argument supposes, and it is wholly predicated on thepossibility of the apostles' being made to believe, some how or other, I do not pretend to say how, that Jesus had risen from the dead whenno such thing had taken place. But, only believe in the resurrection, and there is no difficulty in believing in the miracles of Jesus orthe miracles of his apostles. They are equally well attested, and nomore improbable. Yea, if they were true, they were not _believed_, butabsolutely _known_ to be true by the apostles. They knew it as well asthey could know the truth of any object of sight. And the truth ofwhat they knew being all which they needed in support of what theytaught, I do not see, on this supposition, how they could have theoccasion, or the motive, to state one thing falsely concerning it. No, nor could their followers have any occasion to add to their testimony, for nothing which they could add would be of any more weight than thatwhich we may suppose was already in their possession. The two firstchapters of Matthew and Luke (or all except the genealogy in Matthew, and the preface of Luke) the authenticity of which has been suspectedby some of the learned, and I believe not without pretty good reasons, do not contain a single word in support of the resurrection; neitheris the subject of them, as I now recollect, mentioned either by Christor any of the apostles in any other part of the New Testament. Andalthough the truth of those narratives is no more miraculous than theresurrection, yet I presume you would not contend that a belief ofthese, also, is absolutely necessary to the Christian faith. "With these observations, I shall once more, and probably for the lasttime quit my second proposition, and proceed to take notice of whatyou have written on my third. "And here you must pardon me if I remark, without the least view offinding any fault, that if my words will admit of a bad construction, that construction seems to be the first one which strikes your mind. If you suppose me capable of such an abominable absurdity as to say, that if the man of this town who was born blind should be restored tohis sight by some one's anointing his eyes with clay and spittle, andthis done in our presence, we could not know it! that we could notknow but that the seeing man was a total stranger whom we had neverbefore seen, and that the blind man had absconded no body knows how orwhere! I say, if this was the way in which you understood my thirdproposition, you are perfectly excusable: otherwise, it is difficultto account for your remarks. But, having thus found your antagonist, you level your artillery against him, nor desist until you have put todeath without mercy this creature of your own fruitful imagination. Having done, you begin to query whether you had not mistaken mymeaning; and after making a wonderful effort, by calling up thesepenetrating powers of research, which are only summoned onextraordinary occasions, you dive through the mists of obscurity, inwhich my words seem to be too often placed, and behold my propositionin its true light! "My proposition is no sooner seen than 'granted': which is, that wehave no positive knowledge of miracles; or, to use your own words, 'miracles are not now wrought before our eyes. ' But although you grantthe truth of my proposition, you do not admit that this is anyobjection against the truth of divine revelation, for a number ofreasons which you have given; all of which, no doubt, are satisfactoryto your own mind. "But sir, this is a matter of opinion only, and if I agree with you atall, it must be from the consideration that the Governor of theuniverse must do right. But, although the time may not be yet, nevertheless I am clear in the opinion that the revival of miracleswill, in process of time, be absolutely necessary in order to preservethe faith in those which have already been. But, I contend, if thescriptures be true, we have a right to expect the revival of miracles;and I do not see how they can be fulfilled without. Considering theprejudices of the Jews, as a people, I cannot suppose that they willever believe in Jesus, as their promised Messias, short of beingconvinced of its truth by a miracle; and should they return to theland of Palestine, and there rebuild their temple, at Jerusalem, itwould be such a clear fulfilment of the prophecy of Ezekiel, that itwould be equal to a miracle, and do as much towards corroborating thetruth of all the other prophecies. "You finally come once more to the circumstance of the conversion ofSt. Paul, where you again find some fault (and I must confess, notwithout some reason) at my neglect to meet your arguments on thissubject; or in other words, to do away the scripture account, andreconcile it with my hypothesis; i. E. That of supposing him to beconverted without a miracle. To be ingenuous with you, sir, I mustacknowledge that I have ever supposed this to be the most difficulttask I should have to do; and therefore I wished to hear all you hadto say on the subject of the resurrection before I attempted it. "Since I wrote my last I have examined Paley's _Horæ Paulinæ_, a workof extraordinary merit which had never before fallen into my hands:his _Evidences of Christianity_, I have read several years ago, buthave not lately particularly examined that work. In the exposition ofthe argument, (of the work first mentioned) Paley sets forth, as Iconceive, the only possible grounds on which either the epistles ofSt. Paul, or the acts of the apostles, can be supposed to beforgeries, in their full force. And then he attempts to prove theirgenuineness by their internal evidence, which they contain withinthemselves, entirely aside from those objections; and which would havebeen of equal weight even on the supposition that the whole had beenconcealed from the time they were written till now, and we should now, for the first time, examine them. And although I might not fully agreewith him in all points, yet I think he proves, beyond allcontradiction or rational doubt, what he mainly attempts to prove; i. E. That the epistles were written by some person acquainted with thecircumstances mentioned in the history, and that the writer of thehistory must have been acquainted with the circumstances alluded to inthe epistles, where, at the same time, there is not the least apparentdesign in those references or allusions; which, as he very justlyargues, prove the genuineness of both. I do not pretend to quote hiswords, as the book is not now by me. "This, it must be confessed, is a great acquisition in favour of thetruth of christianity; because it evidently carries the writings backinto those times when every thing was fresh in the minds of all whohad any knowledge of the subject of which those writings treated. Nowcomes the point. Paul expressly declares that he saw Christ after hewas risen from the dead. His declaring that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, could have been only from the report of others;but it agrees pretty well with what has been recorded by theevangelists. His declaring that he had been seen 'of above fivehundred brethren at once, ' must have been also by report, which reportmight have been incorrect, as there is no mention made of it in eitherof the gospels. Yet if incorrect it might have been very easilyrefuted. But when he comes to say, 'And last of all he was seen of mealso, as of one born out of due time, ' there remains for him no suchexcuse. Paul, as it seems, could not believe that he had seen Jesus, literally, and personally, when he had not. And if he knew that he hadnot, and yet declared that he had, and meant that others shouldbelieve that he had, he was not _honest_, as I before admitted that hewas; and now to say that he was not honest, as I clearly see, wouldinvolve me in still greater difficulty, as then I could give norational account for his life and conduct. What shift shall I nowmake? For having supposed that my doubts were really founded onreason, I must have good reason for so doing before I can give themup: i. E. I must be fully convinced that they are founded in error. "What can we suppose that Paul meant by Christ's being seen _of abovefive hundred brethren at once_? Is it at all likely that such anextraordinary circumstance should have happened without any mentionbeing made of it in either of the five histories which we have ofthose times? Might he not mean the same which the author of the Actsmeans, speaking of the day of Pentecost? And therefore the whole mightnot have been designed to be understood literally, but spirituallytrue? And notwithstanding the literality of the language, may not allthe miracles of Christ and the apostles, and even the account we haveof the resurrection, be all accounted for and reconciled in the sameway? But here I involve myself in difficulty again; for, if I mistakenot, this was very near the opinion of the Gnostics, whom the apostlesand fathers every where spake against. --'These, ' says Dr. Priestley, 'taught that it was not _Jesus_ that was properly _the Christ_, orthat he had not flesh and blood like other men. ' They also 'denied thedoctrine of the resurrection. ' These therefore, 'Paul, Peter, Jude, and John, most strenuously opposed. ' Again, says he, 'The apostlesthey considered as judging only by their senses, which were deceivedin this case: and though they gave entire credit to them with respectto every thing which they had seen, or heard, they considered them asplain unlettered men who were ignorant of what was not within thesphere of their senses. ' To these it is supposed that John alludes inhis first Epistle iv. 1--3. If, therefore, the apostles did believe, and contend for the literal resurrection, and personal appearing ofJesus, and if in this they were opposed by the Gnostics, even in theirday; there is no way now, that I see, any longer for me to maintain mydoubts only by believing that the first disciples, as well as Paul, thought they saw Jesus when in fact they did not, and that the idea ofmiracles by which these things were said to have been propagated andwhich carried conviction to the multitudes, was nothing more than thebold figurative language of the day, designed, in reality, to deceiveno one; or else mere exaggerations: or, what perhaps is still moreprobable, partly of both. But enough! "I confess I begin to grow dissatisfied with this kind of reasoning. What does it all amount to? What am I bringing, after all, to opposethe laboured researches of Drs. Lardner, Paley, Priestley, and others, as well as the pertinent observations of my worthy friend who has solong borne with me, and obliged me with his friendly andchristian-like aid on this subject? Let me pause and consider--I haveacknowledged that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation;have I proved any of those evidences false?--No! this I haveacknowledged I could not do. What have I put into the other end of thescale, to weigh down those evidences? Ah! what indeed! Nothing! exceptit be my own ignorance, and the errors of other men, in whose errors Ihave no more faith than those who believe in the truth of that which Ihave been disputing! I will therefore, instead of pursuing the disputeany further, begin to think once more whether the thing for which youso ardently contend may not in reality be true. "But, here again, I must be cautious, lest I should err as far on theother hand. For notwithstanding when I found that I could not helpdoubting, I tried to reconcile myself to my doubts, and have sincerelyand honestly tried to make myself believe that I was perfectlyreconciled either way; yet the moment I begin to think about thecertainty of immortality and eternal life, I am all on fire! I hardlyknow how to contain myself! And were it not for the specialobligations, which I feel to my family, and to the world, more thanany thing which I ever expect to receive from the world, I should longto 'depart, and be with Christ, which is far better. ' Thus my doubts, whatever they are, may be needful for me. "Your remarks respecting my claims to the privilege of one who is weakin the faith are very pertinent and just. For I must confess inproportion as my doubts arose, as to the truth of the resurrection, equal doubts would arise as to the propriety of preaching it for atruth. I wish you to understand, however, that my mind has never beensettled there, if it has ever vibrated that way, it was onlymomentary, and rather on mere supposition than any confirmed opinion. "In answer to what you say in regard to hope, I will only add: Thougha man should have ever so firm a hope in any thing whatever, andshould afterwards find that his hope was founded in error, the hopewould be taken away; but if at the same time he should find that thetruth is absolutely better than the error hoped for, he would alsofind that a better thing is given in lieu of his hope: but if a manhas hope, though that hope should be founded in error, if the hoperemain as long as the man exists, it is not taken away from him, asboth cease to exist together. Once more, and finally: a hope which isfounded in truth, a knowledge of the truth can never take away. Although a man may hope, and ardently desire to exist eternally, yet Ido not see how a man can extend either his hope, or his desires, beyond the possibility of his existence. To my understanding, this isjust like supposing that a man which does not exist may yet hope anddesire; or that a man may hope and desire, after he shall have ceasedto exist. "After returning you my sincere thanks for your kind indulgence andlabours of love, I shall close the present number. I cannot take myleave of this number, however, without expressing my humble gratitudeto the Allwise disposer of events, that he has given such abundantmanifestations of his unspeakable goodness to his creatures; that hehas also, as I may perhaps be permitted to hope with you, given adivine testimony of his infinite love and universal benevolence tothat part of his creation whom he hath distinguished with theattributes of his own nature, regarding at the same time all otherbeings and things, and that he had raised up so many faithfulwitnesses who have set to their seals that this testimony is true. "Yours, &c. A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER VIII. _Dear sir, and brother_, --The particulars contained in your ninthletter, which I have selected as the subject of this, are thefollowing: 1st. You "do not see how the miracles of the Shakers are at alldependant on the miracles of Jesus for their imposition. " 2d. You think, if Jesus had remained on the earth until now, or hadappeared to every generation since his resurrection, the evidencewould have been much greater; and yet not so great as to preclude theexercise of our reasoning faculties. 3d. In the supposed controversy between the Unitarians andTrinitarians, you think I have failed of making the case a parallelwith my subject, not considering the great change which took place inthe state of the Jews in consequence of their destruction by theRomans. 4th. The argument which you rest on the supposition, that the apostlesdid in reality believe in the resurrection of Jesus, when in fact thething was not true. 5th. What you say of the necessity of miracles in some future time, toconfirm the belief of those which have been. 6th. The difficulty you suggest concerning St. Paul's saying thatJesus was seen, after his resurrection, by more than five hundredbrethren at once. 1st. As you object to the idea that the miracles of the Shakers dependat all on the miracles of Jesus for their imposition, it may beconsidered sufficient, on my part, if I show that you have fullysupported the proposition which you profess not to see. I will, however, first presume, that I am not authorised to say thatthe miracles of the Shakers are imposition, I have not contended thatthey are; the ground for which I contend is this, viz. If these or anyother pretended miracles among us are impositions, they depend on themiracles of Jesus for this power, as much as counterfeit money dependson the true for its imposition. That you have given sufficient supportto what I have stated, you will see at once by the following passagequoted from your arguments on this subject: "They do not deny themiracles of Christ and his apostles any more than Christians ingeneral deny the miracles of Moses and the prophets; but appeal to_theirs_ as being equally of divine origin, and thereby clothe theirreligion with the same divine authority. " Is it possible that thewriter of the foregoing sentence should not see, that he establishedthe very thing which he had just said he could not see? What is that_divine authority_ with which the religion of Moses, the prophets andof Christ is clothed? Answer, _miracles_. What authority do youpretend the Shakers make use of to clothe their religion? Answer "_thesame_. " How does this differ from counterfeit money, on thesupposition that these miracles are imposition? It is abundantly evident that the Jews expected that the Messiah, whenhe came, would establish his character by miracles as Moses did his, and as some of the prophets were enabled to do. Therefore, do we readMatt. Xii. 22, 23. --"Then was brought unto him one possessed with adevil, blind and dumb: and he healed him insomuch, that the blind anddumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed and said, isnot this the son of David?" Jesus himself saith, Luke iv. 24, 27. "Verily I say unto you, noprophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven wasshut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughoutall the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow; and many lepers werein Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them wascleansed, saveing Naaman the Syrian. "--See John vii. 31. "And many ofthe people believed on him, and said, when Christ cometh, will he domore miracles than these which this man hath done?" By the foregoing quotations, as by many other passages, we learn thatthe Jews expected the Messiah would establish his character as aprophet like unto Moses and others, and also that Jesus did in realitya multitude of miracles more than the prophets did. Now is it not evident, that if the miracles of Jesus were supposed tobe impositions, they were dependant on those of Moses and the prophetsfor any power to impose on the people? Just so are all miracleswrought or pretended to be wrought since Christ, dependant on hismiracles for any imposing power which they possess. If our religionhad not been first propagated by the means of those miracles which arerecorded in the New Testament, of what use would any pretendedmiracles be to any sect of Christians? 2d. What you say of the greater evidence of the resurrection whichwould have been furnished by Christ's continuance on earth until now, or by his making his appearance in every generation since his time, appears to me to be rather wanting in its merits by which it claims areply. --Why should you neglect to delineate some special reasons foryour suppositions, by showing how wide the difference would have beenfrom the evidence we now have, and how that difference would haverecommended your scheme?--You have left me to conjecture theparticular features of your argument, and if I mistake them, you willreply that I understand you incorrectly. However, this is the way Imust proceed. We will suppose then that Jesus, in room of ascending into heaven, hadremained on earth. Would this have done any good, unless he had madehimself known to all the people? Well, we will suppose he had madehimself known after his resurrection, to the whole house of Israel, would the people not have believed? They would have believed mostassuredly, or his making himself known to them would have done nogood. If they had all believed they would not have persecuted thereligion of Christ, all would have embraced it at once being convincedby their eyes, that Jesus who was crucified, had actually rose fromthe dead, and was not subject to death any more. All this would havebeen as evident to the Roman government as to the Jewish hierarchy, and the whole would have been christianized at once. How long wouldall this remain a wonder? Jesus remains on earth from generation togeneration. How long ago would the conjecture have arisen, that thisman who has lived through so many ages, had always been here on earth, and that the tradition of his once having been mortal like other men, was nothing but a superstition gotten up in some age of antiquitybeyond our reach? There would have been no occasion of preserving anyrecords of the wonderful works of Jesus in the days of his flesh, foras the whole would become immediately connected to christianity, therewould have been no necessity nor excitement to write and preserve theaccounts we have in the gospel, or if they had been written, theycould have had no support now but ancient tradition. Not one martyr, not one instance of persecution, not a Celsus in the second, aPorphyry in the third, nor a Julian in the fourth centuries to opposethe truth, and thereby bear testimony to the antiquity of thechristian history. This immortal man would be here on earth, and the sun and the moon andthe stars would be in the heavens, the mountains and the rivers hereon earth; and the same mind that would conjecture that all thesevisible things were from everlasting to everlasting, would make noexception of this man Christ Jesus. But now you are called on to proveyour christian tradition; and what have you to convince the Deistwith? Will you say my conjectures are by no means correct? Well, Iexpected it would turn out so. You mean then that Jesus should notonly remain on earth, but that he should continue the evidences of hishaving been mortal, of his having died, and of his resurrection asclear as they were when they convinced the world in the firstplace. --Would there, in this case, be any room for any inquiry? anyfor doubts? Would there be as many denominations of christians asthere are now? Should we get at this religion by reasoning? Perhapsyou would prefer your second proposal, and have Jesus manifested inevery generation. But this would have been a regular return of thesame event, and would have been placed among the phenomena of nature, and the Deist would say that there never had been any beginning tothis regular operation, it has always been so from time beyond date. Thus far, but no more. The evidences of our religion are like thereligion itself, infinitely superior to any thing ever contrived byhuman wisdom. And it is an opinion in which I am the more confirmed, the more I examine it, that if the wisest set of philosophers whichever lived on earth had been a council to contrive a method by whichchristianity could have been perpetuated in the world, that schemewhich they would have projected, would of itself defeated the object. The wisdom of this great scheme corresponds with the divine powerwhich has been manifested in it. What set of impostors, either wise orsimple, learned or unlearned would ever have thought of such anundertaking as that of which we have an account in the fourevangelists? Would they be likely to find one who would be theirleader, the one to die, and leave the rest to make the people believethat he arose from the dead? Could a man be found now who would bewilling to undertake such a piece of madness and folly? If we pretendto reason shall we not keep to human nature, and reason according tothose laws by which ourselves and others are governed? Do you believe, sir, that a man could be found who would undertake tolead a party, whose object should be to impose on the people by apretended resurrection, and consent himself to be the hero of thisimposture? You answer, no. But then ask; if this wonderful story was not writtensome considerable time after that period to which the dates of thewritings are assigned, and such large additions made that the wholeappears entirely different from what was really true? This brings me to consider the third particular selected forconsideration, out of your epistle. 3dly. In allusion to the supposed controversy between the Unitariansand Trinitarians, you think I ought to have considered thecircumstance of the destruction of the Jews by the Romans, as giving afavourable opportunity for the fabricating the books of theevangelists, and of giving them success in the world, as the oldpharisees and rulers of the Jews were principally cut off in thatawful destruction of their nation and city. You will observe that by your suggestion you leave the first sectionof the argument to which you refer, in which no book or books wereused, and notice only the last section in which you were indulged, forsake of the argument, in the supposition that the gospels were notwritten until after the destruction of Jerusalem, nor propagated onthe miracles on which the gospels have founded it. Here, sir, have Inot an occasion of some little complaint? If you really thought thatthe gospels were, none of them, written in the life time of theapostles, and considered it safe to predicate an argument on thisground, why should you withhold the proof of this fact? Why did younot inform me of the authority by which your argument is supported inyour own mind? And furthermore, why do you try to get away from theargument as stated in its first form, without showing its want offorce, or without allowing its merit? By conducting arguments in thisway, in room of converguing them to some definite point of conclusion, they are diverged indefinitely, and the mind seems bewildered withoutan object. However, I am disposed to follow you, and will now endeavour to shewthe probability of the gospel's having been written even before thedestruction of Jerusalem. The following passages are quoted from Paley's evidences from page 106and on-- From the epistle of Barnabas, to which I have before alluded; "Let us, therefore, beware lest it come upon us, as it is written, there aremany called, few chosen. " Our author justly adds: "From theexpression, '_as it is written_, ' we infer with certainty, that, atthe time when the author of this epistle lived, there was a bookextant, well known to christians, and of authority among them, containing these words--'Many are called, few chosen. '" For theauthority of this epistle I refer unto Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, noticed in a former communication. If Clementwere liable to mistake the author, it seems hardly probable that hewould be deceived concerning the time when this epistle, purporting tohave been written by Barnabas, was written; as it is no later thanA. D. 194 that he quotes this epistle as an ancient work. It may beproper to remark, that although authors differ respecting thegenuineness of this epistle, both Dr. Priestly and Paley acknowledgeand maintain its antiquity, and place it very near to the time of thedestruction of Jerusalem, which gives it all the authority for whichit is here quoted; for the thing now to be proved is, that it isprobable that the gospel of Matthew was written before the destructionof the Jewish hierarchy. Now as this epistle of Barnabas was writtensoon after this destruction, and refers to the gospel of Matthew inthe manner above quoted, as refering to what was an acknowledgedwriting of scripture authority, it seems reasonable to infer that St. Matthew's gospel had been written long enough before, to obtain itsestablishment among Christian churches, which fairly throws itsantiquity anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Sir, I see nothingto forbid this conclusion from being highly probable, and this, Iexpect to show, is all that is necessary to be made out in this case. "Of Polycarp, " who was appointed bishop of Symrna by the apostlesthemselves, says our author, "we have one undoubted epistle remaining. And this, though a short letter, contains nearly forty clear allusionsto books of the New Testament; which is strong evidence of the respectwhich christians of that age bore for those books. " It appears fromthis account, that, as Polycarp was a contemporary of the apostles, and referred to the books of the New Testament in his writings, as tobooks of established authority, these books must have been written asearly as the time in which their reputed authors lived, which placestheir date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem; as it is notpretended that any of the evangelists continued until after thedestruction of that city except St. John who is supposed to have livedto a very great age. One more from our author: "Papias, a hearer of John, and companion ofPolycarp, as Irenæus attests, and of that age, as all agree, in apassage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly ascribesthe respective gospels to Matthew and Mark, and in a manner whichproves that those gospels must have publicly borne the names of theseauthors at that time, and probably long before. " All this appearsperfectly consistent with the idea that these gospels were written bythe evangelists themselves, and proves together with the followingconsiderations the probability of its being correct. Furtherconsiderations to be taken into the foregoing account are thefollowing. St. Matthew, St. Luke and St. Mark, all speak of theprophesy of Jesus respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, but do noteven hint that this prophesy had been fulfilled. In St. John's gospelno mention is made of this prophesy, and it is reasonable enough tosuppose that this omission was on account of the prophesy's havingbeen fulfilled before his gospel was written. Again, if the gospels had not been written by these reputed authors, nor in the time that the evangelists lived, but some time after thedestruction of Jerusalem, and these had been fabricated by designingmen, they would certainly have been exposed as a fraud by the Gnosticswho held many opinions so very contrary to the scriptures of the NewTestament. So very contrary were some of the early heresies to thewritings of the evangelists that they erased many things from themthat they might the better maintain their own notions. Now this wouldnever have taken place if these Gnostics could have proved that theseGospels were frauds, which they certainly could have done, for theyexisted as early as these writings are supposed to have been written. Furthermore, if the gospels had been forged books, written after thedestruction of Jerusalem, it would have been an easy task for Celsusto have exposed the whole fraud. He certainly would never haveadmitted the truth of the miracles of Jesus if he could have provedthat the books in which they were recorded were forgeries. But thisneither he nor the learned Porphyry attempted to do. I have suggested, that, if the probability of the gospel's having beenwritten before the destruction of Jerusalem and by the evangeliststhemselves be proved it is sufficient for our present argument. Andso, I think, it will appear to you, when you combine with thisprobability two more important considerations. 1st. That the internal evidences contained in the books of the NewTestament, of their genuineness, are sufficient of themselves toestablish their character as such; and: 2d. That the above probability of itself is to be relied on even fromexternal evidence if no external proof can be proved against it, whichis not pretended. It should be kept in mind, that the writings of the evangelists areguarded by the early attacks of the enemies of christianity, who evertreated them as being, what they pretended to be, a faithful historyof the origin of the religion they inculcated; and also by theopposition of the early sects who arose from the church, who wouldhave demolished their foundations if they had been spurious. 4th. The argument you rest on the supposition that the apostles did, in reality, believe in the resurrection of Jesus, when in fact thething was not true, may now be noticed. --As you would naturallyexpect, I shall by no means allow either your premises or conclusions. 1st. Why should I allow your premises? You have brought no argument, nor attempted to bring any to disprove what I contended for, viz. Thatthe apostles could not have been persuaded to believe the resurrectionwith any evidence short of that recorded in the evangelists. "Here, "you say "lies the mistake if there be any;" and to this I agree. Wherethen is your argument against mine, on which so much depends? You haveattempted to bring none. But you say: "only suppose the resurrectionto have been actually believed, by any evidence, or circumstancewhatever, no matter what. " What argument is there sir, in this "_onlysuppose_?" I contend the thing is not supposable. It was as true inthat age of the world, that a fact naturally incredible requiresindubitable evidence to substantiate it, as it is now. I would allowthat it is supposable, that one man might, in a sort of a delirium, which generally throws the brain into a situation, by which, what onlyexists in the mind, appears a reality to the sense of sight, mightthink he saw Jesus after his crucifixion, when in fact he did not. ButI cannot allow it to be a supposable case that the whole elevenapostles should all become delirious at once and with them a numbermore, and all be persuaded against the prejudices of their minds, thatthey saw Jesus, and that at a number of times, and in diverse manners, when there was no such thing. But: 2d. Even allowing your supposition, your consequences would be veryunlikely to follow. You surely would not suppose that the apostlescould believe they saw Jesus when they did not, if they had the use oftheir reason properly. We must suppose them to have been insanethen. --What then would have been the consequences? Would the authorityhave put these mad-men to death? Would they have been persecuted atall for their misfortune? But these mad-men preached Jesus and theresurrection to the people, and so convinced them of the fact, thatmultitudes believed them, and on this supposition we are now to_suppose_ our religion was first established in the world! If we maysuppose such things, there are no absurdities that we may not suppose. You must suppose it to be a very dangerous thing to try a man for hislife by a jury of twelve men, for if the man was innocent of themurder for which he was indicted and no evidence was produced toconvict him on, these men might all be made to believe, some how, bysome circumstance, "no matter what, " that they all saw the murdercommitted by this very innocent person on trial. 5th. I thought of saying something on your suggestion of the necessityof miracles in some future time to convince the Jews that Jesus is theMessiah, but being a little more careful, than at first, I find youseem to give up this matter. You say: "considering the prejudices ofthe Jews, as a people, I cannot suppose that they will ever believe inJesus, as their promised Messias short of being convinced of its truthby a miracle; and should they return to the land of Palestine, andthere rebuild their temple, at Jerusalem, it would be such a clearfulfilment of the prophesy of Ezekiel, that it would be equal to amiracle, and do as much towards corroborating the truth of all theother prophecies. " If the return of the Jews, etc. Be equal tomiracles, then it may preclude their necessity. But as this particulardoes not immediately concern our general subject it is dismissed. 6th. As none of the evangelists have been particular respecting themeeting in Galilee, and as this was an appointment even before thecrucifixion, as well as afterward, it is fairly within the reach ofprobable conjecture, that this meeting was sufficiently numerous tojustify St. Paul's words. He does not speak of this matter as of asubject with which his acquaintance was small, for he says; "he wasseen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater partremain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. " He no doubt, had seen many of this great number and had been informed of thecircumstances of the occasion, and of the time when this multitude wasfavoured with this sight. To conclude; I heartily join with you in grateful acknowledgements, tothe Almighty disposer of events, for the manifestations of hisuniversal benevolence to his creatures, and especially unto man whomhe hath seen fit to induce with the attributes of his own nature, andconstituted him an heir of life and immortality. In view of this, Ican be thankful for any faithfulness discoverable in those who publishthe word of life, and endeavour to defend it in the spirit of meeknessand Christian love. And I will further add, that I feel a peculiar pleasure in findingyour mind to be somewhat divested of its incumberances, and that yourdoubts of the grounds of your precious faith, are dispersing more andmore from your mind, while the evidences of divine truth find asincere reception in your understanding. Let us endeavour to cherish, not only the evidences of truth, buttruth itself in our afflictions, and in room of being idlers in themarkets, go early into our Lord's vineyard trusting the words of himwho saith; "whatsoever is right, ye shall receive. " Yours, &c. H. BALLOU. * * * * * EXTRACTS No. X. "_Dear sir and brother_--In remarking on your reply to my 8th number, as in a former case I shall follow the arrangement which you havemade; taking up the articles in the same order. "1st. I did not suppose but that the method which I proposed toaccount for the absence of the body of Jesus would be liable toserious objections; and these objections are increased by connectingwith them, circumstances which, if the resurrection be false, must beconsidered equally false. Because, if the resurrection of Jesus wasnot a truth, whatever was the truth on which that belief was founded, must be now all mere conjecture. "There might be persons, however, who thought that Jesus suffereddeath very wrongfully although he never pretended literally to performthose miracles. Yea I conceive it possible that when this language wasfirst adopted, i. E. Of his feeding the hungry, opening the eyes ofthe blind, raising the dead, &c. It was not understood, nor meant tobe understood literally. Therefore although the account at first mighthave been _literally false_, though not so much so as what it grew tobe afterward, yet it might have been considered _spiritually true_;and therefore not designed absolutely to deceive. The only difficulty, i. E. The only irreconcilable difficulty, which I conceive in the case, is in supposing that the first disciples could be made to believe inthe resurrection, by any evidence which could have existed, and yetthe resurrection not to be true. But we must suppose this, I think, inorder to raise a reasonable doubt of the truth of the resurrection. For, if the disciples did not believe it, they could have had nointerest or motive, (or certainly no justifiable motive) in makingothers believe it; and without this, it is difficult to account evenfor the existence of such a report. I should not think it so strange, however, that others, after the report was once in circulation, andthat even St. Paul himself should have been made to believe this, merely by some visionary scene. "I think therefore the question may be reduced to this point. Which ofthe two is the most _incredible_, either that the first disciplesshould absolutely believe in the resurrection, by any evidence whichdid not grow out of this truth, or that the resurrection should havebeen absolutely true? "Here is where the two propositions, when reduced to their simplicitymust finally come. And I contend that when two propositions are thusclearly placed before the mind or understanding, whether the judgmentbe right or wrong, the mind or understanding must reject, yea it isimpossible to avoid rejecting, that which to the mind orunderstanding, is the most incredible. "But when we admit that the disciples did believe in the resurrection, we are not obliged to admit that they had all or any of the evidencesof that fact which have come down to us. This we may suppose mighthave been mostly or altogether fictitious; written by later hands, andattributed to the apostles. And here we must not suppose that theaccount was altogether made up at once, but grew gradually; and not tocome out in writing until the persons, who could either attest or denythe literal truth of these facts, were taken off of the stage. Here asit respects the records also, the same question again occurs. Which isthe most _incredible_ (not to _miraculous_, for one miracle is no moremiraculous, that I know of than another; I therefore say which is themost _incredible_) that such histories should have been thus, or insome other way got up, and be believed, altho' the various accounts, so far as they relate to miracles, and other circumstances necessaryto be taken into the account only for the sake of supporting the truthof those miracles, should have been altogether fictitious, and suchparts only true as could be accounted for in a rational way, withoutadmitting the existence of miracles; or that all those miracles, or atleast the most essential of them, should have been literally andabsolutely true? The answer to these two propositions, i. E. The abovequestions, will, and must, decide the whole controversy. "Now, were it not for the internal evidences which the writings of theNew Testament do, and ever will, possess (the external evidencesfalling so far short of being conclusive in my mind, as I shall showmore fully hereafter, when I come to speak of those evidences) Ishould still be inclined, in my own understanding, to reject thelatter proposition in each of the above questions, and adhere to theformer. --Much of the external evidence, I am very ready to admit isperfectly consistent with the supposed truth of the internal, butafter all, in my humble opinion, it does not quite come to the point. But the internal evidence, I confess, I cannot withstand. The more Iinvestigate the subject, the more I discover its force, its clearness, and its irresistibility; and although the truth it unfolds is soaugust, so momentous, so astonishingly and inexpressibly sublime, thatit is with the profoundest and most reverential awe I speak, when Iacknowledge my faith in the divine origin of those testimonies; yet, as I cannot resist their force, so I am obliged to acknowledge themtrue. The illusion, however, if it be one, I know is happifying to themind; but this is no good reason, that I know of, why we should eitherembrace it ourselves, or propagate it in the world. Although I haveendeavoured to calm my conscience, while meditating on my doubts, withthe consideration that I am not accountable for the truth or thefalsity of the scriptures; yet, I must confess, this did not fullysatisfy my mind; and therefore I come to a determination to be morethoroughly persuaded of their truth, if possible, or else be morethoroughly convinced of their fallacy. With this motive I entered onthe present controversy; and I feel very happy in its termination, having been much strengthened in my faith thereby, and humbly pray, that should it ever come before the public, it may be blest to thebenefit of others. "2d. What you have said on the divine mission, &c. Of the apostles issatisfactory. For although it has not fully come to my question, yetit has had the same good effect by convincing me that my question wenta little beyond the bounds of reason; for it was too much like askinga blind man how it is that other men see! It is not reasonable tosuppose that the apostles themselves could have informed persons whowere uninspired to their understanding, how or by what means, theywere inspired. It was sufficient to demonstrate the fact by the workswhich they were enabled to perform, (admitting the account true, ) inthe name of JESUS. "3d. My argument respecting a hope of future existence has beenextended rather beyond my design. Without taking up time torecapitulate, I will only say I admit the truth of your argument onthis subject; neither do I see how it stands altogether in oppositionto mine. What I contend for is this. The idea of non-existence, i. E. Of existing only in God, without retaining our individualconsciousness of being, does not, like the idea of endless misery, absolutely destroy our present comforts. It only cuts short, or elseprevents, future prospects. If it can be demonstrated, as I believe itcan, that God is good to the animal creation, in giving themexistence, on the supposition, that they have no future state, Icontend that man is equally, if not more abundantly blessed, even onthe same supposition. --But I never meant to contend that eternal lifewould not be still infinitely better, according to our conceptions ofgood, if true. To state a case, which will illustrate in some degreemy ideas of this subject, the following may come something nigh it;viz. I should be pleased with the idea of living, say, ten years, inreference only to the blessing of this life, although I might know Ishould die at that time, provided that, during the ten years, I shouldenjoy the common blessings of life. This does not prevent my desiringto live longer; neither does a certain knowledge that I shall notprevent me from desiring to live, nor from being pleased with the ideaof living, till that time. But let me know for a certainty, or, whichwould be the same thing to me, let me absolutely believe that I shouldlive fifty years, and that although the ten first would be attendedwith all the common blessings of life, as usual, yet that theremaining forty years, which would be the remaining whole of mynatural life, I should be placed in the most distressed and aggravatedcircumstances, of which I could possibly conceive; now, in referenceto the whole fifty years, could I desire to live? No! I say, I ratherchoose instant death! "When I look around on the circumstances and condition of men, I am sofully convinced that the aggregate of happiness so far overbalancesthe aggregate of misery, that I am firmly of opinion, yea, I do notentertain the least possible doubt of its truth, and therefore think Iever shall contend, that this life is a blessing, and we have abundantreason to be very thankful for it, without the least reference to afuture state. But, nevertheless, I am very ready to admit, that, whenfuturity and immortality are taken into the account, and are connectedwith the same view of the character of the Deity, these blessings areall extended and magnified to infinity. "But on the supposition that truth is any where connected with_endless misery_, the scene is wholly changed. On this supposition Iam not reconciled to truth at all; I can find nothing in my moralnature, which I call good, but what stands directly opposed to it;Hence, the very brightest and most brilliant part of the picture isdeformed by the awful idea; it takes away all the pleasure ofinvestigation, and if this be truth, my only desire and prayer to God, is that I might be permitted to remain eternally ignorant of it! It ismy confidence therefore in the goodness of the truth, and this only, which has reconciled my mind to it. You may contend that I have notobtained this confidence without the knowledge of divine revelation. Be that as it may; on this supposition only I am reconciled, andsomething must destroy this confidence before I can becomeunreconciled to truth. I think now I must be fully understood, andwill therefore add no more on this subject. "4th. What you say under the fourth article is satisfactory. Errors, no doubt, may be, and often are committed by applying instructions'differently from their primary design. ' "5th. Your remarks under the sixth article are very judicious. Muchinjury no doubt is often done to the truth of divine revelation bycontending so tenaciously as some do for things, which, if true, arenot essential to its support. --It is often the case that, by trying toprove too much, we weaken the evidence, in the minds of many, respecting the main thing we wish to establish. Hence, the opposer, not being able, or else not disposed, to make proper distinction, considers it all of one piece; and not being able to see the proprietyof many things, which are contended for with equal zeal, sets thewhole down as a fallacy. "6th. It is true, I thought you strained the argument a little too farin supposing that the apostles could not have been convinced of thetruth of the resurrection by any evidence which could becounterbalanced. This induced me to state that supposed absurdity instill more glaring colors, with a hope that you would thereby beinduced to take a review of your argument, and not without someexpectation, that you would be able to see some defects in it. But inthis I have been disappointed. You still hold on upon your argument, and turn the error wholly on your friend. "But, as this is the turning point, I shall not blame you forstraining every nerve, and holding on upon every fibre which gives youthe least possible support. "It would not do for you to give up the idea that the apostles couldnot have been convinced of the truth of the resurrection by anyevidence which could have existed short of the fact's being true;(which, by the way, was what I meant by the first member of mycriticism, though not exactly so expressed;) for the moment this isadmitted, doubt and unbelief will soon contend that they were soconvinced. Imagination may soon call up such evidence in the mind, without supposing any thing miraculous, and all the rest of theaccount may be supposed to be fictitious. I did not mean to insinuate, however, that you have contended that the apostles must have seenJesus rise in order to be convinced of the fact. I suppose theirseeing him after he was risen was as full a demonstration to them asthough they had seen him rise. And if they could not have beenconvinced of its truth by any thing short of this, then they could notbe convinced by any thing short of the fact; i. E. What was the same tothem as the fact. The second member of my criticism, viz. 'If the factdid exist there is no evidence which can counterbalance it, ' does not, as I conceive, suppose that you contend 'that the fact of theresurrection could not exist without proving itself to the apostles insuch a way that no evidence could counterbalance it;' but it supposesthat if the fact did exist, no evidence could prove that it did notexist, as it is always difficult to prove a negative, and utterlyimpossible when the positive is true. --Hence my conclusion; viz. Asthe apostles were convinced of the truth of the resurrection, whichthey could not have been only by evidence which could not have existedhad not the fact been true, the fact did exist. How far does thiscriticism fall short of my other? (for it is exactly what I meant bymy other. ) Or how far does it go beyond your argument? "Finally, I cannot conceive of any evidence that could sufficientlysupport the fact that Jesus who was crucified, did actually rise fromthe dead, if nothing could be brought to counterbalance it, that couldpossibly admit of being counterbalanced; and again: 'Thus we arebrought to the suggestion, that any evidence which could be sufficientto prove such a fact, if no evidence appeared against it, must be suchas admits, of no refutation. ' "Unless it may be reasonably supposed that the apostles were notabsolutely so guarded against an error of this kind as this argumentsuggests, I know of no way to withstand its force. And I am sure Ifeel no disposition to withstand it, even against probability. It isthe improbability of the fact it goes to prove, i. E. In my mind, thatever induced me to oppose it. "I shall now take notice of the external evidence in support of thetruth of divine revelation, which you have quoted from Paley in hisview of the evidences of christianity. "In your reply to my seventh number, you mentioned a quotation fromthe epistle of Barnabas, St. Paul's companion, in the following words, 'Let us therefore, beware lest it come upon us, _as it is written_, there are many called, few chosen. ' The object of this quotation is toprove that the gospel of Matthew (from which here is a quotation) waswritten before this epistle, and here appealed to as to a book ofdivine authority. And although it is perfectly consistent with such asupposition, yet there is great room to doubt whether such was thefact. Or, at least, there is room to conjecture that the gospel ofMatthew might have been written before this epistle, and yet notwritten till after the destruction of Jerusalem. "Speaking of the writers of this period, Dr. Priestly observes[7] 'Theoldest work of the age, if it had been genuine, is that which goes bythe name of _The epistle of Barnabas_. Whoever was the author of thisepistle, it was probably written soon after the destruction ofJerusalem. --It abounds with interpretations of the Old Testament whichdiscover more of imagination, than judgement. ' By this you willperceive that the authority of this epistle is doubtful. I should alsohave gathered the same idea, from what Paley himself says, whose workI have examined, on this subject, since I wrote my last number. Itmight have been written at a much later period than what is supposedand palmed upon Barnabas; and therefore does not, as was supposed, absolutely prove that the gospel of Matthew was written prior to thedestruction of Jerusalem. It seems that christians of a later periodwere in the habit of palming works upon their predecessors; or inother words, writing in their name. After speaking of the epistle ofClemens, Priestly observes (p. 301) there is extant another epistleascribed to this Clemens, but it is evidently spurious, and wasprobably written in the middle of the third century. Several otherwritings were palmed upon him also, especially the _ApostolicalConstitution_ and the _Clementine homilies_. The epistle of Barnabas, it seems, is first quoted by Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194. Thiscertainly gives room for my conjecture for aught which appears to thecontrary, it might have been written a whole century after the days ofthe apostles. [Footnote 7: Ch. Hist. Vol. I. P. 200. ] "The next which Paley mentions is an epistle written by Clement, bishop of Rome. This is the same which Priestly calls _Clemens_. 'Thisepistle, ' he says, 'was held in the highest esteem by all christians, and, like the scriptures, was publicly read in many churches. ' In thisepistle of _Clement_, you say, 'he quotes Matt. V. 7. Xviii. 6. ' Buthow does he quote those passages? Not as the writing of Matthew, butas the words of 'our Lord. ' Although this therefore, as I have beforesuggested, is perfectly consistent with the supposed truth, it fallsfar short, in my mind, of proving that the gospel of Matthew, waswritten before this epistle. Clement or Clemens might have writtenthis by tradition even if he had never seen the gospel of Matthew, orany other. It only proves that these words in the gospel and those inthe epistle were indebted to the same original source, viz. The wordsof Jesus. I am not disposed to dispute, however, the genuineness ofthis epistle. 'It is an earnest dissuasive, ' says Priestly, 'from thespirit of faction, which appeared in the church of Corinth, and which, indeed, was sufficiently conspicuous when Paul wrote his epistles. ' "'Another work of doubtful authority, ' says Priestly, 'is _theShepherd of Hermes_, by some thought to be that Hermes who ismentioned by Paul in his epistle to the Romans; but by others supposedto be either spurious, or to have been written by a later Hermes, orrather Hermes, brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, about the year 140. Whoever was the author of this work (and though it was so muchesteemed by many christians, as to be publicly read in their churches)it is certainly a very poor performance. ' If this work therefore be ofso late a date, as, according to this account, it may be, and, fromall which appears to the contrary, we may presume it is, as the firstquotation of it is by Irenaeus, A. D. 178, it falls short of the proofwe want. "The same observations will apply to the allusions to the gospels inthe epistles of _Ignatius_, as was mentioned in regard to the epistleof _Clement_. They are not literal quotations, and therefore mighthave been only traditions. I consider them no certain proof that thegospels were written previous to this time, though it is very naturalto suppose _that_ to have been the fact. The same will apply to theepistle of _Polycarp_, as we know not exactly what was meant at thattime by the scriptures; neither do allusions to certain passages inthe scriptures, especially such as the words of Jesus, prove theexistence of those scriptures at that time. "In the time of Eusebius there were extant _five books of Papias, bishop of_ Hierapolis in Syria, of _the interpretation of the divineoracles_. 'Papias, ' says Priestly, 'was a great collector of thesayings of the apostles; and one of the traditions preserved by himwas that, after the resurrection, Christ would reign upon earth athousand years, an opinion which, from his authority, was longrespected by many. '[8] Papias, it seems, is the first who speaks ofthe gospels by name, and he mentions only Matthew and Mark. That allthe gospels, however, existed in his day, and also bore the nameswhich they now do, I should not be disposed to dispute; neither isthere any thing to contradict the idea of their being written by thepersons reputed to be the authors of them. [Footnote 8: Ch. Hist. Vol. I. P. 203 Euseb. Hist. Lib. Iii. Cap. 39p. 135. ] "But, supposing a few of these first bishops had taken it into therheads, having succeeded so well, during a little respite frompersecution, in consequence of those troublesome times at thedestruction of Jerusalem, as to get appointed to their respectiveoffices, and thinking it would lead greatly to their future success, Isay, supposing they had taken it into their heads to write the fourgospels and the acts of the apostles themselves, embracing all thetraditions, which they knew, of the apostles, dressed up in thefigurative style in which those things, even from the first, had beenreported, together with many fictions of their own. And that they didwrite these books in the name of the apostles; who would be likely, orwould be able, to contradict them? Or supposing, without any previousconcert, some one should have written the gospel of Matthew; another, after having seen it, should write one in the name of Mark; a third, who had seen them both, should write that of Luke, and the acts of theapostles; and a fourth should write that of John. --These, of course, would make their first appearance at different times, and in differentparts of the country; or, in other words, in different countries. Somestory or other might have been got up, in regard to their firstdiscovery, which should go currently with the common people, andwhich, after the works were received as canonical, would of course bedone away. "As a justification of the above hypothesis (which I am very sensibleis not without its difficulties) in addition to what have said inregard to the writings palmed upon Clemens, I will mention thefollowing from Priestly's Ch. Hist. Vol. Ii. P. 412. It appears tohave been a quotation from Sozomen, by Socrates, Lib. Vii. Chap. 19, p. 307. '_The revelation of Peter_, which is rejected as a spuriousbook by the ancients, is read once every year in some churches inPalestine on good Friday, which is a religious fast in commemorationof our Lord's sufferings. The book that is called the _revelation ofthe apostle Paul_, which was unknown to the ancients, is greatlycommended by many of the monks. Some say that this book was firstfound in the reign of Theodosius. For they say that in the house ofPaul at Tarsus, there was a marble chest in a subterraneous place, inwhich this book was deposited, and that it was discovered by aparticular revelation. ' "Any work of this kind, got up at so late a period as that of thereign of Theodosius, would not be likely to be generally receivedamong the churches; yet if it could be received by any, why might nota similar work, or similar works, which made their appearance so soonafter the apostles, as might well be supposed to have been written bythem and when too, the churches were few in number, without the leastsuspicion of fraud, have been received by all? Or if any fraud hadbeen suspected, yet, believing in the main thing which all these weredesigned to support, those frauds whatever they _were_, might havebeen considered really _pious_! "But, sir, you will perceive that I am not altogether pleased, norfully satisfied, with this argument. I know it has its difficulties;but the question is, whether it has greater than the one which it isbrought to oppose? The question is _not_, whether these things lookprobable? For I acknowledge they do not look probable. But thequestion is, which is the most _incredible_; either that the abovehypothesis, or something like it, should be true; or else that theextraordinary miracles, related in the books referred to, should betrue? If there were no better evidence in favor of the miracles thanthat which I have been examining, I should be obliged to decideagainst the latter, let me think what I might respecting the former. The most that we can say of this testimony is, it does not contradictthe truth of those histories, but, so far as it goes, it is perfectlyconsistent with the truth of the main question. The weight of thistestimony therefore, whatever it is, seems to be on the side of thetruth of christianity. "But what carries the most conviction to my mind is _not_ who wrotethose books; not the manner in which they have been handed down to us, nor in which they can now be traced to the apostles; but the manner inwhich the _story itself is_ told. It must be confessed that, exceptinga few things, which may be supposed to have been early interpolations, it carries in it all the internal marks of TRUTH. When this isadmitted, we must also admit the propriety of bringing in theseexternal evidences as auxiliaries; and when we find that they also, instead of being contradictory _to_, are perfectly consistent _with_the supposed truth, they add _not a little_ to the weight oftestimony. Hence we find that our faith is strengthened by theconsideration of circumstances, which would not have been sufficient, in themselves alone, to have originated, or produced, that faith. Thequestion may be still asked, why do you now believe? To which I givethis plain and simple answer. It is because, notwithstanding the_incredibility_ of the miracles of Christ, and of the apostles, andthe resurrection, the truth of which these miracles go to confirm andsubstantiate; yet, the idea that this story should ever have been toldin the manner it is, without having truth for its foundation, in spiteof all my _incredibility_, is still more _incredible_! And it is myhumble opinion that whoever will give themselves the trouble, to paythe same attention to the subject, must be of the same opinion: for, Iam inclined to think that no one has been more predisposed tounbelief. Not that I ever felt any real opposition to the truth of theholy scriptures, as I now understand them, but I did not wish to bedeceived. I had rather that my hopes and expectations should never beraised, than to have them raised upon a fruitless or spuriousfoundation. "But after all, it will be perceived that I make no pretensions to a_miraculous_, or _mysterious_, conversion. My conversion, whatever itis, is altogether rational. It grows out of the evidence which Iplainly have before my eyes. And it is my humble opinion that thosewho pretend to such conversions ought to be able to confirm the sameby miracles, the same as the truth was first confirmed; and unlessthey can do it, it ought to be considered as nothing more than mere_pretension_. --According to the ideas of some, and of much too of thatwhich is termed _orthodox_, every conversion is as much a _miracle_ aswas the resurrection of Christ. But as this is a fact, which if true, is entirely out of sight of the unconverted, and of which they canform no conception, nor judge of it in any sense whatever, is it notreasonable that they should have a demonstration of its truth, by somefact, of the truth of which they can judge, that they may know thatthe work is of God? And until we have such demonstration, may we notconsider all such pretensions to be of men? "With these remarks I hasten to a _CONCLUSION_. "In taking leave of this subject, considering it probable that theseletters will, at some future time, come before the public, it is butjust that I should more fully avow my motives in this controversy. Youwill have perceived, all along, the ground on which I stood. I haveendeavoured to personate an honest inquirer after truth; but one whowas filled with doubts concerning every thing of which there is notpositive demonstration. How far I have acted up to such a character, you and the public can best judge. "I thought, however, I should be the most likely to do this, bybringing those objections, and these only, which, at one time oranother, have occupied my own mind. But, that the controversy mightnot appear as a mere _farce_, or like a man raising objections againsthimself (in which case he generally takes care to raise none but whathe thinks he can answer) and that I might engage all your interest andenergy on the subject, I have carried the idea, through the whole, both by my letters and by my private conversation with you during thetime (as you very well know) that those objections were now laboringin my mind with all their force. I have therefore endeavoured todispute every inch of ground, and give way only as I found myselfobliged to give way, by the force of your arguments. That I have notacted my part better must be imputed to want of ability and not towant of good will. I have endeavoured to throw every block in your waywhich I could think of, without deviating from the character which Ihad assumed; and that I have not made your task more arduous, isbecause I did not see how I could do it without betraying a manifestdishonesty on my part. The result is such as I anticipated. "My real motive must be my only apology for the part I have taken. Youknow that no work of the kind has ever been really and seriouslyattempted by any one who is avowedly of our order; that our religiousopponents are continualiy throwing the gauntlet of aspersions at us, as being nothing more than mere pretenders to christianity, but inreality, _Deists_ in disguise. To repel, therefore, those charges, aswell as to let the unbelieving world know our views on this subject, Ithought a work of this kind was really needed. And it appeared to methat the work, in the first place, would be more likely to be read, and, in the end, more sure of success, to have it come forth by theway of controversy, than what it would in any other way. "It is true, I may not have brought all the objections which somewould wish to have brought; but if what I have brought are so farremoved as not to remain a serious obstacle in the mind of candidreaders (which I conclude will be the case, with others, as it is withme) then all objections may be as easily removed. "That this work may be an instrument, in the hands of God, of removingthe prejudices from the minds of many of our religious opponents, ofstrengthening the faith of many who are wavering, and, as it were, halting between two opinions, and of calling up the attention of thosewho, like Gallis, 'care for none of these things, ' is the sincereprayer of: "Yours in the bonds of the gospel. "A. KNEELAND. " * * * * * LETTER IX. _Dear sir, and brother_, --A careful perusal of your tenth number hasgiven me much satisfaction, and seems to suggest that my reply may begeneral. You discover the rational ground on which your scruples areremoved, and state no difficulty that you do not surmount. I agree with you, that the gloomy doctrine of eternal misery, when bythe imagination it becomes incorporated into the system of divinerevelation, "reverses the whole scene, " and renders that, which in itsdivine and native beauty possesses the most powerful attractions, themost deformed picture that ever repelled the human affections. It isthis heaven-dishonouring doctrine, so repugnant to and irreconcilablewith the known goodness of God manifested to all nations in his divineprovidence, that has, more than any thing else, so buffeted all thebest feelings of man, as in thousands of instances to drive the heartof benevolence to lay aside the scriptures to whose authority thisunmerciful doctrine has been erroneously ascribed. But let the scriptures be once considered as free from the abovehorrible sentiment as in reality they are, they will then perfectlycorrespond with the demonstrations of universal benevolence and grace, rendered conspicuous in all the ways of God; they will also compare asa perfect transcript of that inward light and love which renders manan image of his ever adorable Creator. As the christian church emerges from the city of mystery Babylon andits suburbs, and advances into the light of the wisdom of God, thedoctrine above mentioned loses its influence and its votaries; norwill it be in the power of our self-styled orthodox clergy, long tochain the public mind to such a forbidding absurdity. Nothing discovers the deplorable state of depravity, to which thehuman mind is subject, by force of tradition, more than the unnaturaland absurd notion of enhancing future bliss, by beholding fellowcreatures of the nearest connexion in a state of indescribable misery, there to remain time without end! It seems to us astonishing that parents were ever capable of causingtheir children to pass through the fire to an idol, but what is thiscompared with what our pious fathers and mothers have believedconcerning their children's sufferings in the eternal world, for theglory of that God who is the Father of the spirits of all flesh? Tradition makes the most horrible things acceptable to the mind whichbecomes blind to their deformity, and even the most detestable things, desirable, by a certain feigned sanctity which it attaches to them. But the charm once broken, the rational mind becomes transformed intoanother image, totally different, and entirely repugnant to the thingswhich it before venerated as divine. You very justly remark, that iftruth be in any way connected with endless misery, you are notreconciled to it; but the time has been when you and I viewed thisdoctrine as an essential article of the faith of the gospel. What anabsurdity! Eternal misery an essential article of the faith of aSaviour! And this very moment there are thousands who set their feet on thisvagary, believing it to be the only rock of safety. But we have reason to be thankful for our happy deliverance from sucha pernicious tradition; a tradition which has poisoned the doctrine ofthe church, and hardened the hearts of Christian professors to such adegree, that cruelty of the worst kind has become habitual. Will our _pious clergy_ contend against this charge? Let them accountthen for all the persecutions, the anathemas, the hangings and theburnings, which owe their origin to this doctrine of eternal misery. Let them account for their own sermons, in our day, which sentenceage, middle age, and infancy to endless torture, for offences theynever heard of, nor will they ever be informed of them until they findthemselves in hell for what a man and a woman did thousands of yearsbefore they were born, and of whom they never had heard one word inthe land of the living! This they as constantly preach as they contendthat man must be sensible of his fall in Adam, of the justice of hisbeing eternally miserable for that offence, and of pardon through theatonement of Christ in this life, or be miserable forever hereafter;for thousands in all ages have lived and died who never heard thisabsurd story while on earth. Sir, we have no reason to wonder that religion is so little set by, while it is held up in such a character. Let it put on the mild formof the meek and humble Jesus, let it appear in the mercy of him whosaid "the son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to savethem, " let it be represented by its own similitude, by pouring oil andwine into the wounds of an enemy, let it be heard when it declares inapostolic language, God "will have all men to be saved, and to comeunto the knowledge of the truth, " let its language be strictlyregarded when it informs us that charity is greater than faith orhope, then it will be pure and undefiled before God and the Father; itwill engage the best affections of the human heart, and call to itsdevotion all the energies of man. Who can count the damages which havebeen occasioned by the preposterous error of setting up _faith_ as acriterion of _charity_? Creed makers and creed defenders surely musthave been averse to St. Paul's sentiment concerning the superiority ofcharity over faith; for they have sat charity at defiance withundefined items in their creeds, which were acknowledged mysterious intheir own minds, and evidently repugnant to reason in the judgment ofthose who were proscribed as heretics by their authority. Relative to my quotations from the epistle of Barnabas and others, your argument, as far as it is intended to lessen our belief in thegenuineness of these epistles, has no direct bearing on the argumentwhich I endeavoured to support by them; for it makes no difference_who wrote_ those epistles, it is their containing quotations from theNew Testament which gives them the consequence for which they werequoted. In reply to what you say respecting Clement's not quoting Mat. V. 7, xviii. 6. As the writing of St Matthew, but as the words of "ourLord, " I here set down Paley's answer. "It may be said, that, as Clement hath not used words of quotation, itis not certain that he refers to any book whatever. The words ofChrist, which he has put down, he might himself have heard from theapostles, or might have received them through the ordinary medium oforal tradition. This has been said; but that no such inference can bedrawn from the absence of words of quotation is proved by the threefollowing considerations:--First, that Clement in the very samemanner, namely, without any mark of reference, uses a passage nowfound in the epistle to the Romans;[9] which passage from thepeculiarity of the words which compose it, and from their order, it ismanifest that he must have taken from the book. The same remark may berepeated of some very singular sentiments in the epistle to theHebrews. Secondly, that there are many sentences of St. Paul's epistleto the Corinthians standing in Clement's epistle without any sign ofquotation, which yet are certainly quotations; because it appears thatClement had St. Paul's epistle before him, inasmuch as in one place hementions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt--'Take intoyour hands the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul. ' Thirdly, thatthis method of adopting words of scripture, without reference oracknowledgment, was, as will appear in the sequel, a method in generaluse among the most ancient christian writers. These analogies not onlyrepel the objection, but cast the presumption on the other side; andafford a considerable degree of positive proof that the words inquestion have been borrowed from the places of scripture in which wenow find them. "[10] [Footnote 9: Rom. I. 29. ] [Footnote 10: Paley's Evidences, p. 109, 110. ] I think, if we take into consideration the authority of externalevidence, especially if we duly consider how easily Celsus couid haveoverthrown the gospels, if they had not been genuine, it must beacknowledged sufficient, even of itself, to establish any matter offact however important, allowing no natural improbability wereinvolved in the fact. And this is as much as we want of externalevidence, of the sort refered to. But as even the internal evidences of scripture would be insufficientto support their authority without the concurrence of externalevidence, so would the external be found wanting without the internal. But these together are abundantly sufficient to establish thecredibility of this gospel, which is, like every thing else of thework and wisdom of God, the wonder and admiration of the believingsoul. The purity of your motives in writing on the subject of ourdiscussion, will fully justify the exertions you have made to drawforth such arguments as your brother has been enabled to adduce insupport of our common faith. I regret that my almost constant employon other subjects and other duties, has afforded so little time as Ihave been able to devote to your queries, which, together with my wantof abilities to do justice to a subject of this importance is now anembarrassment on my mind in regard to giving my consent to thepublication of this correspondence. And there is still anothercircumstance which seems to operate as an objection to the publishingof these letters, viz. The want of _extension of argument_ in manyinstances, which would have been attended to, if the work had beenwritten for the conviction of common readers, which was not thought tobe necessary for the benefit of the mover of the queries. However, as all human productions are imperfect and ought so to beconsidered, and especially those from your humble servant, I amwilling to appear to some disadvantage if any considerable advantagemay thereby result to the cause of Jesus Christ our Lord. I cannot close this valedictory epistle without a solemnacknowledgement of heart felt gratitude to the merciful disposer ofall events, for the ample evidence which his providence and grace havegiven of the truth of our religion, especially when consider theglorious hope set before us; and am permitted to anticipate thepromised era when there shall be no more death, neither sorrow norcrying; when there shall be no more pain; but when tears shall bewiped from all faces, and the rebuke of the nations removed from offall the earth, and every creature in heaven, and on the earth, andunder the earth, and such as are in the sea shall harmoniously ascribeblessing, and glory, and honor unto him who sitteth upon the throneand unto the lamb forever and ever, I loose myself in thecontemplation of the transporting scene. To conclude, as you, my brother, have laboured together with yourfellow servant, to look into, and examine these things which belong tothe kingdom of righteousness, and as we have been favoured with mutualsatisfaction in these researches, may it please the Great Head of thechurch still to hold us in his hand, still to engage us in his blessedcause, and render our mutual labours promotive of his grace among men. And however distant from each other it may best suit the captain ofour salvation to place us, may it be his pleasure to continue ourfellowship in the bonds of the gospel. Yours affectionately, H. BALLOU. * * * * * A SERIES OF LETTERS, BETWEENTHE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER, D. D. THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON, A. M. PASTORS OF CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES IN PORTSMOUTH, N. H. AND THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU. A SERIES OF LETTERS LETTER I. FROM THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU. PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 28, 1809. _Dear Sir_, --At the close of the interview which we had at my house, some little time since, you expressed a wish to live in habits offriendship with the ministers of this town, and I think I expressed ahope that I should be always disposed to treat you and all men withthose fruits of benevolence and friendship which the law of our commonnature and the spirit and principles of the Christian religion, demandof me; with this profession, without its fruits, my conscience is notsatisfied. It was neither friendship nor piety that dictated thatearly question, "_Am I my brother's keeper_?"--There is a reciprocalresponsibility among mankind, both for the interest of time andeternity. Were I to see you or any others exposing themselves todanger, or running into situations that I apprehend would beprejudicial and destructive, friendship would require me to warn andadmonish, and endeavour to restrain; and can I support my pretensionsto this principle in withholding my warning and admonition, while I amverily persuaded that the present tendency and final issue of thatsystem of sentiments which you have embraced, and which you have comeamong us to advocate and to support, will expose you, and those thatembrace and build upon it, to danger and distress, with which notemporal calamity or ruin can bear any sort of comparison? I know not what system of Universalism you have embraced or advocate, nor is it of any material consequence in my view; I presume I do notmistake or injure you in supposing that you publicly preach andadvocate the final salvation of all mankind, their restoration andassociation with Jesus Christ in realms of glory. Whatever humaningenuity or plausible and sophistic reasoning may do with respect toeither of these systems, they each and all of them are, in my view, destitute of divine authority, and have not a "thus saith the Lord, "for their support. There may be some little difference in the present tendency and effectof these different systems upon the present conduct of men, and soupon the interest of society; but in their general influence, and intheir final results, they meet in the same point, and will be attendedwith the same dreadful consequences. They are neither of them true, and so can have no effect in quickening into life or sanctifying thesoul, for it is the _spirit_ that _quickeneth_, and the _truth_ that_sanctifieth_; they may exhilarate, please, and produce triumph; butit will be a triumphing that is short, and a joy that is but for amoment; for God, to my apprehension, has been so far from giving anycountenance to either of those systems, that he hath long agopronounced them false, and their tendency destructive--these are hiswords:"_Because with lies ye have made the hearts of the righteoussad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of thewicked, that he should not return from his wicked way by promising himlife_. " But it is not my intention to enter into a dispute upon thissubject, neither to enlarge upon arguments to support my ownsentiments, nor to disprove yours; I have no apprehension that anygood would result from it; it would be a tax upon time that might bebetter employed. When persons have adopted a system and are engaged in its support, when the pride of peculiarity or the influence of party views areenlisted as auxiliaries, there is little ground to hope for aconviction of its errors by formal disputation, however temperatelyconducted; nothing will effect a change of views and feelings but"_that still small voice_" which induced the prophet to wrap his facein his mantle. This voice is more likely to attend our calm, retiredreflections, than the perusal of arguments that tend to disprove whatwe have been accustomed to advocate and support. The object of this letter is not to revile, to censure, nor todispute; but, in friendship and affection, to entreat you to reflectand consider the consequences to yourself and others of that system ofsentiments which you are advocating--anticipate the day of judgment, and realize yourself called upon to give an account of yourstewardship. I am not disposed, my dear sir, to impeach your sincerityand honesty. I know how far men may be deluded and deceived. I amdisposed to believe that you conscientiously think the sentiments youadvocate are true. But remember, dear sir, this does not make themtrue, nor secure you from the dreadful consequences in which they mayissue. With all this moral sincerity and uprightness, if you cease towarn the wicked, that he turn from his wicked way (and how can this bemore effectually done than by leading him to expect final, everlastinghappiness) his blood will be required at your hands. The apostle Paulmost conscientiously persecuted the christians and declared to thecouncil before whom he was arraigned, that he had lived in all goodconscience before God till that day. He verily thought he ought to domany things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, yet hispersuasion did not acquit him from guilt, nor would it have shieldedhim from destruction had he not been renewed to repentance and faithin Christ, while as yet Christ was in the way with him. Christ said tohis disciples, "The time will come when whosoever killeth you willthink he doth God's service;" and he has added, "many will say untome, in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, andin thy name cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderfulworks? then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from meye that work iniquity. " What must be your situation in the day ofretribution if the system you advocate should in final evidence provefalse? of which I have not the least shadow of doubt upon my mind, andtherefore have all the forebodings for my erring and deceived fellowmortals which may be supposed to be the result of such conviction. --Icannot cease to warn and to entreat you to consider, friendshipforbids, my withholding the voice of warning and adjuration; and bothduty and respect to my own safety require me to endeavour to save youfrom the issue, of which I have such awful forebodings. We must bothstand before the Son of man, and each one must give an account ofhimself and of his stewardship to God. --From our connextion here, there will probably be some interest in each other in that day; and Icannot bear the thought of your being able to say when the scheme ofUniversalism shall all vanish like the baseless fabric of a vision, and all the hopes built upon it will be like the spider's web and likethe giving up of the ghost, that you should be able to say, I neverwarned you of this issue, nor admonished you of your danger. I know not with what sentiments you will receive this address, norwhat use you may make of it; my concern is with the sentiments andspirit that dictate it. I think they are such as will induce mecontinually to pray that you may not pierce yourself through with manysorrows, nor be left to mourn at the last. Your friend and humble servant, J. BUCKMINSTER. * * * * * LETTER II. FROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER. PORTSMOUTH, JAN'Y. 1, 1810. _Rev. Sir_, --The receipt of your affectionate, friendly address, bearing date December 28, 1809, is gratefully acknowledged, andalthough I have not words fully adequate to express the satisfaction Ifeel arising from the circumstance and spirit of your epistle, Icannot be willing to suppress my feelings so much as not to notice, that it is with uncommon pleasure that I appreciate your favour, which, I am happy to acknowledge, is a demonstration of thatfriendship first reciprocated at your house, and secondlyrecapitulated in your epistle. This friendship founded, as you justlyobserve, in the _law_ of our _common nature_ and in the _spirit_ and_principles_ of the _christian religion_, is such an inexhaustibletreasure of moral riches that the aggregate sum of earthly wealth ispoverty in the comparison. This friendship, sir, being founded on such principles, willundoubtedly last as long as such principles remain; and if you are myreal friend on the principle of the law of our common nature, so longas you possess the law of our common nature, you will be my realfriend; and if you are my real friend, on the principles and spirit ofthe christian religion, so long as you possess the principles andspirit of the christian religion, you will remain my real friend. Andif I be, as I trust in God I am, your real friend, on thoseimperishable principles, I shall continue to possess this friendshipfor you so long as I possess those principles. If these observationson friendship be correct, as I conceive they are, you will know why Iso highly prize the treasure, especially when I find it in a mancapable of exercising it to so much advantage as your learning, ability and experience enable you to do. You justly observe thatneither piety nor friendship dictated the question, "Am I my brother'skeeper?" How different must have been the spirit which dictated thatquestion from the spirit of him who saith, I will declare thy nameunto my brethren, my mother's children were angry with me, they mademe the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard have I not kept? Your next observation is highly worthy, not only of generalconsideration, but of particular notice; and I am the more pleasedwith it on account of its falling from your pen as I am sure you mustunderstand the truths which are necessarily connected with the oneexpressed in the observation; your words are, "there is a reciprocalresponsibility among mankind both for the interest of time andeternity. " As it cannot reasonably require any argument to discoverthe propriety of supposing that the eternal interest of mankind isconnected with eternal causes and predicated on eternal principles, sowhen it is acknowledged that a reciprocal responsibility exists amongmankind for their eternal interest, it is evident that this reciprocalresponsibility is eternal. Should any conviction of mind render itnecessary that we give up the idea of the eternal nature of thisreciprocal responsibility, that conviction would drive the idea ofeternal interest, predicated on such responsibility from our mind. Hownoble are your sentiments communicated in this observation! How richmust you and I feel in the enjoyment of such reciprocal principles andin the consequent interest arising from them; not only for time, butfor eternity! You very justly observe again--"Were I to see you or any othersexposing themselves to danger or running into situations which Iapprehended would be destructive, friendship would require me to warnand admonish, and to endeavour to restrain. " These expressions, sir, illustrate the good fruits of real friendship, and as our Saviour hastold us that the tree is known by its fruits, so we are to distinguishbetween real and pretended friends by their fruits. Suppose, sir, wemove the position a little, and say, notwithstanding you warn me andendeavour to restrain me from danger, I persist in my error, and mycalamity comes upon me; in this situation you come and tell me thatyou are heartily glad that I am tormented, and that you are glad tothink there is no probability of my misery's being any less; that youfeel no pity for me now; could I look back and remember your warning, and believe that you warned me out of real friendship? We have justseen that friendship predicated on the law of our common nature and onthe principles and spirit of the Christian religion must necessarilybe as durable as those eternal principles. It is no less thecharacteristic of real friendship to endeavour to meliorate than topreserve from sufferings. On observing your admonitions, and believing you sincere in them, I amled to say, that had I such a friend as you are who possessed themeans for making me eternally happy, I might entertain no doubt ofobtaining the inestimable enjoyment; nor do I view you, sir, less afriend because you do not possess a power which is equal to theputting of all your friendly desires into full execution, but willacknowledge you my worthy friend, and accept the warnings which yougive me against the system of doctrine which, as you say, I haveembraced and come among this people to advocate, as a token of thatfriendship which would, if connected with suitable power, place me outof all final danger, or which would cause you to rejoice exceedingly, had you the evidence to believe that one who has such power possesseseven stronger desires for my eternal welfare than you do. You inform me that you do not know what system of Universalism I haveembraced. Permit me, sir, to inform you, though you do not request it, that I have embraced the system of Universalism, which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob embraced, in believing God, who said, "In thee shall all thefamilies of the earth be blessed; and in thy seed shall all thenations of the earth be blessed. " If this faith of Abraham wereimputed to him for righteousness, it must be a true faith, and iftrue, worthy to be embraced by all nations and families of the earth, without the exception of an individual. Permit me further to observethat I disclaim all authors as divine guides, except the divine authorof those scriptures which cannot be broken. You rightly apprehend me in supposing that I believe and teach thatall mankind will be saved, restored and associated with Christ Jesusin realms of glory; but I do not believe as you intimate, that humaningenuity, or plausible and sophistic reasoning are necessary to thesupport of this doctrine among men; nor will I attempt to say howsorry I am that you should declare the doctrine not true until you hadproduced a "_thus saith the Lord_" to prove it false; or that youshould intimate that I am employing human ingenuity or plausible andsophistic reasoning to support the universal benevolence of God untilthe disagreeable circumstance should transpire, in which I might bejustly thus charged. Although in order to please myself, I might explain your meaning asdirected against some others of the advocates of the heavenly gospelof universal salvation; I could find but little satisfaction in thusendeavoring to avoid any reproach which is directed against the truedisciples of my divine Master. You inform me that as universal salvation is not true, "it can have noeffect in quickening into life or of sanctifying the soul, for it isthe spirit that quickeneth, and the truth, which sanctifies. " If, dearsir, you do not believe that the spirit of salvation quickeneth intolife, would it not have been proper to inform me what spirit does? AndI should have highly esteemed an illustration of the evidence whichyou have, that the truth, _that mankind will remain eternallyunsanctified_, will sanctify the soul! I fully believe that as far asany proposition is capable of being proved from the written word, orof being demonstrated by logical reasoning from acknowledged facts, the doctrine of the salvation of all men is capable of being provedand substantially maintained. Does it require human ingenuity orplausible and sophistic reasoning to make it appear from thescriptures that Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death forevery man; that he gave himself a ransom for all to be testified indue time; that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world;that it is the will of God that all men should be saved and come tothe knowledge of the truth; that he worketh all things after thecouncil of his own will?--Does it require this ingenuity, &c. Tosubstantiate from the written word that the promise to Abraham will befulfilled, and that all nations whom God hath made shall come andworship before him and glorify his name; that Jesus will in thefulness of time, reconcile all things unto himself, whether they bethings in heaven or things on earth, or things under the earth; thathe will gather together in one all things in Christ both which are inheaven and which are on earth, even in him? If it be an acknowledgedfact that God will bless all the families of the earth in Christ, thatall nations which God hath made shall come and worship before him andglorify his name, that Jesus gave himseif a ransom for all men to betestified in due time, that he did by the grace of God taste death forevery man, that he will have all men to be saved and come to theknowledge of the truth, that he hath made known the mystery of hiswill according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he would gathertogether in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven andwhich are on earth, and that he worketh all things after the councilof his own will, then the doctrine of the salvation of all men is asfully acknowledged as language can possibly express, or my error liesin not understanding the force of words and sentences. By what method, sir, would it be proper for me to express my surpriseat your introducing the words recorded in the 13th chapter of Ezekiel, and at the 22d verse, as a testimony against the doctrine of universalsalvation? "Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteoussad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of thewicked that he should not turn from his wicked way by promising himlife;"--Must I suppose, sir, that you believe, that the lies mentionedin this quotation were promises of life in the seed of Abraham, inwhom all the families of the earth are to be blessed? I cannot believethis of a man of your understanding, and yet cannot conceive why youadduce this passage as proof that Christ is not the life of all men. Is it not evident that those who were addressed in that text were suchas promised the people life in the vain traditions which they hadestablished, by which they made void the law? And what does the Lordsay that he would finally do in this case?--See verse 23d, "Thereforeye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations; for I willdeliver my people out of your hands, and ye shall know that I am theLord. " This is very far from saying that they should be endlesslymiserable. Christ is the Lord our righteousness, and his heart wasmade sad by the traditions of the house of Israel and by the Rabbiswho promised the people life in their vain customs which they hadestablished for religion: and I would acknowledge this passage justlyurged against the doctrine which I should vindicate, should I set upany thing but Christ and him crucified, on which to depend for lifeand salvation; but you leave this quotation as if you had done whatyou hardly meant to do, by observing that you do not intend to enterinto a dispute on this subject, neither to enlarge on arguments tosupport your own sentiments nor to disprove mine. You think that no good would result from the argument howevertemperately conducted it might be, assigning the pride of peculiarity, and the influence of party views as sufficient barriers to preventsuccess. In this observation may I say without offending, sir, you areinexplicit, or wanting in propriety, and premature in application. Temperate men are not governed in their religious researches by thepride of peculiarity nor the influence of party views, and a faithfultrial ought to have been made in order to convince of error before thecharge of _pride of peculiarity_, or the influence of party views, could with propriety have been made. I am disposed to believe whenpersons are candid and temperate in an investigation, they generallyobtain light and edification. I will say for myself, notwithstanding Ihighly prize your solemn warnings, and believe them as proceeding fromthe most commendable sentiments of friendship, I should have been muchpleased if you had accompanied them with the best and most forciblearguments of which you are master, against the doctrine which you aredisposed to say in so many words "_it not true_. " The small stillvoice to which you recommended my attention has never told me thatChrist was not the Saviour of all men. May we not suppose that this voice is uniform in its testimony? Dotell me, sir, if that voice ever told you that it was not the will ofGod that all men should be saved! Is it not by the influence of thespirit of this voice that you pray for the salvation of all men? Andwould this small still voice tell you that it is not God's will tosave all men, and then induce you to pray for all men? If I be not astranger to this heavenly voice which teaches me to wrap myself in mymantle, the Lord my righteousness, it influences me to pray in faith, nothing doubting, for the salvation of all men. In your truly affecting entreaty you direct my mind to the day ofjudgment when I am called to give an account of my stewardship, andask what my situation must be, if the system I advocate should infinal evidence, prove false? I have seriously thought on thisquestion; and this is my conclusion: My judge will know that I am, inthis instance, honest and sincere; he will know how hardly I wrestledagainst his written word in order to avoid believing that he wouldsave all men, and he will know that my deception was in understandinghis word as a simple, honest man would understand a plain testimonyvoid of scholastic dress. In this case I am willing to throw myself onthe mercy of the judge. On the other hand, dear sir, I have made acalculation too. Suppose I adhere to your testimony, that the doctrineI believe is not true, and abandon it as a heresy, preach it down tothe utmost of my ability, and the doctrine at last, when you and Istand before that judge who knows the hearts of all men, should infinal evidence of the law and prophets, prove true, of which I havenot the least shadow of doubt in my mind, with what a blush must Igive up my account! My judge who has suffered every thing for me, asksme, why did you deny me, forsake my cause, and use the abilities whichI gave you to preach that dishonourable doctrine that I did not redeemall men, or that I would not finally reconcile all men to myself, andcause them all to love me heartily in bliss and glory? I, abashedbeyond description, must answer, a man, who, I conceived was my friendand who preached that God my Saviour, never intended to save all men, told me the doctrine I preached was _not true_! O, how would my soulthrill with grief when a look, such as was cast on Peter after hedenied his Lord, should accompany this question, and who told you inthe first place it was true? I appeal to the searcher of hearts for the sincerity of my soul when Isay, my dear sir, I feel an uncommon desire to cultivate friendshipwith you, and were it possible for me to gratify you in any thing thatshould be consistent with my duty to my God, I think I should notshrink from the service; but should the multitude, whose hearts havebeen made joyful in the salvation of all men, become so blinded as torenounce the sentiments, I must remain unshaken, until more than humantestimony stands against the doctrine. I am very sensible of the propriety of the observation, that thesincerity of a belief does not prove the thing believed to be true;for though I cannot say so much as you do, viz. "that I know how farmen may be deluded and deceived, " yet I am sensible that men may bedeceived and yet be honest; and it is on this ground, that I havecharity for those who believe and preach different from me. Towards the conclusion of your epistle, you intimate that you wish notto have me say at last, when my doctrine issues in my mourning, thatyou had not warned me. Be assured, sir, if I may be so much at my owndisposal at the last day, that I will not say, you did not warn me;but if my doctrine be false at last, and you are asked why you did notprove from the written word to my understanding that I was in anerror, will you say in answer, that it would have been such a tax upontime, that you could not afford it, that you could not or did not wishto? As the passages which you quote on your last page are designed toillustrate what I believe to be a fact, I forbear, at this time, anillustration of them, in which, the impropriety of the common mode ofunderstanding them might be made to appear. Should you be disposed toattempt to correct my ideas in this epistle, or my doctrine ingeneral, by turning to the great touchstone, the law and thetestimony, be as ample, sir, as your inclination and opportunity willadmit. Every argument shall be duly attended to with prayerfulsolicitude to obtain conviction, if it can be found; and whateverlight I gain I will gratefully acknowledge, and wherein I do not agreewith you, I will give you my reasons. Your most obliged friend and humble servant, HOSEA BALLOU. Rev. J. BUCKMINSTER. P. S. If I have been so unfortunate, in the foregoing epistle makechoice of any words which indicate too much freedom, please to imputeit to a frankness which perhaps I sometimes indulge to a fault, andnot to any want of due respect. H. B. * * * * * LETTER IIIFROM THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU. PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 10, 1810. _Dear Sir_, --It was not my intention, in the letter which I sometimesince addressed to you, to enter into a discussion of the subject ofUniversalism, much less, for reasons that were suggested, provoke adispute upon it. I therefore endeavoured so to express myself that noreply should be necessary. My object was to discharge what I thought a duty of friendship andaffection, rendered more necessary by my personal declarations to youat my house, by stating to you with frankness and decision what I waspersuaded would be the final result of that sentiment which you haveembraced, and are advocating among us; and to fulfil a duty which Iowe to myself, and to Him who has set me here to be a watchman, that Imight use every proper precaution to appear before my Judge at lastwith unstained garments, preclude an occasion for a crimination andreproach, and give up my account with joy and not with grief. I might have a secret hope that the apprehensions so seriously andcandidly suggested might excite you to review your sentiments, andrenewedly compare them with the only standard, and that this serious, calm and retired exercise might be accompanied with an influence fromabove, that might alter your views and conclusions upon the subject;but my principal design was to discharge what I thought my duty asabove stated. You have thought it your duty to remark upon theaddress, and intimate an expectation that I should rejoin; yourprofessions and candor have induced me for a time, to hesitate whetherI ought not, in this instance, to depart from my general resolutions, and this hesitation has had influence in my delay to notice yourletter. But the result of my hesitations, reflections and prayer, is amore full persuasion, that if the writings of Dr. Edwards, Dr. Strongand others who have discussed the subject, and which doubtless youhave seen, have produced no hesitation or conviction in your mind, itwould be vain and idle to expect it from any efforts of mine; and thatit would be a misuse of time, which might be employed in more hopefulprospects of usefulness. This is a reason which I at present feelsatisfied to give to God and my conscience for declining to enter upona discussion of this subject, and I trust it will be accepted at thetribunal of God. To that tribunal I humbly and cheerfully refer thedecision of the question that would be matter of dispute between us, from which decision there will be no appeal, and to which there willbe no liberty to reply. I reciprocate the tender of every office offriendship consistent with what I think my duty to God and myconscience, and shall not cease to pray that those who have erred fromthe truth may be recovered from their errors, and being sanctified bythe truth, may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your friend andwell wisher. J. BUCKMINSTER. * * * * * LETTER IV. FROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER. PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 11, 1810. _Rev. Sir_, --Your favour of yesterday is acknowledged with thatrespectful submission which your age and experience, together with thespirit and import of your note justly impose, and with gratitude also, for an obligation which I wished to be under in being satisfied ofyour having received my epistle of the 1st inst. This I learn by thefriendly rebuke in your first section in which you speak of my replyas unnecessary, and also by your condescending to refer to it again inyour fourth section. Had I, sir, viewed your address altogether in thelight which you inform me you did, or had you informed me that a replywould not be expected, I should by no means have troubled you contraryto your wishes. However, as you are an experienced judge of all suchmatters, so you will condescend to pardon me if in your judgment myepistle is destitute of important subjects. You are so kind as torepeat the design of your address again, certifying me that yourobject was to discharge the office of friendship, by stating to mewith frankness and decision what you are persuaded will be the finalresult of that sentiment which I have embraced and am advocating. Noman, sir, will ever be more ready to acknowledge a friendly officewith sentiments of gratitude than your humble servant; but I am sureit cannot be expected by you, that I should receive the testimony of aman, however friendly to me, as a decision against that gospel which Idid not receive of man, nor by man, but by the revelation of JesusChrist. Your precautions in warning me as they regard your final justificationbefore God, I hope will be superceded by the acceptable atonement ofthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; though thatshall not render your faithfulness void of approbation in asubordinate sense. The secret hope which you entertained of excitingme, by your serious apprehensions to review my sentiments andrenewedly to compare them with the only standard, would perhaps appearnot altogether so necessary, did you know that my daily business is tostudy the law and the testimony, which increase their light as theyare more examined, and furnish every hour I study them, new proofs ofthe unbounded goodness of God to the sinful race of Adam. O my dearfriend! Could you but know the inexpressible consolation and peacewhich I enjoy in believing that he, who gave himself a ransom for allmen, will finally see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied, you could not feel concerned about the final issue of the doctrinewhich I believe and advocate! I feel that my blessed Lord and kind Redeemer deserves every exertionof mine to persuade men to the knowledge of that truth which wouldmake them free; nor can I easily forbear to express my desire thatyour greater experience and better abilities might be employed inshewing to poor benighted sinners the divine amplitude of gospel gracefor the salvation of all mankind. I believe, dear sir, if it shouldplease God to discover this soul rejoicing truth to you, that theangels would rejoice in heaven, and saints on earth would be madeexceeding glad: yes, your church and parish would follow you withrapturous joy to the fountain which is open for Judah and Jerusalem towash in from sin and uncleanness, and to which the fulness of theGentiles shall be gathered. I am not at all disposed to complain of your decision not to enterinto an investigation of the doctrine against the truth of which youhave opposed your testimony; though I should hardly have believed thatin your judgment, such a testimony could have been thought properunless preceded or succeeded by some colour of evidence. No man, mydear sir, is less calculated to enjoy a dry, unfruitful controversy onreligious sentiments than I am--though I wish to hold myself inperpetual readiness to give an answer to every man who may ask me areason for the hope that is within me with meekness and fear. The arguments of Dr. Edwards and Dr. Strong being disposed torepresent the divine economy of grace less extensive than the plainand positive promises of God, the testimony of the prophets, the wordof life through Christ and the witnessing apostles, have declared itto be, stand forever refuted by that cloud of witnesses, as they arealso by the spirit of Christ in every humble believing heart. It isfar more easy for the rational lover of Christ to believe thoselearned doctors, deceived by the vain traditions of the schools, thanto believe that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is less extensivethan his word and spirit declare it to be. If there never were a true Christian whose desires did not extend tothe whole human race, that all might be brought to a saving repentanceand to holy and happy life in Christ, then Jesus has never lefthimself without a witness in his disciples, that all the creeds of menwhich limit the divine favour are false. With whatsoever panics wormsof the dust may have struck their fellow worms by challenging them toa decision of their weak, insignificant notions at a tribunal of anomnipotent judge, such solemn appeals can have but little effect onthe humble mind who leans not to his own wisdom, and who views everything already decided in the eternal system of that God whose tendermercies are over all the works of his hands. The mode in which you express the circumstance of final judgment israther indicative of what I hope you do not mean, as it intimates thattoo much freedom has been assumed by me in presuming to reply to youraddress. There is much to excite my gratitude in the assurance yougive me of reciprocating offices of friendship, consistent with dutyto God;--and while you, sir, give me to understand that I have aninterest in your prayers, permit me to beg your supplications, that Imay be faithful unto death; and to assure you of my humble desire thatyou may continue to be useful to your fellow pilgrims while you live, and find acceptance with God through Christ at last. Your most obligedfriend and humble servant in Christ. HOSEA BALLOU. * * * * * A NOTE FROM THE REV. DR. BUCKMINSTER TO THE REV. MR. BALLOU. FRIDAY, P. M. It is a duty which Mr. Buckminster owes to himself to declare that thethought of intimating that it was any assumption or presumption in Mr. Ballou to reply to his address, never once entered his mind; and he issorry if any thing in Mr. Buckminster's communications could giveground to suspect such foolish vanity; but it confirms the correctnessof the opinion, that _disputes however temperately conducted arerarely productive of any good_. All that he meant was that thedecision at the tribunal of God would be final. * * * * * A NOTE FROM THE REV. MR. BALLOU TO THE REV. DR. BUCKMINSTER, IN REPLY. SATURDAY, P. M. Mr. Ballou is happy to acknowledge the honour done him by the Doctor'snote of Friday, P. M. By which he realizes the hope expressed in hisepistle of the 11th inst, that what appeared to be intimated by theDoctor's letter of the 10th inst. In relation to final judgment wasnot meant. In the mean time Mr. Ballou thinks it a duty which he owesto himself to point out to the Doctor the items in his letter whichwere misunderstood. The Doctor's expression, "I therefore endeavouredso to express myself that no reply should be necessary, " wasunderstood to intimate that the reply was unnecessary; and theDoctor's expression, "there will be no liberty to reply, " wasunderstood to intimate that liberty had been assumed unnecessarily. Inconfirming the opinion, that "_disputes however temperately conducted, are rarely productive of any good_. " Mr. Ballou thinks his mistake hasproduced but little consequence, as that opinion was so confirmedbefore, that even a reason for an assertion could not with proprietybe given. LETTER I. FROM THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU. PORTSMOUTH, Nov. 19, 1810. _Dear Friend_, --I take this method to write to you, with a desire youwould receive it as a friendly admonition. You recollect, no doubt, that I have heard you make two speeches at funerals, as they arecommonly called, one at the grave and the other at the house of sorrowand mourning, upon a very solemn and singular occasion. At the graveyou were short, and said, if I mistake not, viewing the grave, "thisis the house appointed for all living, " two or three times, and thensaid, "what reflection shall we make from it? is it done by an enemy?has the Almighty suffered the government to be taken out of hishands?"--and spake as if death was originally designed by the Almightyfor the good of mankind, and made it a very desirable thing. My dearsir, doth not the bible, which is the word of God, or the scripturesof truth say, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, anddeath by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all havesinned, " Rom. V. 12, and Rom. Vi. 23, "For the wages of sin is death. "God who is a gracious and holy sovereign "made man upright, but hesought out many inventions. " By listening unto that apostate spirit, Satan, he transgressed and disobeyed his maker and sovereign, byeating the forbidden fruit. "God made man in his own image, in theimage of God created he him, male and female created he them. And theLord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress itand to keep it; and the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of everytree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree ofknowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it, for in the daythou eatest thereof, thou shall surely die. " Gen. Ii. 15, 17. Sin isthat enemy that introduced or was the cause of death, as we mayfurther see by considering that portion of scripture, I John. Iii. 8, "He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth fromthe beginning. " For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, thathe might destroy the works of the devil. Sin is the work of the devil;"the soul that sins shall die. " If you will read the whole chapter andseriously consider it, and pray to God through Jesus Christ to openyour understanding, that you may understand the scriptures, you wouldnot misappply and pervert them as I fear you do. In your speaking atthe house of mourning, you began and spake very eloquently at firstupon death; then you brought forward the same ideas, with respect todeath, as you did before at the grave. I do not remember that you, ateither place, spake one word of the necessity or nature of repentance. Christ began his personal and public ministry by preaching repentance, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"--again, "butexcept ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, " Luke xiii. 5. Andafter his resurrection from the dead he appeared to his disciples andconfirmed them in the certainty of it, and chose them witnesses of thetruth of it, and said "thus it is written, and thus it behoveth Christto suffer and to rise from the dead the third day. And that repentanceand remission of sins should be preached in my name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things, " Lukexxiv. 46, 47, 48. The apostles, after Christ's ascension, practised ashe commanded them, as we may see by reading the Acts of the apostles, Peter in particular, in the 2d and 3d chapters; and we do not findthat they ever gave any encouragement that their hearers could orshould be forgiven their sins without faith and repentance. Petersays, "Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out;"which presupposes that if they did not repent and be turned to God byconverting grace their sins would not be forgiven. Thus the apostlePaul preached, see Acts xxvi. 18, 19, 20, which I entreat you to readand seriously to consider. See likewise 20th chap. Of the Acts of theapostles, how he appealed to the elders of the church; in the 17thverse it is written, "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and calledthe elders of the church; and when they were come to him he said untothem, ye know from the first day I came into Asia after what manner Ihave been with you at all seasons, serving the Lord with all humilityof mind, and with many tears and temptations which befell me, by thelying in wait of the Jews; and how I kept back nothing that wasprofitable unto you, but have shewed you and have taught you publiclyand from house to house, testifying both to the Jews and also to theGreeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord JesusChrist. " The apostles spake of the nature of repentance that theyshould bring forth fruits meet for repentance, and that Godly sorrowworked repentance to salvation, not to be repented of; but the sorrowof the world worketh death. For a minister of the New Testament toadvance such doctrine as will give hopes to their hearers that allwill be happy in a future state, whether they have repented or no, isnot preaching as Christ and his apostles preached. If we know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, what will be theconsequence? See 2 Thes. I. 8, 9. Ministers are directed by theinspired apostle Paul; see in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. See 2Tim. 4th chap. From 1st to the end, the 5th verse, which I wouldentreat and beseech you to read and seriously consider. He, in some ofthose verses referred to, says to Timothy, "Reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and doctrine; for the time will come when menwill not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall theyheap to themselves teachers having itching ears. And they shall turnaway their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Butwatch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of anevangelist, make proof of thy ministry. " Paul was just about to leavethe world; the time of his departure was at hand; the above were hisdying words to his beloved son Timothy (in the faith. ) The blessed andbeloved apostle had through grace kept the faith, that is, the truefaith of the gospel; he had finished his course, he had fought a goodfight, and henceforth he says, there is laid up for me a crown ofrighteousness which God the righteous judge shall give me at that day;and not only to me, but unto all them also, that love his appearing. You, my friend, once professed the true faith of the gospel--have youkept it? I think not. I fear you have fallen from it. You are nowpreaching a doctrine which pleases the world, but it makes againstyou, according to scripture; the apostle John says, in 1st epistle, 4th chap, 5th and 6th verses, "They are of the world; therefore theworld heareth them. We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; hethat is not of God heareth not us; hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. " I beseech you again, my friend, examine andseriously consider the first five verses of that chapter, and pray Godthrough Jesus Christ that he would open it to your understanding:Solomon says, "My son, lean not to your own understanding. " I couldnot but observe with what an _emphasis_ you at the grave mentionedthose selected texts of scripture which you supposed would confirmyour hearers in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Would Christ orthe apostles preach Universal Salvation in one place of scripture, andin another contradict it? I believe they would not. I am an _old man_, and have studied the scriptures twenty or thirty years; yea, I may saymore or less from my youth up; I find it the best way of study, tocompare scripture with scripture; to consider the preceding andfollowing context; to be self-diffident; and to be much in prayer, that it would please God, by his holy spirit, to lead and guide usinto all necessary truth; and I do not think it amiss to use soundauthors, for as we are in some measure dependant on one another fortemporal, so I think we may, under God, be for spiritual assistance;though by no means to put our trust in an arm of flesh. We may observe how earnest David in prayer to God was in the 25thPsalm. He was a prophet as well the royal Psalmist, yet he comes in avery humble manner to God in prayer that he would shew him his ways, and teach him his paths; and in that Psalm, 8th verse, says, "good andupright is the Lord: therefore will he teach sinners in the way. Themeek will he guide in judgment; and the meek he will teach his way. "But if men will undertake to explain scripture in their own strengthand wisdom, what must we expect but to have them mangled and madehavoc of, or explained in a mere mystical or literal sense? "Thenatural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for theyare foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they arespiritually discerned. " See I Cor. Ii. 14. As you did not say any thing about the resurrection of the dead ineither of your speeches, I began to query in my mind whether youbelieved it or no. I think, yea, I know, it was preached by Christ, and explained so as to confute the Sadducees. Our Lord says, "Marvelnot at this, for the hour is coming in the which all that are in theirgraves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have donegood unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil untothe resurrection of damnation. " St. Paul in his defence before theRoman governor when accused by an orator, whom the Jews employed, ashe was allowed to speak for himself, said, "they cannot prove thething, whereof they now accuse me; but this I confess after the waywhich they call heresy; so worship I the God of my fathers, believingall things which are written in the law and the prophets, and havehope towards God, which they themselves also allow; that there shallbe a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; and hereindo I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offencetoward God, and toward man. " We may observe what an influence thebelief of a future state of rewards and punishments had on the blessedapostle to excite him to live a godly and self-denying life. In 2 Cor. V. 10, 11, speaking of a day of judgment, "when every one must give anaccount for himself as the deeds have been done in the body, thatevery one may receive the things done in his body according to that hehath done whether it be good or bad;" and says, "knowing the terror ofthe Lord, we persuade men. " My friend, is there the least room for usto believe from this scripture and many others, that the wicked whohave died impenitent and in a disbelief of the gospel or without thetrue knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, whom God hath sent, haveeternal life, in the fruition and enjoyment of God? Heaven consists inbeing made like God, and enjoying him: hence it is, that the piousthirst for God, the living God, saying, when shall I come and appearbefore him? Again, "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is noneupon earth I desire besides thee. My flesh and heart fail me, but Godis the strength of my heart and portion forever. " These piousbreathings are the exercises of the children of God. O may they beours. JOSEPH WALTON. PORSTMOUTH, Nov. 19, 1810. P. S. The within, enclosed, my friend, I can assure you was notwritten to you in this manner, as God is my judge, from an envious andbitter spirit, for I love and esteem your person, as a friend, whohas, from my first acquaintance with you, treated me with greatrespect. I see, on the Lord's days, great numbers of precious soulsgoing and returning from your meeting; and, as far as I know my ownheart, I do not envy you for that; but have often prayed that thegifts and natural abilities you have might be sanctified and turnedinto right improvements, which is the glory of God and the savingbenefit of your hearers. May it please God to make you an able andfaithful minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of thespirit, for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. From yourfriend and humble servant, JOSEPH WALTON, _Pastor, Of the Independent Congregational Church in Portsmouth_. TO MR. HOSEA BALLOU, PASTOR OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH ANDSOCIETY IN PORTSMOUTH. _Sir_, --You may observe by the date, the letter has been written sometime; but by several avocations I have not had time to correct andcopy it until the present date, December 7, 1810. J. W. * * * * * LETTER II. FROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON. PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 11, 1810. _Rev. Sir_, --It is with pleasure that I hasten to acknowledge thereceipt of your "friendly admonition, " bearing date December 7th, which came to my hand late last evening, which I assure you isaccepted as a token of friendship, and a mark of particular attention;and merits, as I conceive, a grateful acknowledgement as well as anearly answer. Your admonition begins by taking notice of what you conceive anegregious error which you have heard me suggest at two severalfunerals. You say that I "spake as if death was originally designed, by the Almighty, for the good of mankind. " This statement you considerof such a dangerous nature that it renders an admonition necessary. But, dear sir, there are two important ideas contained in the aboveshort sentence, and you have not distinguished between them, norinformed me whether it be both, or only one which is thusreprehensible. That _God originally designed death_, is one idea; that he _designed_it for the _good of mankind_ is another idea. In order to do youjustice and to attach no other meaning to your communication than suchas I conceive to be consistent with your real sentiments, I mustsuppose that you would not wish to fault the first of those ideas, asit is an item in your creed, that "God foreordained whatsoever comesto pass;" of course, you believe that God _originally designed death_. But, that God designed death for the _good of mankind_, I do not knowit to be an article of your faith, and therefore, may, without doingyou any injustice, suppose that you believed that God originallydesigned death, but _not_ for _the good of mankind_! Here, sir, Iacknowledge that my sentiment differs from yours; and as you havegiven me no reason why God should not have designed death for the_good_ of mankind, I have only to consider the "friendly admonition, "with which you oppose my idea. I would query why the idea that Godshould design death for the good of mankind renders me justlyadmonishable? Would the idea, should I avow it, that God designeddeath for the _damage_ of mankind, render me commendable? So, itseems; but at this expense I cannot avoid admonition! I would furtherquery what interest God could have consulted which required him todesign death for a _damage_ to those creatures whom he made subject todeath? And I think it expedient to ask how God can be justified, inthe sight of his rational creatures, if the idea be once establishedthat he designed evil against them, even before they existed? I feel it to be my duty, dear sir, to call on you to support this highallegation against the Father of our spirits. I would not pretend thatyou designed to bring an allegation against our Creator, but I amsatisfied that every unprejudiced mind must see the nature of anallegation in what you are disposed to maintain. For if we say God, our Creator, designed death for the damage of those dependent beingswhom he has made, it is giving him a character which, I believe, thewisest of men would find it difficult to justify. Again, if the notion be true, that God designed death for the damageof mankind, is it not from hence evident that he was an enemy tomankind when he thus designed? Now, if God be considered an enemy tomankind even before he made them, I wish to know what reason can begiven why mankind ought to love God since creation? In relation to a number of scriptures which you have quoted, seeminglywith a design to illustrate the foregoing subject, I can only say, that if any or all those passages relate at all to the subject, _thatrelation_ is out of my sight. And I can truly say, that I am glad thatthere is nothing, in any part of the scripture, so contrary to goodsense and reason as to support the notion that God is an enemy to theworks of his own hands. I believe, sir, if I prove from scripture thatGod designed death for the good of mankind, it must be considered asubstantial support of what you wish to oppose; and will also beconsidered as placing the scripture doctrine on the most reasonableprinciple. 1st. I will show that death is not a token of God's enmity towardsmankind. As a proof of this, see Rom. Viii. 38, 39, "For I ampersuaded, that neither _death_, nor _life_, nor _angels_, nor_principalities_, nor _powers_, nor _things present_, nor _things tocome_, nor _height_, nor _depth_, nor _any other creature_ shall beable to separate us from the _love_ of God which is _in Christ Jesusour Lord_. " This passage is a full and positive proof that neither_death_ nor any thing else, is a token of God's enmity to mankind. 2d. I will now show that _death_ was designed by God for the _good_ ofmen. Which to do, I must learn of Jesus. He is the truth. Was his_death_ designed, by the eternal Father, for the good of mankind, ornot? Was his death a token of God's love to the world, or was it atoken of his enmity? See Rom. V. 8, "But God _commendeth_ his _love_towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. " Thissame apostle, believing in Christ, who, he says, was delivered for ouroffences, and was raised again for our justification, in a short, butcomprehensive inventory of the things which are ours, has placed_death_ among them. See 1 Cor. Iii. 21, 22, 23, "Therefore, let no manglory in men: for all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, orCephas, or the world, or life, or _death_, or things present, orthings to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ isGod's. " Again, he says, to the Phil. I. 21, "For me to live is Christ, and to _die_ is _gain_. " Nothing appears more evident than that thedeath of Christ was designed for the good of mankind; and as he is thehead of every man, so his death is considered, in the scriptures, agracious benefit to every man; as the apostle expresses it, "That he, by the grace of God, should taste _death_ for every man. " And again, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive. " Whocan impartially consider those scriptures and suppose that Goddesigned _death_ for a damage to mankind? I view _death_, sir, as anappointment of God, a friendly messenger, sent to dissolve atabernacle of corruption and vanity, at the dissolution of which, "thedust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gaveit. " Your admonition in the next place suggests, that "if" I "will read thewhole chapter (meaning the 3d chapter of the 1st of John) andseriously consider it, and pray to God, through Jesus Christ, to open"my "understanding, that" I "may understand the scriptures, " I "wouldnot _misapply_ and _pervert_ them, as" you "fear" I "do. " Rev. Sir, are you sufficiently acquainted with my preaching andwriting on the scriptures to warrant the propriety of the suggestion, that I am in the habit of _misapplying_ and _perverting_ the holywritings? Are you sufficiently acquainted with my retired studies andreligious exercises to warrant the suggestion that I get along withoutacknowledging the wisdom of God? I humbly request you to reconsiderthis part of your admonition, and see if it do not wear the appearanceof _judging another_ who must stand or fall to his own master. In themean time I wish to observe, that a friendly advice to be constant infervent supplication and prayer would be received by me as a mark of_christian friendship_ and _fellowship_. But I will ask you thequestion, if you would be willing to have me go into your desk withyou in presence of your church and congregation, and there read thewhole of the above named chapter, then in humble and solemn prayer toAlmighty God, through Christ Jesus, implore a just and trueunderstanding of his word and truth contained in that portion of hiswritten will, and close my performance with a candid dissertation onthe chapter? Grant me liberty to do this in your hearing; after whichI will not object to your pointing out any _misapplication_ or_perversion_ which you may think you discover. By what law is a mancondemned without first hearing his defence? Again, your admonition suggests, that I did not, at either of thefunerals where you heard me perform, speak one word of the necessityor nature of repentance. In this particular I believe you made amistake at both places, which mistake, I believe I can rectify to yourrecollection. In the first place, I wish to observe that I as muchbelieve in those scriptures which speak of the necessity of repentanceas I do in any part of the sacred writings. But, after all, you and Imay entertain very different ideas respecting the _preaching_ ofrepentance. The opinion that repentance is preached when a publicspeaker tells his congregation that their eternal salvation depends ontheir repentance, that eternal misery must inevitably be their doomunless they repent is an opinion to which I have no reason tosubscribe. _Preaching repentance_, I conceive _is teaching_ men and giving themsuch divine instructions as bring their minds to discover moreglorious things than the sins and carnal vanities of this world; which_teaching_ produces a returning of the mind to the things of God andhis ever blessed kingdom. The word _repent_ may or may not be used inthe giving of such instructions. I conceive a preacher of JesusChrist, warmed with the spirit of eternal love, breathing forth thegracious words of truth, may successfully preach repentance as wellwithout the use of the word _repent_ as with it. At both those placesof sorrow, dear sir, I endeavoured to lead the mourners' minds to theconsideration _of eternal things_; I endeavoured to represent God ourCreator and Governor, as a friend to his creatures, and strove to theutmost of my power to fix the love, regard and confidence of ourmourning friends on God our Creator. This you will recollect, and Icannot suppose that you believe that a person can truly believe in thedivine goodness, and love his Creator as the greatest good, and putconfidence in him, so as to draw consolation, in the day of adversity, from such confidence, and still be a stranger to true penitence. The many scriptures which you have judiciously quoted to prove thepropriety of the doctrine of repentance are justly applied, as Iconceive; and I accord with you in their use and meaning as far as youhave explained them. I would wish to be understood that wheneverrepentance is spoken of as a creature act, originating in creatureagency, it is represented directly contrary to the scripture sense asexpressed in Acts v. 31, "Him hath God exalted with his right hand tobe a _Prince_ and a _Saviour_, for to _give repentance_ to Israel andforgiveness of sins. " From the above passage it is evident that repentance is no moredependent on creature agency than the forgiveness of sins; and theidea that repentance is a grant of divine favour is plainly expressedin Acts xi. 18, "Then hath God also, to the Gentiles, _grantedrepentance_ unto life. " By the above testimonies the idea that_repentance_ is a _creature condition_, on which the divine favour isbestowed, is proved erroneous. The next particular which your "friendly admonition" occupies, is thesubject of _Universal Salvation_ in the following words: "I could notbut observe with what _emphasis_ you, at the grave, mentioned thoseselected texts of scripture which you supposed would confirm yourhearers in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Would Christ or theapostles preach Universal Salvation in one place of scripture, and inanother contradict it? I believe they would not. " In the aboveparticular, sir, I agree with you in all which you express. I do notbelieve that Christ or any of his apostles ever contradicted theglorious doctrine, in which they all preached of Universal Salvation. And until this contradiction can be shewn in their preaching, you andI have full liberty to believe in God as "the Saviour of all men. "Christ gave himself a ransom for all men; tasted death for every man;is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He says he willdraw all men unto him, and he also says that "him that cometh after meI will in no wise cast out. " St. Paul says that God will have all mento be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. To whichtestimony we might add an immense number of scriptures from the Oldand New Testaments; and as you agree that Christ and his apostleswould not preach Universal Salvation in one place, and contradict itin another, so you must, of necessity subscribe to the _uniformity_ ofthe scripture doctrine in the Salvation of all men. You inform me, that you are an "_old man_;" this I was sensible ofbefore, in consequence of which, I have more particularly endeavouredto cultivate an acquaintance with you, since I have been in this town;for I conceive that the aged are not only entitled to the respects andattention of the younger, but the younger are also entitled to theadvantages of their experience and wisdom. You further tell me, that you have studied the scriptures twenty orthirty years. On this account, sir, I covet earnestly your assistance;for although I have studied the scriptures almost constantly twentyyears out of less than forty, yet I find but a few who are notable toassist me in this agreeable employment. The happy method which yourecommend, I have for many years endeavoured to observe, for I am surethat most of the vulgar errors, in respect to the scriptures, are forthe want of a careful examination of all which is said on the samesubjects. Wherein you recommend the pious example of the prophet David, I fullyaccord in it, and would humbly hope and strive to be a partaker of thebenefits arising from such an example. What you say of men's explaining scripture in their own Strength andwisdom, and of their making _havoc_ of, and _mangling_ them byexplaining them in a mystical or literal sense, I find myself ratherembarrassed about. You begin your epistle under the character of a"friendly admonition, " but what you mean by accusing me of the follyof mangling and making havoc of the scriptures when you do not attemptto show wherein I ever explained a passage wrong, I must leave for youto explain when it is convenient. Nor is it easy for me to understandyou when you represent both the _mystical_ and _literal_ explanation ofscripture equally erroneous. You immediately conclude thoseobservations with the following quotation: "The natural man receivethnot the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness untohim. " Did you mean that the natural man, supposing the things of thespirit of God to be foolishness, would say that the spirit _mangled_and made _havoc_ of the scriptures? This could not be your meaning. Your concluding query is the following; "My friend, is there the leastroom for us to believe from this scripture (meaning 2 Cor. V. 10, 11)and many others, that the wicked who have lived impenitent and in adisbelief of the gospel, or without the true knowledge of God, and ofJesus Christ whom God hath sent, have eternal life in the fruition andenjoyment of God?" This query I will endeavour to answer as plainly aspossible. 1st. Unless we grant that a man has eternal life in Jesus Christ, given him before the foundation of the world, we cannot justly callhim an _unbeliever_ because he does not believe he has this eternallife in Christ. Nor can we say, with the least propriety, that he doesnot _know_ the _truth_, because he does not know that which is not. 2d. If we allow that a man has eternal life in Christ, we must allowhim to be an unbeliever if he do not believe it; and that he does notknow the truth as it is in Jesus, if he be ignorant of this gift ofeternal life. 3d. While a man is in a state of unbelief he is not in the _enjoyment_of the truth. I conceive, sir, these observations must appear reasonable to anyreasonable man; and therefore I suppose they will appear reasonable toyou. The passage in Corinthians alluded to, fully refutes the notion of_endless_ rewards and punishments; for there it is stated, that"_every one_ may receive the things done in his body, according tothat he hath done, whether it be good or bad. " Now as this sameapostle tells us that all have sinned and come short of the glory ofGod, if he mean that all who have sinned must be endlessly punished, he cannot mean that any of the human race will be eternally blessedaccording to their own works, nor yet according to the grace of God. And you, sir, cannot but see if one sinner can be rewarded accordingto his works and yet be saved by grace through faith, and that not ofhimself, but by the gift of God, all the sinners of Adam's race may bethus rewarded according to what they have done either _good_ or _bad_, and yet be saved by grace as above. Your suggestions respecting the resurrection require no other answerthan that I profess to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection astaught by the scriptures, though I cannot flatter myself that thatopinion agrees with the opinion of what you call _sound authors_. Formyself, I call the writers of the holy scriptures _sound authors_, andthose who differ from them I am willing to call orthodox according toour common schools of divinity. I join with you in a humble desirethat the holy breathings of the true children of God may be yours andmine; and I am sensible if they be we shall not judge one another, norcondemn one another; but strive for the unity of the spirit in thebonds of divine peace. Yes, sir, I am confident that the true temperand spirit of the gospel, if possessed and practiced by the publicministers in this town, would lead them to open their doors to eachother, to meet together and pray, preach, sing and exhort, in love andfellowship; but Antichrist's spirit is directly the reverse. The assurance you give me in your postscript, that what you wrote tome was not written in an envious spirit is duly appreciated; nor do Imuch wonder that you do not envy me the numbers who attend my publicministry, while you suppose that they with innumerable multitudes ofothers are reprobated to endless sin and misery. Envy, in such a case, would be truly unaccountable! I will not say that I fully comprehendyour meaning in calling the "great numbers" who attend my meeting, "_precious souls_. " Why are they precious? To whom are they precious?If you view them the objects of divine love, of course you mustsuppose them to be precious in God's sight; but if not, why do youcall them precious? Your flattering acknowledgements of civilities received from me andthe acceptableness of my person to you, is very gratefully considered, for it is an object with me to deserve the approbation of the piouswho have treasured up much valuable knowledge by experience; and Iwish to give you the fullest assurance possible that I consider myacquaintance with yourself highly worthy of further cultivation andimprovement, which I shall always endeavour to promote, as opportunitymay present, and it shall please you to favour. Having noted the most important sections of your "friendly admonition"in as concise a manner as was convenient, permit me, dear sir, to makea few observations on the doctrine of Universal Salvation, that beinga subject to which you allude in your epistle, though you did not seefit to plant any particular arguments against it. This doctrine Iopenly profess, and preach as a doctrine which I conceive is plainlytaught in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; a doctrinewhich all good men in the world desire the truth of; a doctrine themost worthy of God of any ever published; a doctrine the bestcalculated to fill the soul of the believer with love to God and toour fellow creatures; a doctrine which harmonizes the divineattributes, the scriptures and every principle of reason and goodsense, in a surprising and an astonishing manner; a doctrine, morethan any other, calculated to destroy the hurtful animosities existingin the religious world; and to produce general fellowship andbrotherly love; and in a word, I believe it to be the only doctrinewhich can be supported by reason or scripture, to a mind notimproperly biased by tradition. Though I am sensible of your greaterexperience, yet I am willing to say to a man of your piety andChristian candor, that any arguments which you should see cause to laybefore me, on the above subject, shall, by the blessing of God, receive an early attention and a judicious discussion. In the spirit of the New Testament and not in the letter; in thespirit of life, and not in the death of the letter, in the spirit ofsalvation, and not of condemnation, I pray God, I may ever live andact according to your friendly desire; and feeling the same ferventdesire for my highly esteemed and venerable friend, I acknowledgemyself your most obliged and very humble servant, for Christ's sake. HOSEA BALLOU. Rev. Joseph Walton. P. S. I have reserved three particulars in your "friendly admonition"for the subject of another communication. * * * * * LETTER. III. From the Same to the Same. Portsmouth, Jan. 5, 1811. _Rev. Sir_, --Having notified you in a postscript of my letter of Dec. 11th, that I had reserved three particulars in your "friendlyadmonition" for the subject of another communication, I am disposed toembrace this opportunity to fulfil my engagement. The threeparticulars reserved are expressed, in your letter, in the followingwords: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, butafter their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers havingitching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, andshall be turned unto fables. You, my friend, once professed the truefaith of the gospel--have you kept it? I think not. I fear you havefallen from it. You are now preaching a doctrine which pleases theworld, but it makes against you according to scripture. The apostleJohn says in his 1st epistle 4th chapter 5th and 6th verses, They areof the world; therefore the world heareth them; we are of God; he thatknoweth God, heareth us, he that is not of God, heareth not us; herebyknow we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. " I would not, dear sir, knowingly misapply your words, nor make a use of the abovequotation contrary to their most plain and evident sense which Iconceive is as follows: 1st. The doctrine which I believed before I believed as I do now, isthe true gospel according to the testimony of the apostle John, in his1st epistle, 4th chapter 5th and 6th verses. 2d. That in believing as I now do, I have fallen from that faith, andturned unto fables. 3d. My now preaching a doctrine which pleases the world is good proofthat my doctrine is not of God, and that those who hear me are justlydescribed by the apostle as heaping to themselves teachers havingitching ears. In the first place I shall agree with you in the supposition that whenI first made a profession of religion, I believed the true gospel. In the second place I shall endeavour to show that I have not fallenfrom that faith. In the third place I will attempt to show that the evidence, which youthink makes against me, is by no means sufficient to prove that thedoctrine I now believe and preach is consistent with the _lusts_ ofthe _world_ or contrary to the true faith of the gospel. 1st. The true faith of the gospel as expressed in 1 John, 4th, &c. Isas follows--see verse 2, 3, "Every spirit that confesseth that JesusChrist is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit thatconfesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. "The apostle here states in the most simple terms the true Christianfaith, and brings it into such a short compass that none can mistakehim. The belief that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is the truefaith, and a denial of that fact is a false faith. When I first professed religion I professed to believe that "JesusChrist is come in the flesh;" and this I am willing to say now is thetrue faith of the gospel, and the only article of faith whichconstituted a Christian believer in the opinion of the apostles;restricting this belief, at the same time, to Jesus of Nazareth, thathe was the Christ. 2d. I as much believe now as I ever did that Jesus Christ is come inthe flesh. I have as clear evidences now as I ever had that Jesus ofNazareth is the Christ. These things being facts, the conclusion isthat I have not _fallen_ from the true christian faith. 3d. The above faith I preach, believing and testifying that God senthis Son to be the _Saviour_ of the _world_; and I have reason to blessGod that such feeble means are at all prospered, and that as youobserve, "Great numbers of precious souls" adhere to the word, which Iconceive is no evidence that the faith I preach is not of God, or thatit is consistent with the lusts of the world. We are informed in theword of God, that the _common people heard Christ gladly_. Who did nothear him gladly? Answer, the Scribes and Pharisees. Do you think, sir, that the common people's hearing Christ gladly was a justifiableevidence to the Pharisees that he was not the true Messiah? When manythousands of men, women, and children flocked from their cities intodesert places to hear the gracious words which proceeded from the lipsof him who spake as never man spake, was it a justifiable evidencethat he and his doctrine were not of God? To bring this matter, ifpossible, nearer home, should you find your meeting house crowded withhearers who expressed in their countenances an approbation of thedoctrine which you preach, would it be sufficient evidence to convinceyou that your doctrine was not of God? That the testimony that God sent his Son to be the Saviour of the_world_ is not consistent with the _lusts_ of the _world_, is shown bySt. Paul to Titus; "For the grace of God which bringeth salvation to_all men_, hath appeared, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and_worldly lusts_, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in thispresent world. " I have not the least doubt in my mind, that if you and I preached morelike our blessed master than we do, people in general, would be moreengaged to hear us, and our meeting houses would be more thronged thanthey are now. Should you hear a shepherd complaining that the increase of his flockwas small, or that it rather diminished, you would think _that_evidence made against _him_. I suppose the particular idea which you had in view, whichconstitutes, in your mind, an _Apostasy_, is, that Jesus Christ, whowas manifested in the flesh, will, pursuant to power given to him ofhis father, save all men from their sins, and reconcile all thingsunto himself. This idea, I acknowledge, I did not see clearly in, whenI first made a profession of a belief in Christ; but now am fullypersuaded in it. However, I cannot see why the adopting of thisparticular idea should be called an _Apostasy_. I will, sir, mention some similar cases, not wishing however, to beconsidered an equal subject to the personage whom I shall introduce. The apostle Peter was a believer in the true faith of the gospel, thatis, he believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God:and Jesus says to him, on that confession, that flesh and blood hadnot revealed it to him, but his Father. This belief Peter had beforehe believed that Christ should suffer on the cross and rise from thedead. After many trials and dreadful temptations in which this poor, dependent brother of ours experienced the fallibility of all humanstrength, he was privileged with positive evidence of the resurrectionof Christ from the dead. --Here I ask, was this new acquisition inPeter's faith an apostasy? Was it not an advancement? You will agreewith me in this. Again, this same apostle, even after he was endowed with power from onhigh, and preached and healed in the name of Jesus, did not know thatthe Gentiles were fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers ofthe promises of God, in Christ, by the gospel. It was not until theangel of the Lord appeared unto Cornelius and directed him to send forPeter, that God gave to that apostle the knowledge of the fact whichhe acknowledged to Cornelius, that God had shewed him that he shouldcall _no man common_ or _unclean_. It is very evident that the apostlePeter had more extensive knowledge of the gospel of the grace of Godin consequence of the vision of the sheet by the sea of Joppa than hehad before; but would any real Christian, knowing all thecircumstances, suppose that Peter had _apostatised_ from the truefaith, because he believed that millions would be benefited by Christmore than were comprehended in his former belief? While they who wereof the circumcision remained ignorant of the revelation given toPeter, we find they "_contended_ with him, saying, thou wentest in tomen uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. " But when Peter had"rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by orderunto them, they held their peace and glorified God, saying, then hathGod also to the Gentiles, _granted repentance_ unto life. " Thus we seethat the church in Jerusalem, who were of the circumcision, thoughbelievers in Christ were, until Peter's defence further enlightenedthem, ignorant of the extension of divine grace to the Gentilesthrough the gospel. But surely no real Christian would suppose thatthis enlargement of their faith in the great salvation was an_apostasy_ from the true faith! With profound deference, sir, permit me to suggest, that should theforegoing observations present yourself, to your own mind, in asimilar situation with those of the circumcision, yet they acknowledgeyou a believer in Christ, a minister of his word and a candidate forgreater manifestation of that grace of God by which Jesus tasted deathfor every man. I believe I may venture to say that unless the belief that _God is notthe Saviour of all men_ can be maintained by positive scripture as anessential article of apostolic faith, I cannot be justly _admonishedfor falling_ from the true faith. May I not, with great propriety, call on my Rev. Friend to show, if he can, that such an article offaith was ever required by Christ or his apostles as a term ofchristian fellowship and charity? Let us look into the written word of God and see what is thererequired of us to believe. See Rom. X. 9, "If thou shalt confess withthy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that Godhath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. " Acts viii. 37, "And Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son ofGod. " Matt. X. 32. "Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my father which is in heaven. " Lukexii. 8, "Also I say unto you, whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. " Notto multiply quotations, permit me to query whether there be in thosepassages, or in any other scripture on the same point any intimationsgiven that the candidate must believe that this precious Saviour willnot, through the peace made by the blood of his cross, reconcile allthings to God? Are you fully satisfied, dear sir, that you areauthorised to _admonish_ as an _apostate_, one who confesses with hismouth the Lord Jesus, and who believes in his heart that God hathraised him from the dead? Why did not Philip demand of the Eunuch aparticular confession of a belief in _limited grace_ and _salvation_?Was there not the same authority to require this article of faiththen, as there is now? If Jesus hath promised, in his word, that hewill confess before his Father in Heaven, whosoever confesseth himbefore men are you satisfied with the authority by which you denounce, disfellowship, and deny those little ones? The thought is trulysolemn! I feel a _chill_ in every vein of my body, when I consider thevain traditions of a corrupted church, in which it has long been areligious habit to anathematise those who confess Christ before men, because they _cannot_ believe in certain tenets never required byChrist or his apostles! Rev. Sir, I can say in the sincerity of my soul, that I believe thatJesus of Nazareth is the true Christ, I believe him to be the Son ofthe living God, who was delivered for our offences and was raisedagain for our justification. And though I feel myself the mostunworthy of the subjects of salvation, yet I should be ungrateful notto acknowledge the goodness of God my Saviour. Whatever men may thinkor say of me, I know that my soul experiences joys unspeakable insweet meditations on the glories and inexpressible beauties of myRedeemer; and the thought that I am owned as his child before theangels of God, is infinitely better than to receive the approbation ofmen who are disposed to judge without knowing the heart. If the Christian clergy were once disposed to strip their creeds andconfessions of faith till they were reduced to the simplicity that isin Christ, and require no other belief than Christ and his apostlesrequired, there would be an end at once of all the discord andanimosity which have wounded the character of Christianity for ages. And the prayer of the blessed Jesus would be fulfilled in the_oneness_ of all who believe in him, which would convince the worldthat the Father sent him. Although you have not yet found it convenient to favour me with anyobservations on my former letter, I have not done expecting it. And Ishall endeavour to hold myself in readiness to pay an early attentionto any communication which shall come from your hand. In hopes thatnothing contained in this letter will be considered inconsistent withthe true spirit of a humble believer in Christ, I remain, sir, yourhumble servant, for Christ's sake. HOSEA BALLOU. Rev. JOSEPH WALTON. * * * * * LETTER IV. FROM THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU. PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 11, 1811. _Sir_, --I have received your answer to my letter sent you, dated Dec. 7, 1810, and now desire to answer it, in the fear of God, in asconcise a manner as I am capable, agreeable to the scriptures of_truth_. Sir, I thank you for the civilities you manifest toward me, and that you received my letter in a friendly manner as I think I sentit, wishing it might be received and improved for your benefit; notthat I supposed that I was capable of convincing or confuting you ofwhat I conceive to be erroneous in your doctrine or principles, butrelying on the blessing of God to make it effectual for youreverlasting good, and those you profess to be over in the Lord. I shall not take into consideration every argument you make use of, but shall give it a general answer. Since I have received it I havehad a great number of scriptures occuring to my mind which I mightquote if I thought expedient. In the first place you speak or write asif I thought death was originally designed by the Almighty for thedamage of mankind; I say death was threatened to be the consequence, if mankind did transgress the law of their Creator; our first parentstransgressed, and the penalty was executed according to thethreatening, "Thou shall surely die;" they were condemned to die; theywere under sentence of death; they became spiritually dead, immediately; they lost the knowledge of their Creator; darknesscovered their minds; they endeavoured to hide themselves from Godamong the trees of the garden; they brought misery upon themselves andupon their posterity; we feel the woeful effects of their fall andapostasy until this day; by nature we are spiritually dead; as it iswritten, "you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins. "Sir, if there is a law made by our legislature, is there not a penaltyannexed unto it? If that law is transgressed, is not the person whotransgressed punished some way or other?--Yet the law is made for thegood of the whole; the legislature is not to be impeached, as if hemade it for the damage of his people, whom he governs; the law-breakeris punished either in his own person or his surety, though the pain, shame and punishment is for the damage of the transgressor, yet thelaw is for the good of the whole, and the law maker is not in theleast to blame; the transgressor also, if he repents and is reformed, is benefited by it, &c. I think, sir, your giving your hearers encouragement in your preachingthat Christ will save them all, whether they repent and believe thegospel or no, is of a dangerous nature. Christ has said, "if yebelieve not that I am he ye shall die in your sins, " John viii. 24. Read, if you please, the proceeding context. The decrees of God, yousay, is my creed, and that I believe that God foreordained whatsoevercome to pass. I do not think I ever told you so. And so you think Godforeordained, according to my _creed_, death, for a damage to hiscreatures. I have said death is punishment for sin, as I wrote, and Ican maintain it from scripture; death was introduced by sin; theperson that lives a life of sin and dies without regenerating grace, which all true believers in Christ have, will be miserable, and be"punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lordand the glory of his power. " I believe every true believer is a truepenitent, is regenerated, is in Christ by a vital union is a "newcreature, " and that those persons will be saved and none else, according to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. I believe thatGod the Father worketh all things according to the council of his ownwill; that his redeemed and saved people should be to his glory. Yousay, in my writing to you, I said, "do you think Christ or hisapostles would preach universal salvation in one place of scriptureand contradict it in another? I believe they would not. "--Here youdesignedly, I think mistake; I do not believe that Christ or hisapostles ever did preach universal salvation, that is, that every sonand daughter of apostate Adam, would be saved. I believe that thisgospel of the kingdom is to be preached to every creature, and"whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he thatbelieveth not shall be damned. " Do me justice, sir; do not animadvertupon what I have just quoted, as if I think our Saviour is to beunderstood as if every individual would have the privilege of hearingthe gospel. I conceive that the apostles' commission runs thus: "Gointo all the world and preach the gospel to every human or rationalcreature. "--What I meant by saying, do you think Christ would preachuniversal salvation in one place, and in another contradict it, is, that those texts which you suppose supports your doctrine, is not tobe understood as you apply them; for if they prove universalsalvation, as you would have them, then they will contradict manytexts which Christ and his apostles improved otherwise; therefore Istill assert, that the scriptures ought to be carefully examined, conscientiously improved and applied. The faithful minister of Christwill renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking incraftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but bymanifestation of the _truth_, commending themselves to every man'sconscience in the sight of God. "For we are not as many which corruptthe word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight ofGod, speak we in Christ. "--See 2d Corinthians, ii. 17. And I wouldtake it as a favour, if you would read the 15th and 16th verses in thesame chapter, and seriously consider them. Those texts of scripture, which you have quoted from Rom. 8th chapter, are not to be applied asyou apply them, neither doth the apostle apply them so. And methinksyou know they are not, if you consider the connexion from the 28thverse of the chapter to the end. And that passage of scripture quotedfrom 1 Cor. Iii. 21, 22, 23, is only to be applied to real Christians;and this, sir, I presume you know; but it would not suit you and yourscheme of Universal Salvation to apply them so. I would ask you, if, when I am writing a letter or an epistle to Mr. Hosea Ballou, it would be proper for me to apply what I write inparticular to you, concerning your affairs or circumstances, to thewhole world? Ministers of Christ should rightly "divide the word;" andshould take the precious from the vile; then they would be as God'smouth to the people. See Jeremiah xv. 19, see likewise, Ezekiel xiiv. 23, "The priests of the Lord are to teach the Lord's people thedifference between the holy and the profane, " and cause them todiscern between the unclean and the clean;" it is by this _general_way of preaching, errors are introduced, not only by yourdenomination, but by others also. I could multiply quotations from theBible, both from the Old and New Testaments, but what would it avail, unless you will consider them and endeavour to improve them, and applythem as the Holy Ghost would have us to to? "For holy men of God spakeas they were moved by the Holy Ghost, " see 2 Peter i. 25. You say, youwere somewhat embarrassed in understanding what I meant when I wrotethat men undertaking to explain the scriptures in their own strengthand wisdom, and their making havoc of them, &c. By explaining them ina mystical or literal sense. I will endeavour to explain what Imeant--1st. To allegorize the scriptures in a mere moral or mysticalsense, or altogether in a figurative sense, is a degree of enthusiasm, (as to say there is no _devil_ but our carnal nature, &c. ) and in amere literal sense is to understand and improve them not in thatspiritual sense in which they are to be understood, but resting in theletter only; as we may observe when Christ said in St. John, 6thchapter, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink hisblood, ye have no life in you;" "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh myblood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day;""These things said he in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum;""Many therefore of his disciples when they heard this, said, this is ahard saying, who can hear it? Christ said, doth this offend you?"--Andinformed them he did not mean that they should eat his human flesh, and drink his blood literally, but he was to be understood in aspiritual sense. He informed them "it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words I speak unto you they arespirit and life. " Some have since misunderstood him, and, to this day, misunderstand this piece of scripture; and have from thence introducedthe absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, that after the words ofconsecration, the bread and wine are the real body and blood ofChrist. So some adhere only to the letter of the word and expound thelaw of God in a mere literal sense. It seems the apostle Paul, beforehis conversion, understood it so. --Read the 7th chapter of Romans, from the 6th to the end of the 13th verse. Paul was brought up at thefeet of Gamaliel, a doctor of the law; yet, while in his unregeneratestate, knew not the spiritual meaning of the law of God, (I mean theholy or moral law) and no doubt he spake by experience when he says, (as I wrote to you from I Cor. Ii. 14) "But the natural man receivednot the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness untohim, neither can he know them, because they are spirituallydiscerned. " By the natural man, I conceive, the apostle meant theunregenerate man: yea, with the highest degree of human teaching andknowledge without he is taught of God, by his word and spirit, hecannot truly understand the things of the spirit of God; and thereforethey are, as I say, misapplied, mangled and made havoc of. Faith is, by some, only held as a bare assent that Jesus Christ came in theflesh. None do truly believe that, but by the Holy Ghost. You still will continue to maintain the doctrine of UniversalSalvation, by those texts, which I said you spake at the grave withsuch an _emphasis_; if they are to be understood only in a literalsense as they are expressed, I can quote as many or more spoken byChrist and his apostles which will contradict them in their literalsense: Christ says, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved;but he that believeth not shall be damned. Then shall he say unto themon his left hand, depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away intoeverlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal. Then saidJesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me and shall diein your sins: whither I go ye cannot come. " John viii. 21, 24, "I saidtherefore unto you that ye shall die in your sins; for if ye believenot that I am he ye shall die in your sins. " With respect to that textyou quote from John xii. 32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. " It is, I conceive, explained by Christhimself in John iii. 14, 15, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent inthe wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up; thatwhosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlastinglife. " By Christ being lifted on the cross the way of salvation is tobe preached to all men; but it is only those that believe who will notperish and have eternal life, according to the foregoing scriptures Ihave quoted from Mark xvi. 16, and Mat. Xxv. 41, 46. I could quotemany more scriptures spoken by our Lord himself and explained by him;and I hope, sir, you will allow our Lord to be the best expositor ofhis own word. I conceive you think you have got a mighty argument whenyou mention the apostle Peter, who had a vision which instructed himin his duty to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; but remember, Petersays, "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in everynation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted ofhim. " Then he began to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his friends;he preached Christ to them; he preached Jesus and the resurrection; heshows he is ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead;and says, "To him give all the prophets witness that through his namewhosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. " Did hesay that every individual of the human race would be saved? No suchthing! And though he had further light concerning the Gentiles, henever, as I can find, preached Universal Salvation, but to thecontrary. Read his epistles, first and second, particularly 2depistle, 2d chapter from 1st to the end of the 9th verse. "The Lordknoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation; and to reserve theunjust to the day of judgment, to be _punished_;" not to be_liberated_! Read 3d chapter, 7th verse, "But the heavens and theearth which are now, by the same word are kept in store reserved untofire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. " Peterwrote these epistles after he had further light with respect to theGentiles' having the gospel preached unto them. As to what you write about my saying I do not envy you because greatnumbers go to hear you, I still say it, as far as I know my wicked anddeceitful heart, and wish you might preach the pure and simple gospel, and that your hearers might desire nothing more than the sincere milkof the word, as new-born babes, preached unto them; that they mightgrow thereby, &c. That place I directed you to in 1 John, iv. 5, 6, and wished you toconsider, though I have in some measure already considered it, I willattempt more particular to consider it. 1st. You say, John says, "Andevery spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in theflesh is not of God, and this is that spirit of Antichrist whereof youhave heard it should come and even now already is in the world. " Johnin the preceding verse said, that every spirit that confesseth JesusChrist is come in the flesh, is of God; do you think, sir, that everyperson that assents to this truth is a true believer? But few thathave been born in a land of gospel light but what assents to this; butthe soul that is born of God truly believes it, according to what thesame apostle writes, 5th Chapter 1st epistle 1st verse, "Whosoeverbelieveth Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and every one thatloveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. " Doall men that confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh profess tobe born of God? Do they love the children of God that bear his image?No; they, if unregenerate, are of the world; they "love darknessrather than light, because their deeds are evil. " Who does our Lordmean when he says, "If the world hate you, it hated me before it hatedyou, if ye were of the world the world would love his own; but becauseye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you?" Sir, you know that there has beenmany antichristian professors of this truth, _that Jesus Christ iscome in the flesh_, that have shed much human blood, because theyhated the dear children of God. Therefore I conceive this is themeaning of the text: we must know for ourselves that Jesus Christ isthe Son of God, as Peter did when he confessed him, and Christ said tohim, "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has notrevealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven--upon thisrock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevailagainst it. " I believe that true and saving faith is wrought in theheart by the spirit of the _living God_; and the soul that believestruly, is, as I have already said, born of God, is in union withChrist, is partaker of the divine nature, and has escaped thecorruption that is in the world through lust, and is pressing forwardtowards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in ChristJesus. I have wrote more than I intended, having received your otherepistle and have considered some of it. This remains to be considered:what you wrote concerning your having great numbers of hearers. It istrue Christ had a great number which followed, and heard him, but fewwhich followed because they loved his doctrine, and followed him fromright motives. He said unto them, "Ye seek me not because ye saw themiracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labournot for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat which endureth untoeverlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you, for himhath God the Father sealed, " John vi. 26, 27. Our Lord says, Johnviii. 47, "He that is of God heareth God's words; ye therefore hearthem not because ye are not of God. " Hence you may see how our Lordand his beloved disciple John agree; it is not the truth as it is inJesus, the populace are after; it is to gratify their curiosity, orhear something about their salvation in a way that has no cross in it. But Christ says, "If any man will be my disciple let him deny himselfand take up his cross, and follow me. " When Christ preached soulsearching doctrine as he did in the 6th of John, "Many of hisdisciples went back and followed no more with him. " And I believe whenyou preach repentance and faith, and shew what fruits they willproduce in the true penitent and true believer, the world will nothear you and cordially like your doctrine. But they, as John says, areof the world, therefore they speak of the world, and the world heareththem; "We are of God, we that knoweth God heareth us; he that is notof God heareth not us: hereby know we the spirit of truth and thespirit of error. " I have reason to think some popular preachers aregood men, but the world do not like them nor their doctrine, becausethey are so; but because of their popularity their curiosity is fed, or gratified--and not their souls with the pure milk of the word. Sir, you answer in some way which is ambiguous to me about your preachingrepentance, and say repentance may be preached without speaking theword repentance. What makes you shun speaking plainly as Christ did?Be explicit in preaching it. You cannot deny, but Christ and hisapostles preached it explicitly. Christ said in plain language, "Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish, " Luke xiii. 3, 5. Inyour answer concerning the resurrection of the dead, you do not speakof that in a clear and explicit way, and your not mentioning it ateither of the funerals, makes me doubt whether you believe it in asclear and literal a manner as it is expressed in the scriptures byChrist and his apostles. Paul says, "Seeing we have such hope we usegreat plainness of speech. " I hope, sir, you will not be offended withme for plain dealing. As to your apostasy, I hope I shall have an opportunity to confer withyou about it. I am happy to say I feel no rancour or enmity againstyour person or people, as a neighbour and friend, but should bewilling to assist you in, and as far as my ability and power with agood conscience will admit; and hope this will not interrupt ourmeeting together as usual in visiting the schools. I think we had bestdrop the controversy, and I think I shall no more write to you, andhope you will no more write to me on this subject. You may make whatuse you please of it; I hope it will be made of good use to you. I now, dear sir, "commend you to God and the word of his grace, whichis able to build yon up in the _truth_ as it is in _Jesus_, and giveyou an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. " From your friend, and well wisher in the gospel of our dear Lord JesusChrist. JOSEPH WALTON. Mr. Hosea Ballou, _Pastor of a Church_. * * * * * LETTER V. FROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON. PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 15, 1811. _Rev. Sir_, --Yours of the 11th inst. Is before me, and according to my_promise_ I hasten to pay _an early attention_ to its contents, notwithstanding you express a _hope_ that I should write to you nomore on this subject. In your desire, sir, that I should write no moreI believe you to be _really sincere_, for I believe you to be a mandisposed to give your friends as little trouble as possible; but Ihave several reasons for answering your last, which, when I havestated, I presume, will fully satisfy you that my answer is requiredin justice to myself. 1st. I find myself accused of _baseness_, of which, were I guilty, theforfeiture would be that of _confidence_. 2d. I find my preaching misrepresented, and that in direct violationof my own declaration in the present correspondence. 3d. I find questions proposed for my discussion, which renders itreasonable that you should have an answer, as I was in hopes ofobtaining to the questions which I stated to you. 4th. I find you quite off from the subjects of your admonitions, notattempting to support them, nor yet willing to exonerate me fromcharges. 5th. I find the scriptures of our blessed Lord and Saviour quoted witha manifest design to limit his grace and salvation. I might go on and state a number more reasons why I conceive it to bemy duty to reply, but the five already given will undoubtedly satisfyyour mind; and they furnish subjects sufficiently ample for anepistle. To them I shall conform myself, and endeavour to be asconcise as is consistent with the importance of the subject. 1st. Your accusation is in the following words:-- "Here you designedly, I think, mistake. " "Those texts of scripturewhich you have quoted from Rom. 8th chapt. Are not to be applied asyou apply them, neither doth the apostle apply them so. And methinksyou know they are not, if you consider the connexion from the 28thverse of the chapter to the end. And that passage of scripture quotedfrom 1 Cor. Iii. 21, 22, 23, is only to be applied to real christians;and this, sir, I presume you know; but it would not suit your and yourscheme of Universal Salvation to apply them so. " Here I am accused, 1st of _designedly mistaking_ you! And, 2d of a_wilful misapplication_ of the _sacred word_! To these high charges, sir, I beg the privilege of pleading _not guilty_; and, after makingmy defence, of submitting my cause to impartial judges. With regard to the _designed mistake_, my defence is that no mistakewas made by me either _designed_ or _not designed_. --I have examinedand find that I quoted you verbatim. I also find that I fully agreedwith you in the sentence quoted as to what was necessarily signifiedby it. I applied the sentence according to my own mind; but did notpretend nor say that you applied it as I did. Where then is the_designed mistake_? Could an action lie against a man for murder if no_body_ were found, on which murder had been committed?--Could anindictment for theft be supported against a man if no property weremissing from the owner? Is it proper to bring an allegation thus, without pointing out some sort of _mistake_? I will not be souncharitable, sir, as to suppose that you _designed_ to bring _a falseaccusation_ in this instance. No, sir, you are not capable of suchwickedness; I have ever believed you to be an _honest, sincerechristian_; and that opinion is so congenial to my feelings that Ishall never give it up while I can find a reasonable excuse forretaining it. My opinion is, that you, finding that I had made such ready use ofyour sentence apparently to my own advantage, thought I designed tomistake you, and feeling a little disagreeably on the occasion, didnot _look minutely_ to see if you had rightly apprehended me, or not. With regard to the _wilful misapplication of the sacred word_ mydefence is to be made from the sacred text itself. In this defence, sir, it is sufficient if I give you reasons which induce me to applythe scripture as I do. It is not necessary that I convince you or anybody else that my application is right, for we are all liable to err. What I shall aim at is to show that if my applications are _notcorrect_ yet I am not guilty of _wilfully misapplying_ the _sacredtext_. 1st. Of the passage in the 8th of Rom. The following are myreasons for a general application of that scripture to mankind. 1st. The whole human family, at least, is made the primary subject ofthe apostle's application as may be seen by looking at the 19th verseand onward. "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth forthe manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was madesubject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjectedthe same in hope; because the creature itself also shall be deliveredfrom the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of thechildren of God. For we know that the _whole creation groaneth_ and_travaileth_ in _pain together_ until now; and not only they, butourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even weourselves _groan_ within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. " I understand by the above quotation that St. Paul meant the same bythe "_whole creation_" as he did by the "_creature_" who was "madesubject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hathsubjected the same in hope. " And this creature which he calls the"whole creation" he says shall be delivered from the bondage ofcorruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. This isthe apostle's primary application of the love and mercy of God. In a_minor_ sense he is _particular_ as may be seen in the abovequotation, "and not only they, " that is the whole creation at large, but ourselves also, which have the _first fruits_ of the _spirit_, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, towit, the redemption of our body. " I know of no way to understand theapostle here to mean otherwise than that the whole human race _groan_and _travail_ for the same deliverance and redemption that those dowho are blessed with the first fruits of the spirit. Nor do I find anyexpression, in relation to this subject, more significant of thedeliverance of those who have the first fruits of the spirit, than ofthe deliverance of the whole creation, or creature made subject tovanity. By turning back only to the 5th chap, we find the apostlelaboring the subject of grace and salvation in just as extensive amanner. See verse 18th, "Therefore as by the offence of one, judgmentcame upon _all men_ unto _condemnation_, even so, by the righteousnessof one, the free gift came upon _all men_ unto _justification oflife_. " Consistently with this positive and particular declaration ofthe apostle's belief in the _justification_ of _all men_ through the_righteousness_ of _Jesus Christ_, we find his following testimony. See 1 Tim. Ii. 4, &c. "Who will have all men to be saved and come untothe knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediatorbetween God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransomfor _all_ to be testified in due time. " Heb. Ii. 9. "But we see Jesuswho was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering ofdeath, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of Godshould taste death for every man. " Rom. Iv. 25. --"who was deliveredfor our offences and was raised again for our justification. " v. 8. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. " In the above testimony the apostle says, that Christ gave himself aransom for _all men_, that he, by the _grace_ of _God_, tasted deathfor _every man_, that he was delivered for our offences and was raisedagain for our justification, that his death for sinners is acommendation of God's love to them. Now I am willing to acknowledge toyou, sir, and to all the world, that I can make no sense of the abovetestimony without applying it to all mankind. In the apostle'sobservations in the close of the 8th of Rom. Of nothing being able toseparate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, there is aperfect analogy with the foregoing testimony. The love of God which isin Christ Jesus, was commended to a sinful world in that Christ tasteddeath, by the grace of God, for every man. If one of all those forwhom Christ died can be separated from that love by which Christ diedfor him, I know not why the whole may not be, by the same argument. 2d. Of the passage in 1st Cor. 3d, &c. This passage, you say, you_presume_ I _know_ ought not to be applied to any _but realchristians_! See the text. "Therefore let _no man_, glory in men; forall things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or theworld, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; allare yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. " Are you willing, sir, to _presume_ that I _know_ that the apostle Paul did not mean todissuade any but _real christians_ from trusting in men? This you must_presume_ in order to _presume_ that I _know_ the text ought to beapplied to none but real Christians. Is not the sense of "_no man_" asuniversal in the negative, as the sense of "_all men_" is in thepositive? Why did you not attempt to give some reason for such a_presumption_? I hope dear sir, you will not allow yourself to think, even for one moment, that I am so uncharitable as to suppose you_presumed_ thus, contrary to impressions of your own mind, though youcannot think any worse of me than is implied in the presumption. Itell you, sir, that I seriously believe that the above text ought tobe applied to all men; I believe it is wrong for any man to put histrust in man, according to that scripture; and I believe it to beperfectly right to exhort _all men_ to put their trust in God who hasgiven his son to die for us all, and who will with him freely give usall things richly to enjoy. I do not doubt your sincerity in the above _presumption_, but I doubtyour having paid a suitable attention to the subject before you thuspresumed. Hasty judgments and sudden conclusions frequently make workfor repentance; but the true christian will, on cool reflection, bewilling to acknowledge his faults and to remove unjust accusations. --"By their fruits ye shall know them. " On considering the usage withwhich I meet in this unsolicited and unexpected correspondence, Icannot but call to mind the very different treatment which the_devil_ received from an heavenly dignitary, who dared not to bringagainst his opponent a _railing accusation_! As a further evidencethat the text in Corinthians ought to be applied to all men, or tomen in general, see the words of the same apostle to the Ephesians, chapter iv. 8, 11, &c. "Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up onhigh, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. And hegave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; andsome pastors and teachers. "--Now look again to the passage inCorinthians, "For all things are yours, whether _Paul_, or Apollos, or Cephas, " &c. These were the gifts given unto men. The questionnow is, were those gifts which were given unto men, given to any butreal christians? See Psalm lxviii. 18, to which the apostle alludesin his words quoted from Eph. Iv. "Thou hast ascended on high; thouhast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them. "Are you willing, sir, to _presume_ that I _know_ that the prophetDavid and St. Paul meant to apply those scriptures to none but _realchristians_? I must acknowledge my suprise at such _presumption_. I will now take my leave of those accusations, just remarking thatI feel no fear in submitting my case to any impartial tribunal. The 2d general particular is that of my preaching beingmisrepresented, and that in direct violation of my own declarations inthe present correspondence. This misrepresentation I find in yourletter in the following words: "I think, sir, your giving your hearersencouragement in your preaching that Christ will save them all whetherthey repent and believe the gospel or no, is of a dangerous nature. "In the first place I call my whole congregation to witness againstthis misrepresentation. In the second place I call my own testimony inthis correspondence which you had before you, to witness against thismisrepresentation. The following are my own words verbatim:--"In thefirst place I wish to observe that I as much believe in thosescriptures which speak of the necessity of repentance, as I do in anypart of the sacred writings. The many scriptures which you have_judiciously_ quoted to prove the propriety of the doctrine ofrepentance are justly applied as I conceive, and I accord with you intheir use and meaning as far as you have explained them. While a manis in a state of unbelief he is not in the enjoyment of the truth. "These quotations, sir, are all in direct opposition to yourrepresentation of the subject of repentance. Here again I ought to observe, that I am far from accusing you of an_intentional fault_, or a wilful misrepresentation; though in order tosuppose you clear from such a fault, I must charitably suppose thatthe _perturbations_ of your mind were such that you did not give myletter a careful examination. I proved by plain and positive scripturethat _repentance_ is as much a gift of Christ as the forgiveness ofsins, which is, with the passage quoted from my letter, sufficient toconvince any man, who is not "improperly biased by tradition, " that Ido not exclude the necessity of repentance. 3d. I find questions proposed for my discussion, which renders itnecessary that you should receive an answer, as I was in hope ofobtaining to the questions which I stated to you. These questions are in the following words: "I would ask you, if, whenI am writing a letter or an epistle to Mr. Hosea Ballou, it would beproper for me to apply what I wrote in particular to you concerningyour affairs, or circumstances, to the whole world? Who does our Lordmean when he says, 'If the world hate you it hated me before it hatedyou, ' &c. " To the first of these questions I answer, should you statein a letter to me that _no man_ ought to preach the doctrine which Ipreach, I should suppose that your observation would apply to thewhole world of mankind as well as to me; or if I should say in aletter to the Rev. Joseph Walton, _no man_ ought to _presume_ his_friend_ to be guilty of _wilful mistakes_, and _misapplications_ ofscripture without the _best possible evidence_ I believe you would seethe propriety of applying my observation to all men, even if youshould feel yourself particularly admonished by it. The second question I conceive may be justly answered thus: The_world_ which hated Christ was that religious order among the Jews whoaccused him of being a friend to publicans and sinners; who thoughtthemselves so much better than their neighbours, as to say, "Stand bythyself; come not nigh me, for I am holier than thou. " _Enmity_ to _Christ_ grows out of a Pharisaical notion of our ownrighteousness, and it is an invariable mark of a Pharisee to opposethe humiliating doctrine of _equal guilt_ and _equal grace_. No manever hated Christ who felt the weight of his own sins and the need ofa Saviour. No set of men ever fomented persecutions but such asthought themselves the more particular favourites of God than others. When I hear certain characters raising such queries, I am almostinduced to use the freedom with them which the prophet Nathan usedwith his terrible majesty the king, and say. "Thou art the man!" But Idare not assume the place of judgment; and I know my own fallibilityso well that I have no need to accuse others. 4thly. I find you quite off from the subjects of your admonition, notattempting to support them, nor yet willing to exonerate me fromcharges. Quite off, I say, from the subjects of admonition; for youhave not attempted to distinguish between the two ideas contained inwhat you stated as the first subject of admonition, nor have you toldme whether it be one, or both which you consider thusreprehensible. --You labour some time on another subject which concernsthe mode by which death was introduced, but you have said nothingabout whether God _originally designed death_, or not. Not knowingyour real mind from what you expressed on this subject, I queried inmy mind how I ought to understand you, and supposing you consistentwith yourself, and having sufficient reason to believe that your_creed_ contains the belief that God foreordained whatsoever comes topass, I explained the sentence accordingly; but you neitheracknowledge me right in this particular, nor object; but you say thatyou do not think you ever told me so! Here again, sir, I can easilysuppose you speak the truth, though I am under the necessity ofcharitably supposing that your memory fails, for at the first visitwhich I had the happiness of making you, I heard you recommend theCatechism to be taught in schools which contains this very article offaith. And now, sir, I must either believe that you would recommendthat which you do not believe, or I must still suppose that youbelieve that God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass; and of coursethat he foreordained _death_. And as you _admonish_ me for suggestingthat God originally designed death for the good of mankind you cannotbe consistent with yourself, as I can see, without believing that Godoriginally designed death for a _damage_ to _mankind_. And as you donot deny believing thus, I cannot but marvel that you should whollyneglect to answer my queries on this subject: a subject whichevidently involves the moral character of God. Do you feel, sir, as ifyou had honourably acquitted yourself in this particular, by onlyexulting in your forgetfulness concerning having given me tounderstand your creed? Does this look altogether like renouncing thehidden things of dishonesty? Did you believe your creed in respect tothe subject of admonition was hid from me? Why then did you not openlydecide either one way or the other? May I not without doing you theleast injustice suppose you were straightened by the glaringinconsistency of your _admonition_? If you avowed the suggested _item_all the abominable absurdity which I posted full in sight must havebeen charged to your account. If you disavowed the suggested _item_then away went the _darling Catechism_, in a moment, and with it, moreof the preposterous inventions of priestcraft than could be easilyreplaced to the advantage of the cause of superstition and ignorance!I would by no means suggest that you did any thing or neglected to doany thing from a motive which your own conscience disallowed; but I amimpelled, even by charity itself, to attribute your conduct in theabove case to an improper prejudice against a doctrine of which youknow but very little. Another subject of your admonition is that of my having apostatisedfrom the true faith. On this subject, on which I was particular, youmake no defence, nor yet exhonerate me from the charge. You observeyou hope for an opportunity to confer with me about this matter. Whywere you unwilling to write your defence of this allegation, or be sokind as to withdraw it. I must use the plainness, sir, to say, if youaccuse of _designed mistakes_ in _writing_ where no mistakes exist, ifI have a verbal conference with you on these matters, I should wish tohave it before a ready scribe who could produce the conservationafterwards. You are not to suppose by this precaution I mean tointimate that you would report the conversation contrary to truth, designedly; I mean if when my letters are before your eyes, youmisunderstand, you might be as likely to misunderstand conversation. You admonished me for preaching a doctrine which pleases the world, meaning the populace; and I endeavoured to defend myself in thatparticular: but you neither attempt to show my reasoning faulty, noryet, acknowledge me correct. This is _admonishing_, I should suppose, in the _unaccountable_ manner in which _Popes_ admonish! You say thatmany followed Christ for the sake of the loaves. Dear sir, I did notsay but they all did; and if they did, the question is, does thatprove his doctrine not of God? Here, sir, you will see, if you lookone moment, that you were off, far off from the subject. 5th. I find the scriptures of our blessed Lord and Saviour quoted witha manifest design to _limit_ his _grace_ and _salvation_. You introduce those quotations as follows: "You still will continue tomaintain the doctrine of Universal Salvation by those texts which Isaid you spoke at the grave with such an _emphasis_. If they are to beunderstood only in a literal sense as they are expressed, I can quoteas many, or more spoken by Christ and his apostles, which willcontradict them in their literal sense. Christ says, 'He thatbelieveth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth notshall be damned. Then shall he say unto them on his left hand departfrom me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and hisangels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but therighteous into life eternal. '--'Then said Jesus again unto them, I gomy way and ye shall seek me and shall die in your sins; whither I goye cannot come. John viii. 21, 24. I said therefore unto you that yeshall die in your sins, for if ye believe not I am he ye shall die inyour sins. '" These passages you say contradict those which I make use of to proveUniversal Salvation, if we understand those which I thus use in aliteral sense, as they are expressed. I will state one passage only asan example, which I have before quoted. Rom. V. 18, "Therefore, as bythe offence of one, judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, evenso by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men untojustification of life. " Nothing can be said on the above text whichcan tend to make its meaning more plain than it is, if its mostnatural sense be the true sense. This, sir, I presume, you will allow:Now let us look for a contradiction of this text in the passages whichyou quoted. "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and hethat believeth not shall be damned. " I ask how long the unbelieverwill be damned? Answer--As long as he is an unbeliever, and no longer, according to the text. Is there any expression in the text, or contextthat even intimates that any will remain eternally in unbelief? No. Where is the contradiction then? There is none. The passage which youquote from the 25th of Mat. Says, "And these shall _go_ away intoeverlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. " As theword everlasting is very frequently used in the scriptures to signifyages and dispensations, is there any certainty that it has not such ameaning in this place? Answer: No. Where is the contradiction then?There is none. The very expression "_punishment_" shows plainly thatwhat is inflicted is designed as an emendation of the punished. I haveshown in a late publication, [11] that it is in direct violation of thewords of Christ, to explain the above text to signify a punishment inanother state of existence; and yet, if we were under the necessity ofunderstanding it so, it would fall after all infinitely short ofproving that, at some period known to a merciful God, all men will notbe justified unto life. --Therefore no contradiction can be found. Thepassage which speaks of those who should die in their sins will fallequally short of contradicting the testimony of UniversalJustification. I will ask in the first place, whether a man's being_dead_ in _sin_ render it impossible for him to be quickened unto lifeby the spirit of God? See a passage which you quote, "You hath hequickened who were _dead_ in _trespasses_ and _sins_. " If those whoare _dead_ in _trespasses_ and _sins_ can be _quickened_ according tothis passage, what is the reason that those Jews to whom Christ spakecan never be _quickened_? You must see, sir, that the passage whichyou quote refutes your notion about this contradiction. You will saythat Christ told the Jews "whither I go ye cannot come, " but youcannot but remember that he said the same thing to his own disciples. "As I said unto the Jews so I say unto you, whither I go ye cannotcome;" and afterwards explains himself to mean that they could notcome immediately. --Let us now turn this subject round and ask how thetext quoted from Romans can be true if your notion of endless miserybe granted to be the true meaning of the passages you quote? Will youundertake to say that men who are justified unto life by therighteousness of Christ will remain endlessly in a state of death andcondemnation? If you do not feel competent to the task of maintainingsuch palpable contradiction, why would it not be doing yourself akindness just to examine that _soul chilling_ and _heaven dishonouringdoctrine_ of _endless, unmerciful punishment_! One moment'sexamination of such an idea when brought in sight of the fountainwhich is opened for the house of David and the inhabitants ofJerusalem to wash in from sin and uncleanness would abolish itforever. I acknowledge, sir, that my five particulars do notcomprehend every particular of your letter; nor have I attended to allwhich they do comprehend so extensively as I would if I could supposeit necessary; but as you were in hopes of receiving nothing, it is notto be expected that you will find fault because there is no more. [Footnote 11: "Candid Review, " or Answer to Robinson. ] I cannot be willing to close this epistle without giving you credit offollowing the apostle's direction in your observation concerning myargument in respect to St. Peter. You say "I conceive you think youhave got a _mighty_ argument, " &c. The apostle exhorts us to be_children_ in _malice_, and I am sure St. Paul, nor any body else everheard a more _childish expression_ which communicated the leastpossible disaffection. What you quote from St. Peter with a design to prove endless misery, without attempting to show that such was his meaning, I forbearcommenting upon. If you had shown that Peter could consistentlybelieve that no man was common or unclean considered in the sheetwhich he saw in vision, and at the same time believe that the greatestpart of mankind would remain in sin and uncleanness eternally youwould have done more than you have. I hope, sir, if you are determinedto take your leave of this correspondence without supporting thesubjects of your admonition, and without supporting the heavy chargesyou have stated against me, and, likewise, without acknowledging theimpropriety of your admonition, and the incorrectness of your charges, that you will never attack another of your fellow creatures in thesame way. I do not express this because I feel the leastunfriendliness to you in consequence of the method you have pursued, but because I think it is contrary to the spirit of Christianity; itis not doing as we wish to be done by. I do not believe that your soulfeels satisfied with it; but you have some remains of pride yet whichkeeps you from giving up ground which you are sensible you cannotmaintain. I hope, sir, you will entertain no apprehensions respectingmy cordial friendship to you, or my readiness to join you in anypossible usefulness to our fellow creatures. And, as youaffectionately committed me to God and to the word of his grace, please to accept the sincere desires for your present and everlastingwelfare, of sir, your humble servant, for Christ's sake. HOSEA BALLOU. * * * * * LETTER VI. FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME. PORTSMOUTH, FEB. 1, 1811. _Rev. Sir_, --Having taken into serious consideration the wholecorrespondence which has passed between us, I have felt very deepimpressions on my mind arising from the following coosiderations. 1st. You and I are accountable beings, and must undoubtedly, sooner orlater, be called to account for the propriety, or impropriety of ourlabours with each other. 2d. Our professional character must, without doubt, be a highconsideration in our accountability. 3d. The eyes of society are ever watchful, and God has made usaccountable, not only to himself, but to our fellow creatures, whohave a just demand upon us. While these important considerations were revolving in my mind, I felta sense of my youth, compared with your age, my inexperience, theproneness of the human heart to the vanity of self confidence, theblindness of prejudice to which old and young are more or lesssubject, and also, the friendship which has hitherto happily subsistedbetween us since our first acquaintance. These circumstances and those considerations, led my mind to theconclusion that I ought to lay the whole matter before God, and to askof him suitable wisdom to guide me in relation to so weighty asubject. The result of my devotional supplications is a forcible application ofthe divine direction, given by St. Paul 1 Tim. V. 1, "Rebuke not anelder but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren. " How far your communications to me are consistent, or inconsistent withthe apostle's direction, in the above test, I do not conceive it myduty to judge, any farther than a discharge of my own duty, pursuantto the apostle's direction, may require. On the most deliberaterecapitulation of all which I have written, I cannot now say, that Icould wish to recall a single idea, argument, application ofscripture, or sentiment; though I will not even suggest that betterinformation might not produce a different conclusion. I trust I havehitherto treated you, sir, and the subjects of your communicationswith all the propriety of which my understanding is master; and myfervent desire is, that I may complete the labours enjoined on me bythe above text, in strict conformity to that most holy spirit whichinspired such excellent counsel. Therefore, Rev. Sir, I _entreat you_as a _father_ to consider, 1st. Whether you entreated your humble servant as a _brother_ when youadmonished him for important particulars which you wholly refuse tosubstantiate either as facts or wrongs? 2d. Whether you entreated me as a brother in refusing to decide, as toyour meaning, in the first subject of your admonition, and in notgiving me to understand whether I had rightly apprehended you or not? 3d. Whether you entreated me as a brother in not acknowledging anagreement of sentiment on the subject of _repentance_ after I hadgiven _you_ the fullest assurance possible, that I believed in itsnecessity and importance? 4th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in admonishing me as anapostate from the true faith of the gospel, while I profess to believein Christ the Son of God, as the Saviour of the world; and stand insociety, in my various relation by the blessing of God, unimpeached asto morality? 5th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in admonishing me against adoctrine which commends the love and mercy of God in the finalreconciliation and everlasting happiness of all unreconciled beings;and in opposing said doctrine with no other argument than saying, ineffect, that if the scriptures which prove the doctrine are allowed tomean as they naturally read, other scriptures contradict them! Thusfurnishing the infidel with his darling weapon against the divinity ofthe scriptures? 6th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in stating those heavycharges against me, in which you _accuse me_ of a _designed mistake_, and of _wilful misapplications_ of scriptures where neither _mistake_or _misapplications_ of scriptures can be made to appear? 7th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in misrepresenting mypreaching when you never heard me perform in the particular capacityof a preacher? 8th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in taking your leave ofthis correspondence without supporting one single particular of youradmonition, or one single charge against me. And also, withoutacknowledging the incorrectness of your admonition, or the improprietyof your charges. I entreat you, sir, as a father, to consider whether the spirit whichyou manifested, in bring such _unreasonable_ charges against me, beconsistent with the directions given by St. Paul to Timothy, and alsowith the example and precept of him who loved his enemies andcommanded his disciples to do likewise? I entreat you seriously to consider what the conduct of the Saviourwould have been, if he had been disposed to _judge, denounce, reject_and _disfellowship_ all those who sincerely believe in him and stroveto honour him with becoming obedience to his commands, on account oftheir not understanding every thing as well as he did? I entreat you to call in question your treatment of me because I donot believe in every thing as you do; and carefully examine if itcorrespond with the conduct of him, who, out of pity to humanweakness, submitted himself to the scorn and hatred of those whoconsidered themselves more righteous than others? In relation to the doctrine, to which you appear so violently opposed, I entreat you, as a father, to take into consideration, 1st. Thepromises of God to Abraham by which the doctrine is supported. 2dly. The corroborating testimonies in the New Testament by which we are tounderstand those promises. 3dly. The consistency of the doctrine withthe character of _infinite goodness_. And, 4thly. The consistency ofthe doctrine with every benevolent and godlike desire of the humanheart. If God promised to bless all the families, nations and kindreds of theearth in the seed of Abraham, who is Christ, and if St. Paul hasinformed us that this blessing is _justification through faith_, Ientreat you to consider by what authority you condemn the doctrine of_Universal Justification_. If the apostle has also argued that God has made peace through theblood of the cross of Jesus, by him to reconcile _all things_ tohimself, I entreat you to consider by what authority you condemn thedoctrine of _Universal Reconciliation_. If in perfect conformity to the promises of God, the prophet has givenhis testimony that _all the ends of the earth shall see the salvationof our God_, I entreat you to consider by what authority you condemnthe doctrine of _Universal Salvation_. If you make use of scripture to contradict such plain and positivedeclarations, by explaining _parables_ and _doubtful sayings_ for thatpurpose, I entreat you candidly to consider whether you can do anything more to the dishonour of the sacred word, or more pleasing tothose who wish to bring the scriptures into disrepute. If you feel determined to maintain and inculcate the idea of God'spunishing his rational offspring eternally without mercy, love, orpity towards them, I entreat you, as a father, to consider whether youcan invent any idea which, applied to God, would make his characterappear more contrary to the spirit of him who loved his enemies anddied for them. I entreat you to examine carefully and see if it be possible toreconcile the doctrine of endless misery with the benevolent desiresof the true spiritual children of God; and consider seriously whetherit be proper to pray for the salvation of all men, and then condemnthe belief of it as a heresy. I entreat you, as a father, to call into serious consideration thereal cause of all the persecutions and abominable cruelties which havebeen practiced in Christendom, on account of religion, and see if youcan find a foundation for these things except in the blasphemousnotion that God is unmerciful towards the impenitent. Endeavour, sir, to satisfy yourself how the foolish prejudices ofignorant zealots could ever have succeeded in establishing so manymiddle walls of partition, and in making so many perniciousdistinctions in the Christian world, if the blasphemous notion ofpartiality in God had not been the rage of an apostatised church. Find out, if you can, I entreat you, sir, the cause of all the madnessand folly, which appear in the habitual coldness and bitternessexercised by the clergy, of different denominations towards eachother, if it be not the blasphemous notion that their foolishprejudices are sanctioned by God! Adieu, I write no more. I feel that I have done my duty. I haveentreated you as a father in love and faithfuness. I leave the effectswith God; humbly praying and joyfully believing, that when we arepurged from our hay, wood and stubble, with the spirit of judgment andthe spirit of burning, we shall see eye to eye and be admitted to ahumble seat at the feet of our blessed Saviour, for whose sake Iremain, sir, your most obedient and very humble servant. HOSEA BALLOU Rev. JOSEPH WALTON.