{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8225/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8225","id":"gutenberg_8225","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8225","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Revelation","Universalism -- Doctrines"],"text":"Produced by David Starner, David King and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team from a book given for scanning by\nRev. Felicia Urbanski.\n\n\n\nA\nSERIES OF LETTERS,\nIN DEFENCE OF\nDIVINE REVELATION;\nIN REPLY TO\nREV. ABNER KNEELAND'S SERIOUS INQUIRY INTO THE AUTHENTICITY\nOF THE SAME.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBY HOSEA BALLOU,\nPastor of the Second Universalist Society in Boston.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTO WHICH IS ADDED,\nA RELIGIOUS CORRESPONDENCE,\nBETWEEN\nTHE REV. HOSEA BALLOU, AND THE REV. DR. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER\nAND REV. JOSEPH WALTON, PASTORS OF CONGREGATIONAL\nCHURCHES IN PORTSMOUTH, N. H.\n\n_District of Massachusetts, to wit:\nDistrict Clerk's Office_.\n\nBe it remembered, that on the twenty-fifth day of July, A. D. 1820, in\nthe forty-fifth year of the Independence of the United States of\nAmerica, HENRY BOWEN, of the said district, has deposited in this\noffice, the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Proprietor\nin the words following, to wit:\n\n\"A Series of Letters, in defence of Divine Revelation; in reply to\nRev. Abner Kneeland's Serious Inquiry into the authenticity of the\nsame. By HOSEA BALLOU, Pastor of the Second Universalist Society in\nBoston. To which is added, a Religious Correspondence, between the\nRev. Hosea Ballou, and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Buckminster, and Rev.\nJoseph Walton, Pastors of Congregational Churches in Portsmouth, N.\nH.\"\n\nIn conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States,\nentitled, \"An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the\nCopies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of\nsuch Copies, during the times therein mentioned:\" and also to an Act\nentitled, \"An Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, an Act for the\nEncouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and\nBooks, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies during the times\ntherein mentioned; and extending the benefits thereof to the Arts of\nDesigning, Engraving, and Etching Historical, and other Prints.\"\n\nJOHN W. DAVIS, _Clerk of the District of Massachusetts_\n\nTO THE READER.\n\nSome few suggestions respecting the following Controversy are thought\nnecessary in order to inform the reader how it was first introduced,\nthe motives which led to it, and those which induced to its being\npublished to the world.\n\nWe learn from the Rev. Mr. KNEELAND, that having at different times\nbeen exercised in his mind with serious doubts respecting the\nauthenticity of the Scriptures, and the system of Divine Revelation,\nrecorded in them, he was induced to solicit a correspondence with the\nRev. Mr. BALLOU on the subject. That, in order to render the\ncontroversy the more interesting, by calling into action the energies\nof mind, and by directing the correspondence to definite purposes, he\nassumed the character of a real opponent, determining to maintain the\nopposition, in all its forms, until reduced, by necessity, to yield to\nsuccessful arguments directed against it. It was with great reluctance\nthat the advocate for the christian religion, in this controversy,\nconsented to undertake a work of this nature; not, however, because he\nesteemed it unnecessary, or because he entertained any doubts with\nregard to the defensibility of revelation, but, as he contends, on\naccount of the want of abilities and means to do the subject justice.\nHis opponent, however, being a familiar acquaintance and friend, as\nwell as a preacher in the same profession of faith with himself,\nhaving led him to believe that a labour of this kind was called for by\nthe most sacred obligations of brother to brother, he was induced to\nrender what assistance was in his power, without infringing too much\non other important duties in which he was almost constantly engaged.\n\nWhen the controversy closed, Mr. KNEELAND felt such an entire\nsatisfaction in his own mind, that the objections which he had stated\nwere fairly answered, and the validity of the Scriptures vindicated,\nthat he was led to believe that to publish the correspondence would be\nof service to the cause of Christ. He therefore obtained leave of his\ncorrespondent, and carried the manuscripts to the westward, where he\noffered proposals for the work, and obtained a number of subscribers;\nbut being called to remove to Philadelphia, he was under the necessity\nof postponing the publication for a season. The publisher having\nobtained some knowledge of this correspondence, and being informed by\nthe Rev. Mr. KNEELAND that the arguments which it contains were, in\nhis opinion, calculated to strengthen the believer, as well as confirm\nthe doubting, he negotiated for the manuscripts and now presents the\nwork to the public, entertaining a hope that it may serve the interest\nof christianity, and promote a respect and veneration for the sacred\nwritings.\n\nThe letters which passed between Mr. BALLOU and two respectable\nclergymen in the town of Portsmouth, N. H. were some years since\npublished in Vermont; but several circumstances rendered it proper\nthat this work should be reprinted. Besides its being nearly or quite\nout of print, the first edition was on an inferior paper, the work\nbadly executed, and a number of errors were discovered.\n\nTo those who believe in the universality of divine goodness, the\npublisher feels confident the following work will be received and read\nwith no small satisfaction. And a hope is entertained that it may be\nthe means of enlightening some, who though they possess the spirit of\nuniversal love and benevolence, have not the felicity of believing in\nthe divine goodness to the extent of their own desires.\n\nH. BOWEN.\n\nA SERIES OF LETTERS, &c.\n\nEXTRACTS No. 1.\n\n[The first letter of the _objector_ was designed merely as an\nIntroduction, inviting Mr. B. to the investigation of the important\nsubject of _moral truth_, or more particularly the truth of _divine\nrevelation_. The following are extracts.]\n\n\"The thought has long since occurred to me that the present age is an\nage of discovery and improvement. The human mind seems to be\ndeveloping its powers in a most wonderful manner; new inventions, new\ndiscoveries, and new theories are the fruits of new experiments; while\nmany are improving upon theories and subjects already existing. Thus\nhuman nature seems to be almost prepared to make a regular advance in\n_moral_ as well as _scientific truth_.\n\n\"However pleasing this must be to every real lover to the arts and\nsciences, yet there seems to be a disposition (at least, as it\nrespects all moral and religious subjects) to chain down the human\nmind to its present attainments, and thereby prevent all further\nimprovement. O how long will it be before common sense shall burst\nthis bubble of fanaticism, and all its mists become evaporated and\nremoved by the rays of simple and native truth? Then shall man know\nfor himself that, under God, all his powers and faculties are as free\nas the element he breathes. Free to think, free to speak, and free to\nact as reason and good sense shall dictate. Supposing that you and I\nshould think of setting an example for others, by trying to throw off\nthe prejudices of a false education, so far as we have been thus\nentangled, and search for the _truth within us_, as the foundation of\nall TRUTH which materially concerns us to know. Who, except our own\nconsciences, will ever call us to an account for so doing?\n\n\"It gives me pain when I see what time and money, what labour and toil\nhave been expended, and are still expending, in plodding over, as it\nwere an old dead letter; to learn languages which exist _no where_\nonly on paper, barely for the sake of reading the opinions of other\nmen, in other times; men who lived in other ages of the world, and\nunder very different circumstances from ourselves; whose opinions, all\nof which are worth preserving, might be given in our own language, so\nas to answer every purpose which can be answered by them, at less than\na hundredth part of the expense it necessarily requires to obtain a\ncompetent knowledge of those languages in which almost every thing,\nsupposed to be valuable, has been originally written. And after all,\nthe truth, or falsity, of every proposition must depend on the truth\nor falsity of the principles embraced in it; and not on the language\nin which it was originally written.\n\n\"If the Greek and Hebrew languages be any security against things\nbeing uttered or written falsely in those languages, I should not only\nthink it important to learn them, but to adopt them, if possible, as\nour vernacular tongue.--But as I believe none will contend for this, I\nshould like to be informed of what possible service it can be to an\nAmerican to learn either of those languages? Is it not a fact, that\nevery natural as well as moral truth may be fully unfolded to the\nunderstanding without them? This will lead the way to one of the\nprincipal subjects which I mean to discuss. It maybe said, that the\n_holy scriptures_ were originally written in Greek and Hebrew: viz.\nthe bible, which contains a revelation of the will of God concerning\nthe duty, interest, and final destination of mankind. This, if\nadmitted, gives the Greek and Hebrew languages an importance that\nnothing else could. Hence the importance of preserving the Greek and\nHebrew languages, without which, religion could not be preserved in\nits purity. And as all have not an opportunity of attaining to a\nknowledge of those languages, it is the more necessary that some\nshould, lest the knowledge of languages, on which so much is supposed\nto depend, should be lost to the world.\n\n\"If I understand the above proposition, it seems to be this: The only\nrevelation of God to man, which was ever recorded on either vellum or\npaper, was written partly in Greek and partly in Hebrew; hence, the\nrevealed will of God cannot be known only through the medium of those\nlanguages. If the truth of all this can be made to appear, I should\nfind no difficulty in admitting all the consequences which must result\nfrom such premises. It appears a little extraordinary, however, to my\nunderstanding, and not a very little neither, that God should make a\nrevelation of his will in one age, and not in another; to one nation;\nand not to another; or that he should make a revelation in one\n_language_, and not in another! If a special revelation, was ever\nnecessary at all, it is difficult for me to see why it was not equally\nnecessary in all ages of the world, to all the nations of the earth,\nand in all languages ever spoken by man.\n\n\"How sweet is truth to the understanding! And, when spoken in a\nlanguage every word of which is familiar, how harmonious it sounds to\nthe ear by which the sentiments find their way to the heart!\n\n\"When God speaks to the _inward man_ there is no need of going to\nLexicons, Dictionaries, and Commentaries to know what he means. I\nwould not complain, however, even of this method to ascertain truth,\nif I could be so happy as always to come away satisfied. But to\nconsider a subject on which much is supposed to depend, and, desiring\nif possible to obtain the truth, plod through the dark mists\noccasioned by the ambiguity and contradiction of authors, and after\nall, be obliged to dismiss the subject as much in the dark as it was\nfound, is too insupportable to be confided in as the only road to\nmoral truth.\n\n\"Let it not be supposed however, that I mean to insinuate that the\nbible contains no moral truth; so far from this, I conceive it to be\nreplete with moral instruction; that is to say, there are excellent\nmoral maxims in the bible; but respecting these there is neither\nambiguity nor obscurity; and probably for this plain reason, because\nthere seems to be no dispute about them. These however are none the\nmore true for being written, and would have been equally true if found\nin any other book, and at the same time not found in the bible. Truth\nis truth wherever found, and all moral truth, as well as natural, must\nbe eternal in its nature.\n\n\"Much of the bible however, is merely historical; and whether most of\nthe things there related are either true or not, I do not see any\nconnexion they either have, or can have, with either my present or\nfuture happiness. As for instance, I do not see how my happiness is at\nall connected with the story of Daniel's being cast into the den of\nlions--or of Jonah's being swallowed by a fish! any more than it is\nwith the story of Remus and Romulus' being nursed by a she wolf! And\nif not, these things are matters of total indifference; yea, as much\nso as the extraordinary, and, were it not for comparing things\nsupposed to be sacred with profane, I would say, ridiculous stories in\nthe heathen mythology. If it should be contended that the facts\nrecorded in sacred history are necessary to prove the power and\nprovidence of God towards his children, it may be answered that those\nin profane history, if true, are equally conclusive. If it should be\nsaid that we cannot place the same confidence in profane history as in\nsacred, it brings me to the very subject of my inquiry--viz.\n\n\"If the things stated in the bible are no more reasonable than those\nin profane history, what reason have we to believe _these_ any more\nthan _those_? Must not our own reason finally determine for ourselves\nwhether or not either be true? And if we are in no sense interested in\nthe truth or falsity of those accounts why need we trouble ourselves\nabout them?\n\n\"Yours, &c, A. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER I.\n\n_Much esteemed friend_,--The desire you express of attempting those\nresearches which seem necessary to promote the further attainment of\nmoral truth, is appreciated as truly laudable; and did I feel myself\nadequate to your wishes, I should enjoy a peculiar felicity in\ncomplying with your request. But so far from this I am very sensible\nthat the magnitude of the general subject which you have introduced,\nrequires to be investigated by abilities far superior to those\npossessed by me, and demands a tribute from resources not within my\npossession. However, as you have imposed an obligation on me by the\ncommunication which is here acknowledged, I will make a feeble attempt\nto suggest a few reflections relative to the main subjects of your\nepistle, which if they do nothing more, will return merited\nacknowledgements and plead the necessity of calling to your assistance\nabilities more promising.\n\nWhile I view the advances which are making in the knowledge of the\narts and sciences, with the pleasure of which you speak, I am\napprehensive that the propensity \"to chain down the human mind to its\npresent attainments, and thereby prevent all further improvements,\"\nrelative to moral truth, may have its rise in a principle, which, so\nfar from being inimical to man, is, in its general tendency,\nincalculably beneficial. No desire is entertained to justify all the\nzeal and all the means which are employed to prevent the free exercise\nof the human mind, in its researches after divine knowledge, and to\nretard the influx of that light which would prove unfavourable to\ndoctrines which have little more than prescription for their support;\nbut it seems reasonable to make a proper distinction between what may\nbe called a salutary principle in the human mind, and a wrong\napplication or an erroneous indulgence of it. The principle referred\nto, inclines us not only to hold in the highest veneration any\nimprovements which we have made, but also to retain such acquisitions\nin their purity. Now it is believed that what you complain of, has its\nrise from the foregoing causes, and is nothing more than a wrong or an\nerroneous indulgence of a natural desire which in its general tendency\nis advantageous. Nothing is more incident to man, than to misapply his\ndesires, and to overate his reasonable duty. But it is at the same\ntime believed that a remedy of such defects which should consist in\nthe destruction of those principles which are improperly acted on,\nwould be worse than the disorder. And now the thought strikes me, that\nthe way by which we account for the improprieties which have just been\ntraced up to their causes, will as charitably account for what seems\nto incite you to aim a fatal stroke at a fabric which has its\nfoundation in the immovable principles of our moral nature, and which,\nthough through the wanderings of the human mind, may have not a little\nhay, wood and stubble, yet possess too much gold, silver and precious\nstones, to be forsaken as a pile of rubbish.\n\nIt gives you \"pain to see what time and money, what labour and toil\nhave been expended and are still expending in plodding over as it were\nan old dead letter; to learn languages which exist _no where_ only on\npaper, barely for the sake of reading the opinions of other men who\nlived in other times,\" &c. But you allow that all this would be\nnecessary if \"the only revelation of God to man, which was ever\nrecorded on vellum or paper was written partly in Greek and partly in\nHebrew,\" and that \"the will of God cannot be known only through the\nmedium of those languages.\" In this last particular, you express what\nappears very reasonable, and I presume you would be willing to consent\nto all this expense and toil, even if the proposition were to lose\npart of its importance, and it were only contended that God had\nactually made a revelation to man, which was written originally partly\nin Greek and partly in the Hebrew, without saying that he has never\ncaused a revelation to be written originally in any other language.\n\nA revelation from God, if it were written only in the Hebrew or Greek,\nwould be considered of sufficient value to recompence the labour of\nlearning the language. But you contend that this revelation, if real,\ncan be translated into English, but, you must allow that to translate\nit, the original must be learned first. Will you say, that after the\ntranslation is once made, the original is of no more use? How then are\nfuture ages to determine whether they have not been imposed on?\nSuppose no person of the present age understood the languages in which\nthe scriptures were first written, surely in this case, those\nlanguages would be lost beyond recovery. Suppose then it should be\ndoubted whether our bible was not a fabrication, written originally\nnot in Hebrew nor in Greek, but in some more modern language, how\ncould the suggestion be refuted?\n\nYou appear to be perplexed with the disagreement of authors, as\ncommentators, and I presume, critics on the original text; you speak\non this subject, as if it were too much for patience to endure. Now,\ndear brother, I confess I feel very differently on this subject. I\nfeel a devout, a religious gratitude to him whose wisdom is\nfoolishness in the sight of too many of my fellow creatures. I view\nthe very thing of which you complain, as that fire and crucible which\nhave preserved the written testimony from any considerable\ncorruptions. This is a subject on which volumes might be written to\nthe instruction and edification of the disciples of Jesus.\n\nThe queries which you state concerning a revelation's being made in\none age and not in another, in one nation and not in another, in one\nlanguage, and not in another, if a special revelation were necessary,\n&c. are not considered as very weighty objections to the doctrine of\nthe scriptures. I believe you will allow that our species of being\ncommenced on this earth in a different way than that by which it has\nbeen continued. But why should the Creator, create a man and a woman\nat one time, and not at all times when he sees fit to multiply his\nrational creatures? It is not only evident that God saw that the laws\nof procreation were sufficient to perpetuate man, and to multiply his\nrational offspring, but it is likewise apparent that the connexions,\nrelations, and harmonies of society are principally built on this law.\nSo I humbly conceive, that the continuance and propagation of a divine\nrevelation are even as well secured by the means which have been\nemployed for that purpose, as if the Almighty had in every age, and in\nevery country made such a revelation, and moreover, it is likewise\napparent, that the mental labours necessary in obtaining a knowledge\nof these divine things greatly contribute to their enjoyment, and\nrender the christian fellowship, faith and hope peculiarly interesting\nand edifying. Here again I can only suggest a subject on which\nvoluminous writings might be profitable.\n\nYou seem to entertain an idea that the historical part of the bible\ncan be of no importance to you, as it has no connexion with your\npresent or future happiness. You instance the particulars of Daniel's\nbeing cast into the den of lions, and Jonah's being swallowed by the\nfish, &c. As these are circumstances in the history of that nation\nwhich continues a comment on, and an evidence of prophesy, they are\ntoo interesting to be dispensed with. If you could produce the decree\nof a powerful monarch, sent into all parts of his dominions, which was\noccasioned by \"Remus and Romulus' being nursed by a she wolf,\" the\ncase would bear some marks of a parallel. Profane authors advert to\nsuch events as sufficient support of any fact which they endeavor to\nmaintain.\n\nI come now to your main object. Speaking in regard to the credibility\nof what is written by profane authors, and of that which is recorded\nin the scriptures, you ask--\"Must not our own reason finally determine\nfor ourselves whether or not either be true?\" To this I reply in the\naffirmative; but then reason must have its means and its evidences.\nFor instance, I read of the death and resurrection of the man Christ\nJesus, I consider this vastly important event as it stands in\nconnexion with the evidences which support it, and reason is the _eye_\nwith which I examine these evidences, and when reason is constrained\nto say all these circumstances could never have existed unless the\nfact were true, it is then I am a believer in Jesus. But if I must\nconsider the resurrection disconnected from the evidence, reason has\nnothing to do with it. Please to accept these hasty remarks, not as an\nanswer, but as suggestions which may lead to one, and as a testimony\nof my respect and esteem.\n\nYours, &c. H. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. II.\n\n\"A revelation from God, let it be made in any language whatever, I am\nvery ready to admit, must be considered of sufficient importance, not\nonly to justify all reasonable pains to preserve it, but also to hand\nit down in its original purity to posterity. We owe it, not only in\ngratitude to the _giver_, but we owe it in justice to _future\ngenerations_, who would have just occasion to reproach us, if they\ncould know that so valuable a treasure was put into our hands, which\nmight have been handed down to them, and that we suffered it to perish\nthrough what must be termed by them, a _criminal neglect_.\n\n\"You will perceive, therefore, that I had no particular allusion to a\nrevelation from God, when I spoke of translating the most valuable of\nancient writings into English. No one will pretend that such\ntranslations could not be made sufficiently accurate to answer all the\npurposes, either of history or of the useful arts. It is admitted that\nthe case is quite different, if there be a mystery in these writings,\nthe truth of which depends on literary criticism, or grammatical\nexactness; but if these writings are nothing more than the bare\nopinions and discoveries of _men_, and of men too, as liable to error\nas ourselves, and if no one was to view them in a different light, I\napprehend there would be all the confidence placed in a translation,\nthat could with propriety be placed in the original itself. For, after\nall, we should try the facts by other corroborating testimony; and as\nto the opinions, we should judge of them only by the reasonableness\nand fitness of things. Although I have heard it objected to the\ntranslation of _Seneca's Morals_, that much of the beauty of the style\nis lost in the translation, yet I never heard it pretended but that\nthe ideas are sufficiently clear; but the case would have been quite\ndifferent if mankind had ever been taught to believe that their final\nand eternal salvation depended in the least degree on an exact\nobservance of those moral principles. And I very much question whether\nthere ever has been a translation of the bible, or even of any other\nwork, in which the most important facts were not sufficiently\napparent. If the fact can be supposed otherwise, it must be admitted\nthat, comparatively speaking, but very few people at the present day\nare benefited by a revelation from God. For the great mass of mankind\nhave to receive the bible altogether on the credit of others. And who\nare their guides in this case? Answer, Translators and Commentators!\nAnd as these men made no pretentions to inspiration, unless the\ntranslation is _substantially_ correct, as to matters of fact, how are\nthe common people benefited by a revelation from God!\"\n\n[Having adverted to the previous studies in the dead languages, which\nare required before an admittance can be obtained in our common\ncolleges, the objector proceeds.]\n\n\"But I am off from my main subject. I will now endeavour to call up\nall my mental faculties, seriously to attend to a revelation from God.\nThe idea suggested in these words is beyond all expression awfully\nsublime. Yea, not even the bursting of _Vesuvius_, not the\n_aurora-borealis_, not the forked _lightning_, not the tremendous\n_earthquake_, no, nor yet the greatest _phenomenon in nature_, of\nwhich the human mind can conceive, can afford such ideas of the truly\nsublime, as the _truth_, if it could be realized, of the above\nproposition. Let me not hastily reject without serious reflection,\nthat, which of all truths, must be the most important. O help me, my\ndear friend, help me also, O thou who art the only source of truth,\nthoroughly to investigate this momentous subject! But let me not be\ndeceived. Let me not receive for truth, that which cannot be made\nsufficiently clear to my understanding. There can be no more harm in\n_doubting_, than in _believing_, where the evidence is not clear. All\nthat which appertains to eternal truth will remain, whether I now see\nit or not; and that which does not appertain to it will never be\nrealized, although I may now be made to believe it. There can be no\nharm, therefore, in investigating this subject in the same way and on\nthe same principles, as I would investigate all subjects. Although I\ncannot expect to offer any thing very new, yet I am disposed to\nexamine the subject for myself, and that too, in my own way. I shall\nquote no authors, for I have not read but few on this subject which\nmeet my approbation, and even them are not now by me. My own\nunderstanding is the only author to which I shall appeal. If that can\nbe cleared of the difficulties which have fallen in its way, I am\nwilling, yea I wish, still to believe in divine revelation.\n\n\"Here let me close my preamble, which is already made too lengthy, and\ncome immediately to discourse 'ON DIVINE REVELATION.'\n\n\"In order to know the truth or falsity of any proposition, we must in\nthe first place understand the terms by which the proposition is made;\nfor without such previous knowledge, we cannot know what is meant\neither to be affirmed or denied. By _divine revelation_, I understand\n'a communication of sacred truth,' made directly from God to man. In\norder for any man to know that a revelation has been made to him from\nGod, it must be made in such a way, that neither his perception, nor\nhis judgment or understanding, can possibly be mistaken. For, as man\nby his reason alone, never could have foreseen that a revelation would\nbe made, therefore, unless it should have been made in such a way that\nhe could not have been deceived, a rational man would be more likely\nto conclude that he was deceived, than that, which to him would seem\nmore unlikely, should be true. It seems, therefore, that a revelation\nfrom God to all our conceptions of the fact, must be considered, if\nexisting at all, as something supernatural; otherwise it could be\nnothing more than discovery, or a fortuitous event. Hence a revelation\nfrom God, however true, and however clear, to the person or persons to\nwhom it was first communicated, must lose its evidence, in some\ndegree, when it comes to be communicated by him or them to others;\nfor, being communicated to others, although it is still revelation,\nyet not being received immediately from God, it cannot be accompanied\nwith the same evidence which it was in the first place; therefore, to\nsay the most of it, it is nothing more than the _history_ of a\nrevelation. It is made no less true than it was before; but its truth\nnow rests upon very different testimony.\n\n\"The principles in nature all existed, before they were discovered by\nman. Their being discovered, neither changed their nature, nor made\nthem any more true. What consternation a total eclipse of the sun, or\nof the moon must have produced, before their cause was known? They are\nnow viewed, especially that of the latter, among the common\noccurrences of nature. Yea, many of the operations of nature, which\nare now perfectly understood by chemists, could they be viewed by the\ncommon people, who know not their causes, they would be inclined to\nbelieve they were supernatural. At least, it would not be difficult to\nmake them believe so, especially when this knowledge was confined to a\nfew, and those few were so disposed. These remarks are not designed to\ndo away the force of any arguments which may be founded on miracles;\nfor this is no proof that miracles may not exist; but then, how is a\nmiracle a revelation of any thing more than what is contained in the\nmiracle itself? This is what I cannot see, but I shall have occasion\nto say more on this subject hereafter. It will be needless for me to\nobject to the inferences drawn from miracles until a miracle is\nproven.\n\n\"If a man absolutely knows something of which I am ignorant, and\ninforms me of it, it makes no difference to me how he come by his\nknowledge--it is revelation to me. It may not be divine revelation;\nbut supposing it is, or is not, in either case, how am I to believe?\nIs it any thing that will admit of mathematical demonstration? If so,\nI shall take up with nothing short of being convinced in this way. Is\nit any thing which he has discovered? If so, he must give me evidence\nof such a discovery. Is it something to which he was an eye witness?\nThen the truth to me, depends for the present, entirely on his\ncredibility. I must be convinced in the first place that he was not\ndeceived himself, and secondly, that he has no motive in deceiving me.\nAnd evidence equally conclusive must accompany the truth of divine\nrevelation, or it ought not, nay more, it cannot, rationally be\nbelieved. But supposing that I am convinced of the truth, and\ntherefore believe; and I relate the same to a third person; is it\nequally revelation to him as it was to me? Yes, it may be so\nconsidered, in one sense, at least, for it informs him of something of\nwhich he was before ignorant, as much so as it did me, but then the\ntruth of the fact does not rest with him on equal testimony, and\ntherefore he is more excusable if he does not believe. If, however, he\ncan believe all that I believe, and in addition to that, believe also\nin _me_, then, and not till then, he will become a believer in the\nsame truth. But if he even suspects my veracity, it weakens in his\nmind, all the other testimony; and though he may still believe in the\nmain proposition, yet he believes with less strength of evidence.\n\n\"Here a very important question arises in my mind. Is divine\nrevelation something that rests entirely on matters of _fact_; or is\nthe most essential part, which concerns us to know, a mere matter of\n_opinion_? On a few moments of reflection, however, it appears that\nthis can hardly admit of a question. For all that relates to a future,\nand an eternal state, must be a mere matter of opinion only; and the\nfacts recorded in the scriptures are supposed to corroborate and\nsubstantiate those opinions. Now, as they respect matters of fact, I\nbelieve the scriptures are substantially the same in all versions, and\nin all languages into which they have been translated. And if so,\nthere is no need of learning the original languages in order to become\nacquainted with the matters of fact recorded in the bible. We never\nshould have seen, nor even heard, of so much controversy and biblical\ncriticism, if the disputes had been wholly relative to matters of\nfact. No, all the various readings, different translations, and\ninterpolations, have little or nothing to do with a dispute of this\nkind. But if the facts can he disputed, they must be disputed upon\nother grounds than that of biblical criticism.\n\n\"Take, for instance, the 'death and resurrection of the man Christ\nJesus,' which you have mentioned; can any one suppose that there ever\nwas, or ever will be, a translation which makes any thing more or less\nin favour of this fact? This is not pretended. And if not, how does a\nknowledge of the Greek language help me to believe this fact?\n\n\"This brings me again to my main subject; and now two very important\nquestions arise in my mind.\n\n\"1. In relation to the facts, as stated, respecting the life, death,\nand resurrection of the 'man Christ Jesus;' are they positively and\nabsolutely true?\n\n\"2. Admitting the truth of the facts, does it necessarily follow, or\nis there any thing which renders it certain, that, in regard to other\nthings, neither he, nor the apostles, so called, could be mistaken?\nAnd that, in all their writings, they have stated nothing which is\nincorrect? That is, what certain evidence have we that the writers of\nthe books, which being compiled, are called the New Testament, were\nall honest men? That they could not have been mistaken relative to the\nthings which they have written? And that in every instance, they have\nwritten the truth?\n\n\"Respecting the first proposition, I have already observed that the\ntruth of it does not, neither can it, depend on biblical criticism.\nThey are either facts, which are substantially correct, or they are\nfabrications. The circumstantial differences between the original\ncopies themselves, as recorded by the four Evangelists, are much\ngreater than what can be found in all the different versions,\ntranslations, &c. that have been collated. Hence no argument can be\nbrought against the truth of those facts from either a real or\nsupposed difference between the translation, and their respective\noriginals. For even if not only the original copies, but the language\nalso in which they were originally written, should be entirely lost,\nit would not militate, as I can see, against the truth of the facts\ntherein recorded.\n\n\"The translation acknowledges and affirms itself to be a _translation_\nout of the 'original Greek,' together with former translations\ncompared, &c. Now permit me to ask, is not this as good evidence of\nthe existence of the _original Greek_, as the original Greek is of the\n_facts_ intended to be proved thereby? I should consider the\ntranslation of any work, which was generally known at the time of its\ntranslation, better evidence of the existence of such a work, though\nthe original should be entirely lost, than the work itself, even in\nthe original, could be of the existence of facts, which, if they\nexisted at all, were known at first to but very few.\n\n\"You have suggested, sir, that if the original of the scriptures were\nentirely lost, future ages would not know but they had been 'imposed\nupon.' I think, however, you will not insist on this point, lest you\nshould destroy an argument, which, hereafter, you may very much need.\nI recall my words. For this seems to imply that we are already engaged\nin a controversy; whereas, I trust we are both candidly in search of\ntruth. I suspect, however, there is too much truth in your suggestion;\nbut then its truth, instead of relieving, only increases my\ndifficulty.\n\n\"Every one must know that when the translation of the scriptures was\nfirst made, the original not only existed, but it must have been known\nto others, beside the translators, who were able to detect the\n_fraud_, if there had been any, as to substantial matter of fact. And,\nin a work of so great importance, this certainly would have been the\ncase. Hence you will at once perceive, that when the copies were few\nin number, and before the art of printing was discovered, fabrications\nand interpolations might find their way into the original scriptures\nwith much greater facility, than could any considerable variations by\nan intentionally erroneous translation; especially after the work\nbecome generally known, and so highly valued, as to require a\ntranslation of it.\n\n\"As you admit that 'reason is the _eye_ by which we are to examine the\nevidences' which stand in support of the 'resurrection of the man\nChrist Jesus,' and of course, as I presume, by which we are to examine\nthe evidences in support of all other subjects, I shall say no more\nupon this part of the subject until I hear your reasons for believing\nin the resurrection of Jesus; for this fact, as I conceive, must be\nconsidered the main hinge on which the whole Christian system rests,\nif it can be supported by any fact, on which it will finally turn.\n\n2. \"But after all, my greatest difficulty is with my second\nproposition. To relate facts substantially correct, which persons have\neither seen or heard, requires no degree of uncommon skill, or\nuncommon honesty; but to state things which will absolutely take\nplace, which are yet future, requires something more than common\nskill; and to state things correctly, which will take place in\neternity, must, as I conceive, require nothing short of _divine\nwisdom_. That the evangelists have stated nothing more than what is\n_substantially_ correct, as it respects matters of fact, will be\nadmitted by all: for every one knows there is a _circumstantial_\ndifference in their writings, both as it respects the order of time,\nand in several instances, as it respects matters of fact.\n\n\"If the account given us of Jesus be even substantially correct, I\nthink there can be no reasonable doubt but that he was capable of\ntelling his disciples every thing which it concerns us to know\nrelative to a future state of existence.--But I have been often struck\nwith astonishment, when reflecting on the subject, that Jesus said so\nlittle in regard to a future state! Notwithstanding he was long with\nhis disciples, as we are told after his resurrection, and did eat and\ndrink with them; yet, how silent he was upon the subject of eternity,\nand of a future and spiritual world! At the only time when we should\nrationally suppose that he could be a competent witness in the case,\nadmitting his death and resurrection true, is the time when he is\nentirely silent as to the final and eternal state of man! Should we\nadmit therefore that Jesus at this time was capable of declaring\neternal truths, yet, as he testified nothing on the subject, nothing\nrelative to the subject can be proved from his testimony.\n\n\"It may be said that Christ had plainly taught his disciples\nrespecting this subject, previous to his death, and therefore it was\nnot necessary for him to say any thing more respecting it. But a\nconfirmation of what he had before taught, if it had been repeated\nafter his resurrection, would have added great weight to his former\ntestimony. We need not dwell however, upon these niceties, as the main\nquestion is not involved in them. Yet I am inclined to think that if\nall the words of Christ, which have been handed down to us, should be\nclosely examined, they would be found to be much more silent on the\nsubject of a future state than many have supposed. But the main\nquestion is, are we certain that he could not have been mistaken in\nthe things whereof he affirmed? This question may be thought\n_blasphemous_: but I cannot see wherein the blasphemy consists; for I\ncannot help making the inquiry, in my own understanding, and as my\nobject is to gain instruction, I put the inquiry on paper. You may say\nthat Jesus was endowed with _divine wisdom_, and therefore could not\nerr. That divine wisdom cannot err, I admit, but does divine wisdom\nsecure man at all times, and under all circumstances, from mistake? If\nthe man Christ Jesus was in fact _man_ (and that he was man, even\nTrinitarians admit) notwithstanding he was endowed with divine wisdom,\nwhy might he not without any dishonour to the Deity, be sometimes left\nto exercise only the wisdom of _man_? And to say that the wisdom of\nman cannot err, would be saying contrary to daily experience. I have\nnot contended that Jesus ever erred; but I contend that he must have\nbeen liable to error, or else he was not man. And the supposition that\nhe did not err, not even in thought or opinion, ought not to be\nadmitted without the most conclusive testimony.\n\n\"But whatever may be the conclusion on this subject, as it respects\nthe 'man Christ Jesus--a man approved of God,' yet what shall we say\nconcerning the apostles? Were they also absolutely secured from error?\nThese men, according to the confession of one of them at least, not\nonly had been, but still were--_sinners_. Paul, notwithstanding his\napostleship, still acknowledges the plague of his own heart 'I am\ncarnal, sold under sin--when I would do good, evil is present with\nme--O wretched man that I am!' &c. Are such men absolutely proof\nagainst even the error of opinion? It appears to me there are too many\nincidents of imperfection recorded in the lives of the apostles to\nadmit all this. Peter once rebuked his master, at another time denied\nhim. He once objected to the voice of the spirit, and was afterwards\naccused by his brethren for obeying it. Paul accused Peter to his\nface, and also disagreed with Barnabas. And other circumstances might\nbe named, proving them to be destitute of intuitive knowledge.\nConsidering, therefore, all these things, how do we know but that in\ntheir zeal to do good, (for I do not consider the apostles bad men;\nneither do I think any the worse of Paul for either acknowledging his\nown faults, or detecting the dissimulation of Peter,) I say therefore,\nin their zeal to do good, how do we know but that they stated things\nrelative to another world, which were only inferences, which, as they\nsupposed, were justly drawn from what they had either seen or heard,\nor else what their own fruitful imagination dictated? If we are at\nliberty to view the apostles in this light, however highly their\nopinions are to be valued and respected, yet I see no occasion of\ninvestigating their writings with the eye of biblical or grammatical\ncriticism; for after all, they are but the opinions of men like\nourselves.\n\n\"But if it can be demonstrated that the opinions of the writers of the\nNew Testament can be relied on, as containing eternal truth, without\nany mixture of error, then it is very important for us to know the\nmeaning of all the words they used, not only as it respects their\ngeneral import, but also the exact and particular sense in which they\nused them. This however cannot be done without a thorough\nacquaintance, not only with the Greek, but also with the Hebrew\nlanguage, for they used many Hebraisms, which, with a knowledge of the\nGreek only, we should not be likely fully to comprehend.\n\n\"Yours, &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER II.\n\n_Much esteemed friend_,--In replying to your second number, you will\nexcuse me if I begin by finding some fault, in which, however, I will\nendeavour to be as sparing as the case will admit.\n\nOn the subject of the languages, after reading in your first number\nthe following in its connexion: \"If I understand the above\nproposition, it seems to be this; the only revelation of God to man,\nwhich was ever recorded on vellum or paper, was written partly in\nGreek and partly in Hebrew; hence the revealed will of God cannot be\nknown only through the medium of these languages. If the truth of all\nthis could be made to appear,\" &c. and after replying to your argument\non this subject, I can hardly account for the insinuation in your\nsecond number, by which you suggest, that you had no particular\nallusion to a revelation from God when you spoke of translating the\nmost valuable of ancient writings, &c. The subject of a revelation you\nacknowledge to be your main object; if this be the case, you have this\nobject in view when you speak of the Greek and Hebrew, and also when\nyou speak of the arts and sciences.\n\nYou contend in your second number, that the translation of the\nScriptures out of the original languages is as good evidence of the\nexistence of the original, as the original could be of the facts they\nrelate, &c. And this I believe is the only acknowledgement you make in\nfavour of the original's having been any benefit. You seem not willing\nto allow that the retaining of the original language is of any use in\nproving to after generations that the translation was correct, which\nseems not easy to account for. But I will give you no further trouble\non the subject of this nature; nor will I occupy my time in\ninvestigating the question relative to the necessity of studying those\nlanguages, which you acknowledge is off from your main subject, and\ntake some notice of your queries respecting a divine revelation.\nAlthough I am unable to trace the connexion of many of your remarks\nwith which you call your main subject, yet I am not disposed to doubt\nthat you comprehend such connexion--I think I understand your\nstatements so as to be able to discern the following particulars, as\nsubjects of your inquiry.\n\n\"1st. Is it reasonable to suppose that God has ever made a special\nrevelation to man? 2d. Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of being\nproved? And, 3d. If so, does it follow that this was designed by\ndivine wisdom to give us any hope respecting a future state?\"\n\nIt is not pretended that you have stated these questions just in this\norder, but these are the subjects which your second number suggests to\nmy mind.\n\nI shall take a much nearer road to come to a solution of these\nquestions, than that which would lead me to follow you through all\nyour remarks, because you have furnished me with the means to do so.\n\n1st. You acknowledge that a divine revelation \"if real,\" is of \"all\ntruths the most important.\" Here let the eye of reason examine. Why\nshould a revelation from God be more important than those discoveries\nwhich our Creator has enabled us to make in the arts and sciences? Why\nshould such revelation be more important than the use of the mariner's\ncompass, or the art of printing? Even without contending that a divine\nrevelation is of any greater importance than the arts and sciences,\nyour allowing it any importance at all, is, in the eye of reason an\nargument in its support. Had you taken the other road, and contended\nthat there was no necessity of a revelation, and had you been able to\nmake this appear, you would have proved to the eye of reason, that a\nBeing of infinite wisdom, who can never act without a just cause, had\nnever made a revelation. But if reason admits of its importance, as\nlong as this is the case, it will be looking not only with a fervent\ndesire, but with expectation till it makes the discovery. You will, no\ndoubt, allow that a divinely munificient Creator would not omit any\nthing which is of importance to his intelligent creatures.\n\nPerhaps you will, (though I do not see why you should) call up a\nformer query, which was answered in my first, which answer was not\nreceipted in your second, and ask why this revelation was not made in\nevery nation, in every language, and in every age? But you will be\nsensible that the same questions might be stated respecting the\nprogress of science and the discovery of the arts useful to a refined\nstate of society.\n\nYou will not think it strange that I am some disappointed that you\ntook no notice of my remarks on the above query as I really attach\nimportance to that little piece of reasoning. If reason has no\nreluctance in acknowledging that man is multiplied and continued here\nby a law which was not able to bring him into existence at first, why\nmay not a revelation from God, be perpetuated by different means than\nthose which first made it, and thereby the great object be even better\nsecured than by a perpetual revelation, which would seem to render\nresearch unnecessary, and leave the reasoning powers without employ?\n\nBut it is time for me to inform you that I feel myself under no\nobligations to labour to prove what you and I and many thousands of\nothers have considered sufficiently proved from ancient prophesy with\nwhich our heavenly Father has favoured so many ages and nations and\nlanguages. And furthermore, permit me to tell you, that if you are\ndisposed to doubt and to disprove what you acknowledge to be of such\nvast importance, it is your province to bring forward your strong\nreasoning, if such you have, by which the prophesies of the old\ntestament, those delivered by Christ and his apostles shall be made to\nappear either to have no just analogy with the events of which they\nspeak, or that they were contrived by impostors since the events took\nplace.\n\n2d. You acknowledge the validity of the evidences in favor of the\nresurrection of Jesus. You say; \"That the evangelists have stated\nnothing more than what is substantially correct, as it respects\nmatters of fact, will be admitted by all.\" Again; \"I do not consider\nthe apostles bad men.\" Now the apostles are the deponents who solemnly\ntestify the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Why should you wish me\nto prove what you allow to be true? Why do you not take the other\nhand, and say the apostles were impostors, they were the opponents of\nthe righteous rulers of the Jews who put their master to death? Why do\nyou not avail yourself of the story put into the mouths of the guard\nwho watched the sepulchre, and say that those timid disciples who all\nfled and left Jesus when they saw him bound, not only went to the\nsepulchre and stole the body of Jesus and hid it where no mortal could\never find it, but then went to Jerusalem and boldly affirmed he was\nalive, who was dead, and then had the boldness and audacity to accuse\nthe rulers of having \"denied the holy one and the just, and desired a\nmurderer to be delivered unto them; and of having killed the prince of\nlife, whom God had raised from the dead?\" The reason is obvious, you\nsee the impropriety of such argument.--But:\n\n3d. Allowing the resurrection of Jesus, the truth of divine\nrevelation, the honesty of the apostles of Jesus, are we to rely on\nwhat they say respecting a future state? Answer, yes, most assuredly.\nFor here let reason ask, whether a divine revelation founded on the\nresurrection of Jesus could have a more reasonable object, than the\nbringing to light, life and immortality? Again let reason ask whether\nthe divine Being would endow Jesus and his apostles with the gift of\nmiracles, by which the divinity of their missions was proved to the\nunderstanding of all who believed, and then suffer them to teach\nthings of a moral, a religious, or of an eternal nature which were not\ntrue? By so doing, it would seem that God gave power to heal the sick\nand to raise the dead for no other purpose than to gain the attention\nof men to what was the mere guess work of men subject to error in the\nthings which they pretended to teach.\n\nFor myself I am perfectly satisfied that infinite goodness would never\ndo any thing so imperfectly. I am satisfied, being convinced of the\ntruth of the facts which you acknowledge, that the testimony of Jesus\nand his apostles respecting this and the coming world, may be relied\non with the utmost confidence and safety. You intimate that Jesus said\nbut a little on the subject of a future state. I am entirely of your\nopinion. And yet I am persuaded that he and his apostles have said as\nmuch on the subject as is necessary for us to believe. They have given\nsufficient proof that the design of our Creator is a design of eternal\ngoodness to our race of being. Jesus has brought life and immortality\nto light through the gospel. The Christian is enabled to hope for\nexistence with God in an eternal state, and this is as much as our\npresent welfare requires. I have no doubt that many passages of\nscripture have been applied to a future world, by Christian\nexpositors, which have no allusion to such a case--but this harms not\nthe glorious truths and divine realities of the religion of the\nblessed Saviour.\n\nI have many reasons for not believing in the general sentiment that\nsupposes the revelation contained in the scriptures was designed to\nprepare men in this world for happiness in another, and that a want of\na correct knowledge of this revelation here, would subject the\nignorant to inconveniences in a future state. Such a sentiment is an\nimpeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God. For if this were the\ncase, why was the gospel not early published to all people? Why were\nages after ages suffered to pass away, and generations after\ngenerations permitted to sink into eternity without a ray of that\nlight which was indispensable to their everlasting happiness? Was it\nnot as easy for the eternal to send his son at the dawn of time as\nafter so many ages had passed away? Was it not as easy for him to\ncommunicate to all nations as to one? But divine wisdom has seen fit\nto manifest itself by degrees in the system of the gospel as well as\nin the knowledge of science; and we have no more evidence to believe,\nthat those who go from this state to another ignorant of the gospel of\nChrist, will, on that account, be rejected of God from his favour,\nthan we have to believe that those who have died ignorant of the\nsciences, will, on that account be so rejected.\n\nEvery communication from God, whether relative to the moral or\nphysical world is evidently designed for our profit in the state where\nsuch communication is made. This improvement of the moral and\nreligious state of man was the evident design of the revelation of\nGod, and to this agree all the prophets. \"Instead of the thorn shall\ncome up the fir-tree, and instead of the briar shall come up the\nmyrtle-tree.\"\n\nYou seem to be opposed to biblical criticisms. So am I, if the object\nbe to fix a creed to which all must conform on pain of being\nanathematized, but if the object be to get the right understanding of\nthe sacred text all in humble submission to that CHARITY which is\ngreater than a FAITH that could remove mountains, no harm can ever\narise from it, but a benefit.\n\nNo one can more sincerely wish to have the frivolities of superstition\nand the endless multitude of nothings which arrogant creed-makers have\nimpiously superadded to pure christianity removed from the church than\nI do; but wisdom must direct in this great and necessary work. It was\nthose who had more zeal than discernment who asked if they should\npluck up the tares from among the wheat? They were told that they\nwould pluck up the wheat with the tares.--Let us be careful, my\nbrother, and in our zeal to cleanse, take care and not destroy.\n\nIf you are troubled with unbelief, if this plague have entered your\nheart, permit me to suggest a remedy. Humility is the first step,\nsincere piety towards God the second, let these be followed by that\nfor which the Bereans were commended and the deadly virus of unbelief\nwill soon be purged. Will you say; \"physician heal thyself?\" I reply,\nI think I have found relief by the use of the prescription, and am so\nmuch in favour of it, that I am determined to continue its application\nmyself as well as recommend it to others. If you ask why I do not\ndirect some arguments more cogently to prove divine revelation? I\nanswer, in the first place, you have granted the validity of the\nevidences; and secondly, if I think of the attempt, the brilliant\nlabours of better abilities argue the impropriety of it.\n\nBut if you think it necessary to labour this subject, I will propose\nthe single instance of the conversion of St. Paul for investigation.\nBy this means we shall be kept from rambling after different subjects.\nIf you can give a reasonable account of this conversion without\nadmitting the truth of christianity, I will acknowledge you have left\nme destitute of one evidence on which I now rely. On the other hand,\nif you fail in this, you may reasonably suppose that you would fail in\nany other case of equal moment in this general controversy.\n\nYours, &c.\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[The letter containing _extracts_ No. 1, having been laid before the\nRev. EDWARD TURNER, of Charlestown, Mass. he saw fit to reply to it.\nThe following are extracts from his letter.]\n\n\"Passing over the principal parts of your introduction, which\ngenerally embrace sentiments to which I readily subscribe, I will just\nnotice what you say concerning the study of languages. I am not so\ntenacious of this kind of study, as to believe that too much time has\nnot often been employed in it. I am also convinced with you, that 'the\ntruth or falsity of every proposition must depend on the truth or\nfalsity of the principles embraced in it.' But still I am not able to\nsay that the study of Greek and Hebrew can be of no 'possible service\nto an American.' Neither, because those languages are not a perfect\n'security' against falsehood, does it necessarily follow that they are\nno 'security' at all. For how shall we arrive at the knowledge of the\n'principle embraced in a proposition' without the knowledge and use of\nlanguage? We cannot in any other way. Now if it be a fact, that a\nproposition embracing certain principles may suffer by translation,\nand even its principles be perverted and misrepresented, then, an\nunderstanding of the original, in which the proposition was written,\nmay, in my opinion, be very useful. It may assist a man to arrive at a\ntrue knowledge of the 'principles' upon which said proposition is\nfounded.\n\n\"'It gives you pain to see what time and money, what labour and toil\nare expended in plodding over an old dead letter, to learn languages,\nwhich exist no where only on paper, barely for the sake of reading the\nopinions of other men, in other times; men who lived in other ages of\nthe world, and under very different circumstances from ourselves,\nwhose opinions (all of which are worth preserving) might be given in\nour own language, so as to answer every purpose,' &c.--But if these\n'opinions' should be given in our own language, there must be some to\nunderstand Greek and Hebrew, or the opinions of those ancient writers,\nlet them be worth ever so much, would never find their way to us. And\nwhen we have gained those supposed opinions, through the translation,\nhow do we know that the translators were faithful? Who can say they\nwere not warped by system? not misled by preconceived ideas? Who can\nsay they have not wilfully imposed upon us? Under such circumstances,\nthe ability to detect any inaccuracies or imposition, would, in my\nview, be very desirable. You have, yourself, my brother, availed\nyourself of this ability, and very justly merited the gratitude of\nyour readers, by rectifying the judgment, upon certain terms used in\nthe scriptures, the former translation of which, you have disavowed.\nAs I value those efforts of yours, and have been instructed and\nedified by them, I am proportionably sorry to find them treated in the\nlanguage of disparagement.\n\n\"You observe that 'the learned are as much at variance with each other\nas the unlearned,' and this circumstance you say, 'weakens your\nconfidence.' But upon what subject are they not at variance, even\nwhere Greek and Hebrew are not concerned? Have philosophers been\nalways agreed, when they have discoursed in one language? Have\nchemists been always of one opinion, though the subjects of their\ninvestigations are material bodies? You will not reply affirmatively.\nAnd if not, and no system can be found which is not in some degree\n'liable to misconstruction, disputation and deception,'--what are we\nto do? Shall we depend upon nothing? Shall we remain immovable for\nfear we should fall? Shall we never attempt to walk for fear we should\nstumble? I must be allowed to express my concern, that, it should\nappear 'not a little extraordinary to you that God should make a\nrevelation of his will in one age and not in another, to one nation\nand not to another, or in one language and not in another, and if a\nspecial revelation was ever necessary at all it is difficult for you\nto see, why it is not equally necessary, in all ages of the world, to\nall nations of the earth and in all languages ever spoken by man.' It\nis true, I may be unable to see why a revelation was not equally\nnecessary to one nation as well as to another, and at the same time,\nbut is this a proof that no revelation was ever made to any nation at\nany time? I know of no special reason why the laws of electricity were\nnot developed to my grandfather as well as to Dr. Franklin, with whom\nhe was contemporary; or why the great principles of civil liberty\nshould not have been discovered to other nations as well as to our\nown, and at the same time, or to ALL nations, a thousand years before\nthey were discovered to one. But all this is no discredit to those\ndiscoveries. But I find reason to doubt whether a revelation 'is\nequally necessary in all ages of the world.' I doubt whether a special\nrevelation is NOW necessary; and for a very obvious reason; because a\nspecial revelation has already been made. And as this, though at\nfirst, really special, follows the general course of other things\nwhich are beneficial, and which commence with a few and diffuse\nthemselves to many, it is a reason which precludes the necessity of a\nconstant recurrence of miracles or any other special medium of\nrevelation. You certainly will not deny, that, admitting there has\nbeen a revelation from God, it has been progressive like all things\nelse, which involve the interests of man. If we admit these facts,\nthey will go far to explain some of the difficulties, to which you\nallude; but if we do not, our disbelieving in a special revelation\nwill not remove, but increase our difficulties.\n\n\"Your's, &c.\n\nE. TURNER.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. III.\n\n[To the extracts above, the objector replied as follows.]\n\n\"Remarking on the doubts which unavoidably arise in my mind on account\nof the diversity in the opinions of the learned respecting the meaning\nof certain parts of the scriptures, our friend asks, 'upon what\nsubject are they (the learned) not at variance, even when Greek and\nHebrew are not concerned? Have chemists been always of one opinion?'\n&c. which must be answered in the negative. Nevertheless I may take\nliberty to observe that inasmuch as they have disagreed, it shews that\nthe subjects about what they have disagreed, are as yet obscure, and\ntherefore perhaps none of them are entitled to full and complete\n'confidence:' for whatever is plain and obvious, men seldom disagree\nabout. That the sun and moon are _globes_, and not _triangles_, all\nare agreed; and it would be impossible to raise a dispute on the\nsubject: but whether either or both of them are inhabited, or even\ncapable of being inhabited, by rational beings, similar or like unto\nourselves, is a proposition not so clear, and respecting which the\ngreatest philosophers might possibly disagree. The above remarks are\nintended to shew that when men differ in opinion, whether learned or\nunlearned, it is obvious that the truth about which they differ, to\nsay the most of it, is yet but obscurely made manifest to their\nunderstanding.\n\n\"In order to remove an objection, to the idea of revelation, on\naccount of its being made only to one nation, &c. our friend says, 'It\nis true, I may be unable to see why a revelation was not equally\nnecessary to one nation as well as to another, and at the same time;\nbut is this a proof that no revelation was ever made to any nation at\nany time?' I am very ready to answer this question in the _negative_.\nBut at the same time I must be excused for not being able to see any\nanalogy between revelation and the discovery of the laws of\nelectricity; as mentioned by our brother; and therefore my mind is not\nto be relieved from its difficulty in this way. If it could be proved\nthat the principles manifested by revelation were like the principles\nin nature, against the developement of which there is no great barrier\nat one time than at another except what exists in the ignorance of\nman; and if the Christian could now try the experiment over again, and\nthereby demonstrate the truth of the doctrine of the _resurrection_,\nthe same as the philosopher can try the experiment for himself, and\nthereby demonstrate the truth of the doctrine _of electricity_, then\nmy doubts or surprise at the seeming partiality in the developement or\ndiscovery of the principles of the doctrine _of revelation_ would be\nentirely removed. But the very idea of a _revelation_ supposes the\nmanifestation of it to differ essentially from all the discoveries of\nman. Therefore the remarks of our friend relative to the laws of\nelectricity, &c. seem to be hardly in point. The evidences of\nrevelation to all, excepting those to whom the revelation was first\nmade, are in their very nature essentially different from the\nevidences of natural philosophy, chemistry, &c. For these are founded\nin immutable principles which never vary, and are ever open at all\ntimes to thorough investigation and experiment. Hence if the learned\nhave any doubts on the subject, those doubts may be removed by occular\ndemonstration; and even when they are enabled by any new discoveries\nto correct some former opinions, which were either founded on mere\nconjecture or imperfect reasoning, yet the first principles still\nremain, and the former evidences, instead of being weakened, are\nincreased by every new discovery or experiment in the developement of\ntruth. But not so with evidences of divine revelation. Although ever\nso clear at first, and so well supported by facts, concerning which\nthe witness had the clearest evidence, yet the evidences being of such\na nature as preclude a repetition, like those respecting a vision of\nthe night or any other phenomenon, are liable to suffer by passing\nfrom one to another, and also to be impaired by every change which\nthey are caused to pass. And if the evidences of any fact may be\nweakened at all, either by lapse of time, or by passing through\ndifferent hands; by the same causes, if continued, they may lose all\ntheir strength. That the evidences of some facts may be thus weakened,\nI believe will not be denied. Hence what was once clear may be now\ndoubtful, and in process of time may become entitled to no credit. If\ntherefore the evidence of revelation either have been, or ever shall\nby any circumstances whatever be thus impaired, then a new revelation\nmay become necessary either to revive or to strengthen the evidences\nof the old. If Christ should make his second appearance, according to\nthe opinions of some, it would be as much of a revelation as his first\nappearance was; and this new revelation would corroborate and confirm\nthe old; but if nothing of the kind should ever take place, and if\nthere should be nothing more to confirm the validity of prophesy, but\nlet the world pass on for several thousand years as we know it has for\nfifteen hundred years past, how long will either the Jews or\nchristians believe in divine revelation?\n\n\"I believe however, we had better see whether the old revelation can\nbe fully proved before we go very far into the inquiry whether a new\none is necessary.\n\n\"That I deserve any credit in the opinion of our friend or my own\nconscience for the unwearied pains I have taken to ascertain the\ncorrect ideas communicated to us in the scriptures is very grateful to\nmy feelings; and let it not be imagined for a moment that I feel at\nall disposed to shrink from my former assiduity; for as long as the\nworld, or any considerable part thereof, believe the scriptures to be\ndivine revelation I think it very important that they should have a\ncorrect understanding of them. So long therefore as I hold this to be\nmy profession, I mean faithfully to pursue it; ever remembering that I\nam not accountable in the least degree either for the truth or falsity\nof the bible, but only for my faithfulness in preaching, taking heed\nthat I do not preach that for bible, which is not bible.\n\n\"Let not my brethren be 'concerned,' or made in the least degree\nunhappy on my account. My mind was never more tranquil respecting\nreligious subjects than at the present moment. My doubts, whatever\nthey are, give me no uneasiness; they only excite me to diligence and\nassiduity in endeavouring by all possible means to ascertain the\ntruth; and wherever, or in whatever light, it shall be discovered, I\nam fully satisfied that eternal truth is perfectly right, yea just as\nit should be.\n\n\"For, provided deism should prove true in its stead, what is there to\nbe lost if christianity fails? Ought we not to be thankful for, and\nalso satisfied with the truth of either? It appears to me that all\nought to be satisfied with the truth whatever it may be; and therefore\nmy present object is to ascertain, if possible, what truth is.\n\n\"'Did human reason,' saith he, 'unassisted by divine light make the\ndiscovery?' (i. e. of the 'unity of God.')--'Then indeed would \"all\nnations, in all ages,\" have possessed the great object made manifest\nby revelation.' In answer to this, I would only ask, were not the laws\nof electricity discovered by 'human reason unassisted by divine\nlight?' Why then were they not known to 'all nations, in all\nages?'--The fact is, what reason is capable of discovering may also be\nlong concealed from the eye of reason.\n\n\"Yours, &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER III.\n\n_Dear Sir, and Brother_,--As I have not the opportunity of presenting\nyour third number to our mutual friend and brother, to whom it most\nproperly belongs to reply, I have thought it no more than reasonable\nthat I should acknowledge the receipt of your favour accompanying this\nacknowledgement with some observations on the most essential parts of\nwhat you have suggested.\n\nYou wish us to take it for granted, that those parts of our\ncommunications to which you make no reply, are at least, generally\nspeaking, satisfactory to your mind. Respecting this particular, you\nwill suffer me to point out, what appears to me, a very material\ndefect in your proposed method.\n\nSuppose, sir, an argument be laid down on which much depends, in the\nopinion of the writer, and out of a proper reply to which, he\nanticipates great advantages; he waits for a reply--No reply comes to\nthis particular, but the very same query which the argument was\ndesigned to answer is still urged; is it not easy to see that much\nlabour may be in vain in consequence of this method? If you answer to\na question, stating with great seeming earnestness, viewing the\nquestion of importance in the mind of him who states it, you would not\nonly expect, but you might really need to be informed what effect your\nreply was allowed to have in the mind of your opponent. And as he\nmight not anticipate the use which you had designed to make of his\nanswer, you would not judge it advisable to submit to him whether he\nshould reply or not.\n\nYou have finally put the dispute about the necessity of retaining the\ndead languages at issue on the question relative to a future state, in\nthe following words; \"If the opinions recorded in scripture relative\nto a future state of existence are to be relied on, as being dictated\nby God himself, and in a way too, that was not mistaken; and that the\nwriters of the scriptures being thus inspired, have written nothing\nbut the truth, then I admit,\" &c. Now from this your own statement you\nwill see the importance of retaining those languages until it be fully\ndiscovered that no credit is due to these writings which we have been\nin the habit of believing to be divinely inspired. Your discernment\nwill at once discover that it would be imprudent in the extreme, to\nobliterate, without first knowing that what was to be defaced was of\nno utility. A child, ever so old, who should utterly deface his\nfather's last will and testament, which had made ample provisions for\nhis future wants, merely because he had not a perfect understanding of\nit, or on suspicion that there were some possible defects in it, could\nnot be considered prudent in so doing. But if the will should finally\nfail, and prove invalid, no loss would be sustained even if it were\ncommitted to the devouring element. To say, the will may be destroyed\nuntil it has been proved, would be absurd.\n\nIn your further remarks on our brother's communication, you find\noccasion to suggest a difference between the subject of revelation and\nthe discoveries which have been made by men in the powers and\nproperties of nature. But when you have contended successfully for\nthis (which by no means has any power to refute his argument) you seem\nnot to realize that there must be as great a difference in the\nevidences by which these different subjects are communicated to the\nmind, as there are in the subjects themselves. It is acknowledged,\nwithout controversy, that we cannot demonstrate by any mathematical or\nchemical process that there ever was such an emperor in Rome as\nAugustus Caesar, or such a governor in Judea as Pilate, or such a man\nas Jesus; but then we are not, on this account, or any other, unable\nto find such kind of evidence as the nature of the case admits, and\nsuch as is sufficient to satisfy the candid mind. Should any one now\npretend to deny that Louis XVIth. was beheaded, and allege as proof\nthat no such thing was to be credited, because it had never been\ndiscovered as the result of a chemical process, would you hesitate to\nfault his reasoning?\n\nShould it occur to your mind that you have contended that the evidence\nof revelation is as different from the evidence required in natural\ndiscoveries, as the subjects themselves are different, you are\nreminded that you have contended for this only with a view to _weaken_\nthe force of the former, and in a way to disallow its validity. At the\nsame time you state that you do not undertake to deny a special\nrevelation from God, but \"wish only to take a review of the evidences,\nand see if they are such that it is _impossible_ it should be false.\"\nOf these evidences you speak thus; \"Although ever so clear at first,\nand ever so well supported by facts, concerning which the witnesses\nhad the clearest evidences, yet the evidences being of such a nature\nas to preclude a repetition, like those respecting a vision of the\nnight or any other phenomenon, are liable to suffer by passing from\none to another,\" and finally \"lose all their strength.\" Here it seems\nyou pretend to state the character of the evidences of a divine\nrevelation, which evidences you wish to review. Permit me to ask, dear\nbrother, if it would not have appeared more consistent with piety and\ncandor to have reviewed before you fixed the character of the\nevidences?--There is a proper order in which every thing should be\nconducted. All our researches should be kept from the embarrassments\nof prejudice. Though I feel much reluctance in entering on so great a\nsubject as the vindication of the truth of divine revelation, fearing,\nI should fail in doing that honour to the subject which I am confident\nit deserves, I am inclined to suggest a few things which I think are\nworthy of some notice. As you speak of a vision of the night, the\nevidences of which were clear to the person and satisfactory at the\ntime, those evidences would naturally lose their force when\ncommunicated to others and finally lose their strength. Let us suppose\na case. A man shall have a vision of the night, in which it shall be\nrevealed to him that some time before the present generation shall\nleave the stage of life, the kingdom of Great Britain will be overcome\nby the power of France; that very many of the flourishing cities of\nEngland will be destroyed in a very awful manner; that London will be\nlaid level with the ground; that the distress of the inhabitants\nduring the siege will be extreme; that for some time before this great\nevent, there will be wars and rumors of wars among the nations, and\ncertain signs very wonderful will be seen in the heavens. This man\ntells his vision very circumstantially and several persons write it\ndown. Now suppose as the time passes away, these events, one after\nanother, should take place, all in the same order in which the vision\nrepresented them; do you feel willing to say that the evidences of the\ntruth of this vision, are all the time losing their force? No surely\nthey are not; they are all the time gaining strength and waxing\nbrighter. Whether I am able to satisfy you that the above case is a\nfair representation of the evidences of divine revelation, or not, it\ndiscovers in some degree the ground on which, in my mind, revelation\nis established.\n\nCompare, if you please, the prophesy of Jesus recorded in the 24th of\nMatthew, with the history of the events of which the divine messenger\nspake.\n\nYours, &c.\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\nP. S. You have noticed, no doubt, in a parenthesis, that I do not\nallow your argument on the dissimilarity of divine revelation and\nprinciples of nature to have any force to do away the argument of our\nbrother, to which you replied. It was evidently not his design to\nargue a similarity between the nature of these widely different\nsubjects, but to show that no greater partiality appears in the divine\nwisdom, in not discovering the truths of revelation in all ages, to\nall nations and in all languages, than in its not leading the human\nmind to the discovery of electricity or any other of the laws of\nnature in the same manner. Will you endeavour to maintain that the\ndivine economy has nothing to do in directing means and circumstances\nto the developement of the laws of nature and to the discovery of\nuseful inventions? And if you allow it has, why do you not assign a\nreason why these discoveries should not have been made in all ages, to\nall nations, and written or rather _printed_, in all languages that\ncannot as well be applied in the other case? In this way you would do\naway his reasoning and my own likewise, for as you notice, we were\nboth of one mind on this subject.\n\nBefore I close this postscript, I wish to remark on the subject which\nyou have in view, in reviewing the evidences of divine revelation,\nwhich you say is to \"see if they are such that it is _impossible_ it\nshould be false.\" Now it appears to your humble servant, that faith\ndoes not require evidence of the description you lay down. I grant it\nwants to be satisfied and it has a right to expect it; it feels under\nno obligation to evidence which comes short of conviction; but it does\nnot require all _possibility_ to be taken into its account. This would\nseem to go beyond the limits of faith and enter into the regions of\ncertainty. If the evidences in support of faith be sufficient to give\nrest, peace, and consolation to the mind, and if the faith be strong\nenough to effect the conduct of the believer in a proper manner, the\nobject of faith is obtained.\n\nThe hopes of the husbandman may serve to illustrate this particular.\nHe does not know for certainty that his fields will produce him any\nthing; he does not know that the coming season will be favourable to\nhis crops, yet he plants and sows in comfortable expectation. He rises\nearly and labours cheerfully, his expectations are full of comfort, he\nsleeps quietly and enjoys content. But if you ask him whether he views\nit _impossible_ that he should fail of a harvest? he will with but\nvery little concern answer in the negative.\n\n\"The just shall live by faith, we walk by faith and not by sight.\"\nAll, therefore, that we can reasonably expect in the case before us,\nis to find a decided _balance_ of evidence in favour of the religion\nof the gospel. And to _review_ the evidences of this religion, it\nseems necessary first to allow that there are evidences in existence\nwhich go to prove it, if their validity be allowed. For instance, the\nfour evangelists, the acts of the apostles, together with the epistles\nof the apostles are considered evidences of the truth of this\nreligion. And can you reasonably require more until you are able to\nshow that all these come short of establishing the credibility of the\nfacts which they relate with apparent honesty and simplicity not to be\nmet with in any other ancient writings?\n\nThere are a great many other evidences which serve to corroborate\nthose mentioned, but if you can do _them_ away, no doubt the others\nmay be as easily removed.\n\nYou will duly consider that in disproving the religion of Jesus\nChrist, you disprove all religion, for I am satisfied that you will\nnot pretend that you are making a choice between the gospel and some\nother doctrine. No, the choice is between the gospel and no religion\nat all.\n\nCome then, strip away all the clouds of superstition, and demonstrate\nat once that there has been no sun in the firmament during the whole\nof a cloudy day! Soar like the strong pinioned eagle, make your tour\nbeyond the mists of error and bring us the joyless tidings that there\nis no clear sky in the heavens. Can you imagine any thing to be more\npleasing than the coming of one that brought _good_ tidings? But let\nus have the worst of it. Show from undoubted authority that there\nnever was such a man as Jesus, or show that he was a wicked impostor\nand deservedly lost his life. Show moreover, that there never were\nsuch men as the apostles of Jesus, or that they were likewise\nimpostors, and all suffered death for their wicked impiety! Give the\nparticulars of Saul's madly forsaking the honourable connexion in\nwhich he stood, for the sake of practising a fraud which produced him\nan immense income of suffering!\n\nBut you say the apostles were not bad men. Very well, then let us see\nhow good men could tell so many things which they knew were not true,\nand suffer and die in attestation of what they knew to be false. You\nwill see the danger of supposing that honest men can bear testimony to\nfalsehood under the pretence of doing good, as this would destroy all\ntestimony at once; even your own cannot be relied on after you\nmaintain this abominable principle, which has been practised a wicked\npriesthood for ages. H.B.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. IV.\n\n[The objector in his fourth number begins by explaining himself in\nsome particulars wherein he had not been fully understood, and also by\nmaking some concessions respecting the importance of retaining the\noriginal languages in which the scriptures were written; and, bringing\nthese remarks to a close, he proceeds as follows:]\n\n\"In regard to a revelation from God, the three propositions which you\nhave stated answer my mind well enough, as far as they go, to which,\nhowever, I would wish to add a fourth; and ask, admitting the three\nfirst propositions true. 'Fourth. Is it reasonable to suppose that the\napostles had any other means of forming their opinions relative to a\nfuture state than what passed before their eyes?--viz. the miracles of\nChrist, the circumstances attending his death, his resurrection, and\nthe miracles wrought by themselves in his name?'\n\n\"1st. Is it reasonable to suppose that God has ever made a special\nrevelation to man?\n\n\"You say I have acknowledged that a divine revelation 'if real, is of\nall truths the most important;' hence you call upon the 'eye of\nreason' to examine this proposition to see why it should be considered\nmore important than the discoveries made in the arts and sciences, &c.\nI think these questions may be easily and correctly answered. One\nrelates to the blessings of _eternity_; and the others to those only\nof _time_; hence if the truths manifested by a revelation had been of\nno more importance to man than the truths in natural philosophy,\nreason would say, God would have left them also to be discovered, if\ndiscovered at all, like all other truths, without a special\nrevelation. But, you must excuse me for not being able to see the\nforce and conclusiveness of your reasoning, when you say that my\n'allowing it any importance at all, is, in the eye of reason, an\nargument in its support.' Supposing I am informed of a large estate\nbequeathed to me by some benefactor. I acknowledge that it is very\nimportant to me, if true, as I am in great need; yet I do not believe\nit true. Now, is my acknowledging its importance, if true, an argument\nin support of its truth? If it is so, the reason of it is out of my\nsight.\n\n\"I should think that the reason of man (the only reason with which we\nare acquainted) would hardly undertake to say whether a revelation is\neither necessary or not necessary. The only evidence that reason can\nhave of its necessity is its truth; and a supposition that it is not\ntrue equally supposes it not to be necessary. For to suppose otherwise\nsupposes that God has omitted something which was necessary to be\ndone! Try the matter as it respects a new revelation. Who will\nundertake to say that a new revelation either is or is not necessary?\nNo one who believes in a revelation will deny the possibility of such\nan event. Suppose then for the moment it is true; and something is\nbrought to light infinitely more glorious than any thing of which the\nhuman mind has yet conceived; will any one say it is unimportant? Or\nis the 'allowing it any importance--an argument in its support?'\n\n\"I am very ready to allow that a 'divinely munificent Creator would\nnot omit any thing which is of importance to his intelligent\ncreatures:' and on this ground I admitted the _importance_ of\nrevelation 'if real;' but I am yet unable to see how this is any\nargument in its support. It seems to me that this argument might be\nturned right the other way with equal force. If revelation be not\ntrue, it is not necessary it should be; and man can be made just as\nhappy in this world by knowing all that he can know without it, as\nthose are who believe in it; and admitting it not true there is no\nmore importance in all the stories about it, than there is in the\n_Alcoran_! Now, supposing you should 'allow' all this, would it be any\nargument against the truth of revelation? I think not.\n\n\"In answer therefore to the first particular, I must be allowed to say\nthat the only reason in favour of a divine revelation must grow out of\nthe evidence in support of the facts on which it is predicated; for,\naside from those evidences, I do not see why mankind should be taught\nto believe in a future life and immortality by special revelation, any\nmore than they should be taught the arts and sciences by special\nrevelation; yet reason does not reject the evidences of such an event\nwhen they are made clear to the understanding.--Therefore, it appears\nto me that your first proposition is involved in the second, viz.\n\n\"2d. Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of being proved?\n\n\"I should have said something more on the subject which was answered\nin your first number, and which I neglected to acknowledge in my\nsecond, if it had occurred to me as being necessary. I will briefly\nstate here that your reasoning on that subject is satisfactory; and if\na revelation can be fully proved I feel not disposed to complain on\naccount of its seeming partiality. Infinite wisdom dispenses his\nblessings so as best to answer his benevolent designs; and were we to\nobject to the _manner_, merely because we do not comprehend the\n_equality_, we should be satisfied, strictly speaking, with nothing.\n\n\"But you have excused yourself from undertaking to prove your second\nproposition in a way that I did not expect, viz. by finding, as you\nsupposed, in my words, an acknowledgement of its truth. Here again I\nmust confess my misfortune in giving too much grounds for the wrong\nconstruction. Every one knows however the ambiguity of words, and how\nthe meaning of a sentence may be altered by placing the emphasis on a\ndifferent word from what the author intended. I acknowledge that my\nwords will admit the construction you have given them; yet you could\nbut see that it was giving up at once what I had in a number of\nplaces, both before and after, considered a main question. And then,\nyou ask me why I wish you to prove what I acknowledge to be true. If\nyou will be good enough to review the passage, and notice that the\nword _substantially_ was emphatic, and contrasted with\n_circumstantial_, a little below, you will perceive that my meaning\nwas simply this. No one will pretend that the evangelists were correct\nin every minute particular, but only correct in _substance_; and by\nthe ALL, by whom this will be admitted, I mean those who believe in\ndivine revelation; that even they would acknowledge, that in point of\ncorrectness, the writers were 'no more' than _substantially_ so.\nHowever:\n\n\"You think if I am 'disposed to doubt,' &c. it is my province to bring\nforward my 'strong reasoning,' &c. I know of no disposition that I\nfeel respecting the subject but to ascertain, if possible, the truth.\nIf I have doubts, it is not because I choose to doubt, but because I\ncannot help them; and if I have faith it is such as is given me. Of\none thing I have no doubt; that is, that the truth, whatever it is, is\nright. But:\n\n\"Admitting the scriptures are not true, I shall not attempt to guess\nwhat is true respecting the subjects to which they relate. For I might\nguess a hundred different ways to account for what we know is true,\nand all of them be wrong.\n\n\"My doubts on this subject are nothing more than _doubts_; they do not\namount to a confirmed _unbelief_; because they admit the possibility\nof the account's being true.\n\n\"Yours, &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER IV.\n\n_Much esteemed friend_,--Your fourth number is hereby acknowledged;\nand though occasions for finding fault are in some measure extenuated,\nit still appears that you have lost the real connexion of your\narguments, and have made the subject of the languages one of your main\nsubjects, when judging from your first number, it was no more than a\nvestibule to the grand edifice which it was in your mind to examine.\n\nHowever, you having paid more than half, we will not stand about the\nfraction, as long as we have a profitable object in view. You call up\nwhat you call the subject. I suppose the main subject. This you state\nas follows: \"In regard to a revelation from God, the three\npropositions which you have stated answer my mind well enough, as far\nas they go; to which however, I would wish to add a fourth, and ask;\nadmitting the three first particulars true.--4th. Is it reasonable to\nsuppose, that the apostles had any other means of forming their\nopinions, relative to a future state, than what passed before their\neyes? viz. the miracles of Christ, the circumstance attending his\ndeath, his resurrection, and the miracles wrought by themselves in his\nname?\" I wish, in this place, to show you that your added proposition\npossesses no power relative to our argument which is not comprehended\nin the last of the three which I stated. For if it be allowed, as you\npropose, that my propositions are true, then you consent to the\nvalidity of the apostles' testimony respecting a future state, which\ngranted, it makes no difference in what way the apostles come to the\nknowledge of futurity. When a thing is known, it is known. The means\nby which it is known add nothing to either side of the argument. If\nyou allow that my argument on this subject is correct, as it seems you\ndo, then you acknowledge that God would not endow men with the power\nto heal the sick and raise the dead, whose testimony concerning a\nfuture state could be justly doubted. I will not be too positive that\nI rightly apprehend your meaning on this subject, but as you propose\nto allow my three propositions, and as you make no attempt to do away\nmy reasoning, especially on my last, I think I should not understand\nyou according to your own proposal in any other way.\n\nThe methaphor which you use to help you away from my argument\nrespecting the _importance_ of a revelation from God, does not appear\nfully adequate to the purpose for which you use it. It might not be a\nreasonable, a necessary disposition of property for the proposed\nbenefactor, to give you a large estate; it might be, in the eye of\nreason a very improper donation, and one which would deprive\nlegitimate heirs of what they had a right to expect from a father\ntowards whom they had always acted with filial obedience.--But if you\nwill make the case a parallel, and suppose you are an heir, a lawful\nchild, and your father has a large estate to dispose of, then you will\nsee that it is right and just, and no more than what you have reason\nto expect; that it is necessary, and that this necessity is the\nimportance of the subject, you will at once see that this importance\nis a reason, yea an evidence that you have a right to expect it. I\ncalled on you to prove that no revelation was needed; I acknowledged\nthat if none was necessary, a being of infinite wisdom would make\nnone. You venture to say, that the \"only evidence that reason can have\nof the necessity of divine revelation is its truth.\" It is believed,\nsir, that this hypothesis involves too much. It is saying that reason\ncan discern the necessity of nothing until it obtains it, whereas the\ntruth is evidently the other side of the assertion. We are frequently\nexperiencing the necessity of things which we have not already\nattained, and by this want we are incited to use the means by which we\nfinally obtain them.--\"Ask, and ye shall receive, seek, and ye shall\nfind, knock, and it shall be opened unto you,\" &c. It is believed, and\nno doubt it may be argued with success, that the moral and religious\nstate of man really required a divine revelation. Never did the\nparched ground, the withering plant, the thirsty herds need the\nshowers from heaven, more than man, that WORD of life which descended\nas the rain and distilled as the dew, when the gospel was published by\na cloud of faithful witnesses, called of God for that purpose.\n\nAfter acknowledging that your words admit of the construction which I\ngave them respecting the apostles stating no more than what was\nsubstantially true, you inform me that you meant something very\ndifferent; then, sir, it seems you must mean that they stated that\nwhich is not true. And if so, why do you not prove wherein they\ntestified falsely, which would at once cast their bands from us? By\nthis mean you would show that their testimony is deserving of no\ncredit.\n\nOn the subjects of your doubts, you recollected my request, that you\nbring forward your reasons, &c. But in room of doing this you inform\nme that your doubts are _involuntary_. But I wish to know if this\nrenders it improper for you to state your reasons for doubting? You\nfurther inform me that your doubts do not amount to a confirmed\nunbelief. Again, I would ask if it be necessary for you to wait until\nyou are a confirmed unbeliever before you state your reasons for\ndoubting the truth of the testimony which Christians call divine?\n\nBy these questions you will perceive that I am waiting for you, and if\nI am not able to meet your arguments, I am ready on making the\ndiscovery, to acknowledge your reasoning too strong for my weak powers\nto manage.\n\nYours, &c.\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. V.\n\n[After acknowledging the receipt of _Letters_ Nos. 3 and 4, and\nremarking on several parts of the reply to _Extracts_ No. 2, making\nsome concessions, &c. as he found it necessary, the _objector_\nproceeds as follows.]\n\n\"But, your final conclusion, after all, comes so near what I conceive\nto be the truth, that, were you as correct in every thing as you\nappear to be in this, I should hardly think it expedient to pursue\nthis controversy any further. \"The Christian is enabled,\" you say, \"to\nhope for existence with God in an eternal state, and this is as much\nas our present welfare requires.\" Most excellent! To this proposition\nI cherfully assent. Yea, I would consent even to pruning it a little,\nwhich no doubt would spoil it in your view. Instead of 'this is as\nmuch as,' read, 'even this is more than,' and your proposition would\nstand exactly right. Again, you say,\n\n\"'I have many reasons for not believing in the general sentiment that\nsupposes the revelation contained in the scriptures was designed to\nprepare men in this world for happiness in another, and that a want of\na correct knowledge of this revelation here, would subject the\nignorant to inconvenience in a future state. Such a sentiment is an\nimpeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God.'\n\n\"Here again, should I admit a divine revelation, I most heartily agree\nwith you; and also with the reasoning which follows under this\nproposition. For it is more consistent with reason and good sense to\nbelieve (like the fool) in the existence of no God, than to believe in\na God who is either partial or cruel! If such were the general\nsentiment of mankind, the evils resulting from it, in my humble\nopinion, would not be worse than the evils which have resulted from\nthe belief in a God of the character just mentioned. One who,\naccording to the sentiment, has let millions, even millions of\nmillions, of his rational creatures die ignorant of a divine\nrevelation, when he knew without the knowledge of, and belief in, such\na revelation, they must sink down into eternal ruin and misery! And,\nso far as a revelation respects the damned, as though it was designed\nto aggravate and increase their misery by increasing their\nsensibility, he makes known his will, by special revelation, to a few,\naccompanied with the gift of his holy spirit, through the divine\nefficacy of which, a selected and chosen number will be admitted to\nbliss and glory, to the utter and eternal exclusion of the millions\nabove mentioned!!!\n\n\"If such a sentiment does not impeach the divine character, not only\nof partiality, but of _cruelty_, I know of nothing that could. But,\nSir,\n\n\"Are you not aware that your sentiment, as above stated, which has met\nmy approbation, on the supposition that divine revelation can be\nmaintained, is as much opposed to the general sentiment of\nChristianity, as it respects this particular, as any thing which I\nhave written or probably shall write on this subject? I presume you\nare aware of all this, and I hope you are prepared for its\nconsequences. You have more to apprehend, however, from this general\nsentiment, than I have. You have levelled an arrow at the very seat of\nlife of what is considered _orthodoxy_ in divinity, it is impossible\nbut that the wound should be severly felt. For you are not insensible\nsir, that it is not only the general, but almost the universal\nsentiment of orthodoxy, from _his holiness the Pope_ down to the\nsmallest child who has been taught to lisp the christian name, that\nthe revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ was designed to prepare\nmankind in this world for heaven and happiness in another. Hence it\nhas been believed that those who have died ignorant of the gospel, and\nbeing at the same time born of ignorant or unbelieving parents, must\nbe lost forever. But those who hear and reject the gospel must be\nstill more wretched in another world. With this sentiment, however, it\nseems you have no more fellowship than I. Therefore, my brother, it\nmay be well for both, but more especially for you, that the days of\nrigorous persecution are over. For notwithstanding orthodoxy will\nconsider us both equally opposed to christianity at heart, yet, of the\ntwo, you will be considered the most dangerous character. I shall be\nconsidered the _open_, but you the _secret enemy_; who, under the garb\nof professed friendship, are doing your utmost to sap the very\nfoundation of the christian's hope! And you will not be considered any\nthe less dangerous for your writings, being approved in any sense, by\none who has the audacity, as they will term it, to doubt of the truth,\nof divine revelation! Instead of discovered impious blasphemy in the\nhonest inquiry of your friend as it will be supposed you ought to have\ndone, and instead of threatening him with endless burnings\ntherefor;--or for not being disposed to receive, even truth, without\ncautious and thorough examination, you have painted christianity in\nsuch beautiful colours that infidelity itself finds but little cause\nto oppose it. Should these letters therefore ever come before the\npublic you must be prepared for the gathering storm. For should you be\nable to reconcile revelation with the above proposition, if reason be\nnot fully convinced of its truth, it will find nothing to object to\nthe principles it inculcates. However, as this is not the avowed\nsentiment of christians, generally speaking, you must permit me to\nproceed.\n\n\"As it respects biblical criticism, notwithstanding all I have written\non the subject, if the object is what you have proposed, 'to get the\nunderstanding of the sacred text,' I have no objection to it, but, for\nthose who have time and inclination, think it laudible. Your caution,\nlikewise, that in our zeal to cleanse we 'take care and not destroy,'\nis no doubt reasonable, and I trust duly appreciated. Your method also\nfor curing or removing unbelief is happily chosen, and is what I am\nnow attempting, which, with your assistance, I hope to make a proper,\nif not a successful application.\n\n\"Although the 'validity of the evidences' of revelation was not\nintended to have been granted, as I have informed you in my fourth\nnumber, yet I shall not press you to argue the points till I have\ngiven you the reasons for my doubts; for these being removed, nothing\nmore will be necessary.\n\n\"Yours &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. VI.\n\n[Here twelve pages or more of the objector's manuscript are omitted,\nas the nature of his arguments will pretty fully appear in the reply;\nand as he has been obliged to rescind the ground he had taken, it is\nnot expedient to publish his remarks. That the reader may see a little\nof the manner, however, in which he has given up his part of the\nargument, the following is inserted.]\n\n\"Speaking however on the evidences of revelation, you have stated some\nthings worthy of serious consideration; which if correct, and I cannot\nsay but they are, give me considerable satisfaction; and are very\ngrateful to my feelings. 'It' (faith) say you 'does not require all\n_possibility_ to be taken into the account: this would seem to go\nbeyond the limits of faith and enter into the regions of certainty.'\n\n\"According to this doctrine, I may yet, perhaps, be considered a\nbeliever in divine revelation, and of course in Christianity. If 'all\npossibility' is not required, then certainly some _doubts_, some\n_possibility_ of failure, may be admited without destroying the\nconsistency of the Christian faith.\n\n\"Here as it respects the argument, you have seemingly forclosed every\nthing which I shall say by way of objection; at least, you have\nanticipated all my arguments on this subject. For evidences and\ncircumstances calculated to raise _doubts_ in the mind; and shewing\nthe _possibility_ of uncertainty, are all the arguments which I have\nexpected to produce in this case. But it may not be improper to\ninquire how much uncertainty, or _possibility_ of uncertainty, may I\nadmit in my calculation without destroying the Christian faith? That\nthere are evidences in favor of divine revelation, and, which would\nsupport it, if there were nothing to counterbalance their testimony,\nis a proposition which I admit, and which I think cannot be disputed.\nHence I conceive it must be admitted that there is a _possibility_, at\nleast, of its being true.--But after all, if the weight of evidence in\nthe mind of any one should preponderate against it, I doubt whether\nsuch an one could consistently be called a believer in divine\nrevelation.\n\n\"You have suggested that in disproving the religion of Jesus Christ, I\nshould disprove all religion; as there can be no choice between this\nand any other; for if this can be proved false all may be proved false\n&c. or words to that effect. In this I hardly know how to understand\nyou. So far as the religion of Christ consists in 'feeding the hungry,\nclothing the naked, and keeping himself unspotted from the world,' I\nadmit, that 'in disproving the religion of Christ,' I should 'disprove\nall religion:' that is to say, in other words, so far as the religion\nof Christ is not founded on revelation, but on the relation and\ndependence existing between man and man, to disprove it would disprove\nall religion: but if the religion of Jesus Christ consists purely and\nexclusively in believing in a future state of existence, then\ndisproving it would not disprove all religion. A man may be what the\npoet calls 'the noblest work of God' i.e. 'an honest man,' and attend\nto all the duties embraced in that religion which St. James calls\n'pure and undefiled before God and the father,' and yet have no\n_opinion_, that is, no settled opinion, in regard to a future state.\nIf a man has religion enough to be a good husband, a good neighbor, a\ngood citizen, and can rationably enjoy all the blessings which\nappertain to this life, of what consequence is it to him, or to any\none else, what he believes in regard to a future state? This is a\nquestion worthy of serious consideration.\n\n\"The denial of revelation, much less to doubt its truth, does not\nrender it necessary that I should do what you have proposed; neither\nis it my disposition to destroy if I could the peace even of an\nindividual. Hence, I have no wish to 'demonstrate that there is no sun\nin a cloudy day;' but only to prove that clouds and darkness are as\nnecessary to the well being of man as clear sunshine. Neither would I\nbe the bearer of the 'joyless tidings that there is no clear sky in\nthe heavens;' but only to query whether our portion of 'clear sky' is\nnot that which reflects upon the earth; and that only during the short\nperiod of our lives? Who has a right to complain, if our blessings are\ncircumscribed to our sphere of action? Must we enjoy nothing, because\nmore is not allotted to our share? It is very probable there may be\nmillions of other suns, enlightening other worlds, and systems of\nworlds, giving life, light and warmth to rational beings like\nourselves, exceeding all imagination in number; and yet, have little\nof the blessings of those heavenly luminaries that falls to our\nenjoyment! They merly form a beautiful canopy over our heads. It is\ntrue, their greatest use to us may be that of which we are mostly\nignorant; in balancing systems &c. but yet we must have some knowledge\nof those benefits, before me can feel grateful for them. Dost thou\nwish to visit them? Dost thou desire to know more concerning them than\nthou canst know in this state? Calm and deliberate reason would say\nunto the, 'Be content, O vain man! with thine own lot, and not try to\nsoar above thy proper station!'\n\n\"The above is not designed as a reflection; it is only what I take to\nmyself.\n\n\"You have proposed what I conceive you think is the only alternative\nto which I must flee, when I give up the truth of divine revelation.\nBut may I not stop to inquire whether there is not some medium between\nthe two extremes which you have mentioned? Must I believe that there\nwas no such man as Jesus, or if there were, that he was an impostor;\nor else believe all that is stated concerning him? Must I also believe\nthe same of the apostles or else believe them impeccable? May not even\ngood men be honestly deceived? and being deceived, honestly lead\nothers into an error?--That honest men do not bear 'testimony to\nfalshood,' I admit; neither could such a principle be justified even\nunder a 'pretence of doing good;' yet I will not undertake to say that\nno such _pious frauds_ have ever been practiced in the world, and even\namong professed christians; and how soon it was practiced after the\ndays of the apostles, and whether or not by some even in their day,\nwould be very difficult now to determine. Neither is it necessary I\nshould say any thing more upon the subject, as you admit this\nprinciple 'has been practised upon by a wicked priesthood for ages!'\n\n\"In remarking on my fourth proposition, which I added to the _three_\nwhich you had proposed, you say, 'I will not be too positive that I\nrightly apprehend your meaning on this subject, but as you propose to\nallow my three propositions, and as you make no attempt to do away my\nreasoning, especially on my last,' &c. Here permit me to observe, I am\nwell persuaded you did not fully understand me, whatever you did\nyourself, on this subject. You will perceive, sir, both by my fourth\nnumber, and also by my fifth, that my answer to your _three\npropositions_ was not completed. Probably if you had waited for the\nwhole of my answer you would have understood me much better, and also\nwould have seen the use and propriety of my fourth proposition.\n\n\"I think, as you will perceive by my fifth number that even honest men\nmay be mistaken. And if so, it is very important to know whether the\napostles judged only from outward circumstances, or whether they had\nsome internal evidence, called _inspiration_, by which they always\nknew the truth of the things whereof they affirmed. This was the\nobject of my fourth proposition.\n\n\"That you did not fully understand me appears by your saying, 'If it\nbe allowed that my propositions are true, then you _consent_ to the\nvalidity of the apostles' testimony respecting a future state.' If\nthis could be allowed, it might then be admitted, that in this\nargument it makes no difference how the apostles come by their\n'knowledge of futurity.'--But I did not know, neither do I now\nperceive, that my admitting the apostles to be honest men makes it\nnecessary also to admit the validity of their 'testimony respecting a\nfuture state;' unless it can be shown that honest men are never\nmistaken respecting the things whereof they affirm. I admit the\n'_honesty_' of my good friend, in the above quoted proposition; but I\ncan hardly be willing, purely on this account, to '_consent_' to its\ntruth.\n\n\"As it respects an inheritance given in a WILL, &c. I have some doubts\nwhether reason always carries things as far as you would wish to carry\nthis metaphor to make it a parallel. Reason sometimes moves in a small\ncircle; and that too without being unreasonable. If the benefit is\nsaid to have been absolutely made, and reason is informed of the fact,\nit has a right to take it for granted, that the donor had the property\nto give, and that it is not given to the injury of any one else. But\nyet he consults his own interest, and that only, when he says, 'this\nis very important to me, if true, yet I doubt, yea I have reasons for\nnot believing it true.' Would any one say that such a man talketh\nunreasonably?\n\n\"You have called on me to prove 'that no revelation was needed;' and\nhave acknowledged, 'that if none was necessary, a being of infinite\nwisdom would make none.' And at the same time you have argued very\npathetically indeed to prove the necessity of a revelation; that is,\nif that can be called argument which grows out of a man's own\nfeelings: A man, however, of different feelings might bring forward\narguments equally energetic, and perhaps equally conclusive, but\ndiametrically opposite.\n\n\"I know not what evidence you wish, or what evidence would be\naccepted, to prove that a revelation is not necessary. Even if such\nwere the fact, it appears to me to be hardly susceptible of proof. It\nmay be no more difficult, however, than it is to prove that a\nrevelation is true. I presume that nothing short of a _revelation_\nwould convince you that a _revelation_ is not necessary! For who but\nGod can know what either is, or is not necessary for God to make\nknown?\n\n\"But if arguments drawn from our feelings are admissible, hear, for\nonce, the voice of simple nature, proclaiming in her simplicity by\nevery thing which exists either in or around you, that a revelation is\nneither necessary nor useful. That every thing which can be enjoyed in\nlife can be enjoyed equally as well, and often better, without either\nits knowledge or belief. That every duty, either to God or man, can be\nperformed as well, and with the same beneficial effect. And finally\nthat man may be brought, without either the aid, knowledge, or belief\nof revelation, not only to be reconciled to his conditions and station\nin life, but also to curtail all his _anxious_ desires to which he not\nonly _believes_ but _knows_ there is a natural possibility of\nobtaining.\n\n\"If one could be brought who would solemnly testify to the truth of\nthe above paragraph, would you believe his testimony? I presume not.\nBut why not? Will you say it is impossible it should be true? No one\ncan know this for a certainty, except those whose misfortune it is, if\nit be a misfortune not to believe in a future state of existence. If\nsuch there are, however, and yet their lives are exactly correct,\ntheir examples in society equally good, and their enjoyments\napparently equally as great as other men, why should you doubt their\ntestimony? Would you say they were _bad men_?--could you say they were\n_dishonest men_?--and if _honest_, according to your argument, why not\nbelieve them? I can see no inducement that any one could have to deny\na revelation, if he believes it true; but I can see a very great\ninducement for mankind to maintain the reality of a revelation,\nalthough at the same time they may doubt its truth.\n\n\"If you doubt whether the human mind can be brought to such a state as\nhas been mentioned above, it is only for the want of proper evidence;\nthe fact, however, is susceptible of proof. Yea, it can be more than\nproved; _the happy unbeliever_ in idle tales, but believing in eternal\nprinciples, knows it for a certainty. I do not mean that he knows for\na certainty, that there is no revelation, but he knows for a certainty\nthat a belief in revelation is not absolutely necessary to a happy\nlife. Now, if such characters exists, will you receive their own\ntestimony in support of the above fact? If not, it will be of no use\nto produce them.\n\n\"In order to make a proper estimation of virtue, we should take into\nconsideration the motives and inducements a person has to be virtuous.\nThe virtue of some men seems to be predicated on the following\nprinciples; on the consideration that they are going to heaven and\nhappiness in another world, while others, whom they conceive not so\ngood as themselves are going to hell, a place of never ending\ntorments. On this ground they can be very _pious_ also, and do a great\ndeal for religion. At the same time they will tell you, as many have,\nif they believed all were to be alike happy in another world, they\nwould then stick at no crimes to obtain their object, but would\nindulge themselves in all manner of gratifications, &c. Such virtue,\nhowever, I conclude does not stand very high in your estimation. No;\nbut you would be virtuous on a more noble scale; so long as you can\nbelieve that you shall have an eternal existence with God, in a happy\nconscious identity, you are willing every body else should enjoy the\nsame blessing; on supposition that this is true, or as you can believe\nit, you are for doing all the good in your power, and at the same time\ntaking all the comfort you can in doing it. You are trying to make\nevery one believe what you believe, that they may enjoy what you\nenjoy. But the moment this faith, and this hope of yours is gone, your\nvirtue is gone with it; you can now do nothing, and of course enjoy\nnothing!\n\n\"Now compare this virtue with the virtue of one whom the christian\nworld would call an infidel! One whose faith, and of course, hope,\ndoes not extend beyond what he knows has been the lot of some, and, as\nfar as circumstances will admit, may be his own; and yet he is always\nfaithful in the discharge of whatever appears to be his duty, always\nenjoys life, whether in prosperity or adversity, and is always, so far\nas it respects circumstances over which he has no control, reconciled\nand contented with his lot. He knows his life is uncertain, and\nalthough he has no real faith or well grounded hope beyond the present\nstate of existence, yet the thought gives him neither anxiety nor\nconcern. His only object is to do good; to enjoy life while it lasts,\nto cultivate and improve human nature for the benefit of posterity; to\nbear the evils and misfortunes of life with fortitude, and to be\nunfeignedly thankful for all the happiness of which he is made\nsusceptible. Therefore whether his life be for a day, or for eternity,\nit matters not, because, for the present, it is all the same to him:\nhis duties are the same, and his enjoyments are the same. O how happy!\nHow inexpressibly happy, is such a state as this!\n\n\"While others are feasting their fruitful imaginations with the idle\nand visionary dreams of fanaticism; with a kind of chimerical heaven\nof which they know _nothing_, as to its certainty: this man is in\nheaven already: dwelling in love, he 'dwelleth in God, and God in\nhim.'\n\n\"Do you not wish, my brother, that you could find such a character\namong Christians? But Christianity does not afford such a character,\nin _full_, nor is it possible that it ever should. Such a character,\nhowever, there may be, and when the world, or any considerable part of\nthem can receive his testimony, he may make his appearance.\n\n\"You seem to think it may be successfully argued 'that the moral and\nreligious state of man really required a divine revelation.' This\nargument, if I understand you, grows out of the ardent desires of man;\nwhich, it is admitted, would be pretty conclusive if it could be made\nto appear that the desires of man are never fruitless. Man, it is\ntrue, rationally desires happiness; for this is essential to his moral\nexistence; yet, may he not, through ignorance, or from some other\ncause, suppose things essential to his happiness, which, in fact, are\nnot essential, and therefore ardently desire them? But does it\nnecessarily follow that the particular things desired in such cases\nare absolutely necessary? and therefore will absolutely be granted? I\nbelieve not.--And if he may be thus deceived in any one thing, why may\nhe not be deceived in the supposed necessity of a divine revelation?\nIt is believed that a perfect reconciliation to the present state of\nman; to what he is, with the prospect only of what he yet may be in\nthis life, without either the hope or the fear of a future existence,\nwould be infinitely better than any thing which has yet been produced\nby a belief in divine revelation; especially any further than a\nrevelation is conducive to this end; and if a revelation ever was\nnecessary, it was necessary only to reconcile man to his present state\nof existence. But if man can be equally reconciled without the\n_knowledge_, or, what amounts to the same thing, without the _belief_\nof divine revelation, then the end of such a revelation is obtained.\n\n\"It seems to be expedient that I should say a few more words,\n'respecting the apostles' stating no more than what was substantially\ntrue.'\n\n\"I hope, however, we shall not lose sight of the main subject in\ndebate, by criticising on words. I say _main subject_ here, as I think\nthere will be no occasion of saying any thing more on the subject of\nthe _languages_ in relation to the arts and sciences.\n\n\"I am not disposed to think, sir, that you have designedly wrested the\nmeaning of my words; nor that you are unwilling to receive my meaning\nwhen it is fully understood; and yet, having once explained on this\nsubject, I am unable to account for your remarks.\n\n\"After my informing you that you had misconstrued me, and also stating\nmy meaning, as I supposed, more explicitly, you have informed me that\nif your first construction was not my meaning, it seems that I must\nhave meant the reverse of it, which, I must aver, is as foreign from\nmy meaning as your first construction! For neither your former nor\nlatter construction was in my mind when I wrote the sentence to which\nI allude: but a different idea from either of your constructions was\nin my mind, and was what I meant to state; which idea, as I conceive,\nis as fairly expressed by my words, and is a more just construction of\nthem, taking into consideration the sentence which follows, than\neither of the ideas which you have expressed as their meaning.\n\n\"Permit me therefore to state again, that whatever might have been my\nopinion respecting the writings of the apostles, I did not mean to\nsuggest, and much less to affirm in that sentence 'that they stated\nthat which is not true!'--Neither did I mean to acknowledge in that\nsentence that they had stated 'no more' than what is true, at least in\n_substance_; but I did mean this, and this only, that admitting those\nthings were true, all would admit that the design of the apostles was\nnothing _more_ than to state the truth of those things in _substance_;\nbecause all would acknowledge that they were not careful to be correct\nas to every _minutiae_. But as this makes nothing either for or\nagainst the main point, I wish to add no more respecting it, than\nsimply to remark, that even if the apostles had gone on the opposite\nextreme of what I meant I should not think them 'deserving of _no\ncredit_.' Supposing they had descended into _minutiae_, and related,\nto an exact nicety, every particular circumstance (which is exactly\nthe reverse of what I mean to state), would they on this account have\nbeen deserving of _no credit_? I think not. Considering the time,\nhowever, which had elapsed after the facts are said to have taken\nplace, before a history of them was given in writing, I think the\nevangelists are entitled to _more credit_, on the whole, than what\nthey would have been if their testimony had borne the complexion last\nmentioned.\n\n\"To close this letter, which perhaps is already too long, I would here\nacknowledge that as I have expressed doubts in the subject of divine\nrevelation, you have a right to hear my reasons for doubting. These I\npromised to give you (as I thought) at the close of my fourth number.\nYou have informed me, verbally, that I promised to give you my\n_doubts_ only. If I did so, it was only a slip of the pen, to which I\nam too prone; it was my _reasons for doubting_, which I meant to have\npromised you; and in my next I shall endeavor to fulfil that promise.\n\n\"Yours, &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER V.\n\n_Dear sir, and brother_,--Your fifth and sixth numbers were received\ntogether, and will be noticed in the order in which they came to hand.\n\nYou observe that you know of no better evidence that \"there ever was\nsuch a story reported among the Jews, in the days of the apostles,\nthan there is to prove the actual resurrection of Jesus,\" &c. This\nsuggestion leads to the following queries.\n\n1st. Was there in the days of the apostles, such a man known in the\ncountry of the Jews, as Jesus Christ?\n\n2d. Was this man put to death, as the four evangelists and others\ntestify?\n\n3d. Did the apostles declare to the people who put him to death, that\nthey knew that he had arisen from the dead?\n\n4th. If the Jews who put Jesus to death could go to his sepulchre and\nshow his dead body to the people, would the story of the resurrection\never have gained any credit among the Jews?\n\n5th. If they could not find the body of him who had been crucified,\nwould the opposers not endeavour to report something that might appear\nas plausible as they could, especially as they had the keeping of the\nsepulchre in their own hands?\n\n6th. What would more naturally suggest itself to the imagination of\nmen, in the situation of the rulers of the Jews, than the story of the\ndisciples having stolen the dead body, &c. Or,\n\n7th. Was this account written long since the apostles' days, by an\nunknown author, who made the whole story as he wrote it? If this last\nquestion cannot be answered in the affirmative without doing violence\nto the most authentic testimony and also to the plainest dictates of\nreason, it seems to follow that the 6th preceding question, must be\naccepted in the affirmative, which furnishes sufficient evidence to\nprove that such a story was reported among the Jews in the days of the\napostles.\n\nWhether you are correct in supposing there is as much evidence to\nprove the resurrection as to prove the report of the disciples' having\nstolen the body, or not, it appears to me, that there is no proper\nground on which the latter can even be doubted.\n\nSuppose a writer in vindicating believer's baptism in opposition to\nthe sprinkling of infants, should relate a wonderful story concerning\nthe persecutions of the baptists, in which he should set forth the\nparticulars of one of their leading characters having been put to\ndeath by their opposers. In this account, the author says; Those\nmurderers, after they put the man to death, for fear his friends\nshould steal the body, went and placed a strong guard round the tomb\nto watch for the space of three days and nights, but before the\nexpiration of this period, the guard came to the rulers and make known\nthat the body is gone, and acknowledge at the same time, that there\nwere such wonders seen by them at the tomb, that they were unable to\nendure the sight and retain their natural powers; that the rulers gave\nthem money to report that a number of the baptists came while the\nguard was asleep and stole the body--\"So they took the money, and did\nas they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the\nP\u00e6dobaptists unto this day.\" Would this story appear any ways to the\nadvantage of a cause, with which reason and common sense have any\nthing to do?\n\nReason, sir, for which you seem determined to contend, is candid; it\nreadily acknowledges that the account of this report among the Jews is\na true account. And it acknowledges also that the truth of this\naccount is good evidence to prove that the rulers of the Jews found it\nnecessary, in order to oppose the truth of the resurrection, to get\nsuch a report in circulation.\n\nYou have not taken me exactly on the ground of my argument, in\nsupposing that, by _revelation_, I mean nothing more than \"what was\nrevealed to me by the resurrection of Jesus, allowing the resurrection\ntrue.\" My design was to consider the three propositions, viz.\nrevelation, the resurrection of Jesus, and the truth of the testimony\nof the apostles, concerning matters of fact, true, disjunctively; and\nalso to avail myself of whatever might arise to the advantage of my\nargument from the relation of these facts. All this you will, as a\ngenerous and candid antagonist, be willing to allow me to do, on the\nsupposition that the three propositions, above named, be granted. For\nsurely no necessary deduction from granted premises can mislead,\nunless what is granted be false. You will furthermore see, that by\ngranting the truth of divine revelation some degree of allowance is\ngiven to the probability, at least, of the testimony of the apostles\nrespecting a future state. The confining of the subject of revelation,\nto that only which is revealed by the resurrection of Jesus, seems an\nunnecessary restriction, which can answer no purpose but to embarrass\nan argument which it would have no real force in refuting; for if the\nresurrection be admitted, which affords such an important revelation\nas grows out of the fact, it establishes the general truth of a DIVINE\nREVELATION from God to man. This being granted, all that stands in a\nnecessary relation to it may with propriety be used in defence of any\nparticular question relative to the general subject. I have already\nargued the truth of what the apostles say of a future state, from the\nfacts which you grant for the sake of the argument, but you seem to\nmisapprehend me in supposing that I mean to contend, that what the\napostles have said respecting a future state, was spoken by way of\n_conclusion_ from certain known facts. The known facts, such as the\nmiracles of Jesus, his resurrection, and the miracles wrought by the\napostles, I used as proof of the divine mission of these servants of\nGod. This divine mission being proved, gives the ground on which I\ncontend for the merit of their testimony concerning a future state.\nYou should have regarded my argument, as placing the credibility of\nthe apostles' testimony concerning a future state, on the fact of\ntheir divine mission, and not as you seem to have done, on the\nsupposition, that they could not err in drawing conclusions, &c.\n\nYou have misunderstood me also, in supposing that by \"the guess work\nof men,\" I had any allusion to the known miracles related by the\napostles. What I called \"mere guess work of men,\" was the _opinions_\nof the apostles on supposition they were not divinely directed, in the\ntestimony they laid down respecting a future state. On this particular\nsubject, all you have said in reply to my reasoning, has no just\nrelation to my argument.\n\nIt was expected, that in relation to the foregoing subject, you would\nhave seen the necessity of either denying the reality of those\nmiracles, which, if true, prove the divine mission of Christ and his\napostles, or of granting the authority of their testimony. But in room\nof finding what was so confidently expected, I find the mistakes above\npointed out, which occupy considerable space, without deciding any\nthing, or furnishing ground on which I feel disposed to place any\nargument.\n\nThe next particular which demands notice is stated as follows: \"Your\nfinal conclusion, after all, comes so near what I conceive to be the\ntruth, that were you as correct in every thing as you appear to be in\nthis, I should hardly think it expedient to pursue this controversy\nany further.\" You then quote me. \"The Christian is enabled to hope for\nexistence with God in an eternal state, and this is as much as our\npresent welfare requires.\" You rejoin; \"Most excellent! to this\nproposition I cheerfully assent. Yea, I would consent even to pruning\nit a little which no doubt would spoil it in your view. Instead of,\n'this is as much as,' read, 'even this is more than,' and your\nproposition would stand exactly right.\" You assure me that you are in\nsearch of truth.--Truth is the only design of your heart. It would be\nuncharitable in me to doubt your sincerity. You sincerely and\ncheerfully assent to the above proposition viz. that the christian is\nenabled to hope for existence with God in an eternal state, and this\nis as much as our present welfare requires. This you say is _most_\nexcellent. But notwithstanding you cheerfully assent to this\nproposition, and can pronounce it _most_ excellent! Yet you think, if\nthe proposition was so altered as to allow us no hope of a future\nexistence with God, it would stand _exactly_ right! This variation is\nso small, this difference is so little that you think if I were as\ncorrect in every thing as I am in this, there would be no need of\npursuing this controversy any further! Let me ask dear sir, if such\nreasoning as this can promise a profitable reward for our labours, and\na recompence for the precious time we are spending? The eye of reason,\nI say is candid: it sees and knows, that if a hope of existence with\nGod hereafter is _more than_ our present welfare requires, such an\nexpectation is awfully dreadful beyond the power of language to\ndescribe. Reason knows that there is an infinite difference between no\nexistence hereafter, and an eternal existence. And it knows, that if\nthe former is exactly what our present welfare requires, the latter is\ncompletely repugnant to it.\n\nWith what you here contend for, I will connect a passage from your\nsixth number. \"He knows that a belief in revelation is not absolutely\nnecessary to a happy life.\" By bringing these passages together, I am\nled to understand what you mean by the latter viz. that a belief in a\nhappy future state, is not necessary to our present felicity. This is\nwhat you know! What then are you in pursuant of? You pretend to be\nearnestly solicitous to have your doubts respecting divine revelation\nremoved if possible; you call on me to assist in this work as if you\nviewed it with deep concern.--If your doubts should be removed, if you\nshould be altogether convinced that God has actually revealed the\ntruth of a a happy immortality, you know it would add nothing to your\nhappiness. Furthermore you argue, following the passage quoted from\nyour sixth number, that this belief in the revelation of a happy\nfuturity is not necessary to produce a virtuous life. Allowing all you\nargue on this subject, you feel sure that a real conviction of the\ntruth of the christian doctrine, and hope of future blessedness, would\nbe of no advantage to your virtue or happiness! I ask again, what are\nyou in pursuit of? You compliment me too highly in your encomium on\nthe sermon in which I laid down that man is so constituted that he is\nalways willing to exchange that which gives him trouble, for that\nwhich gives him comfort. And you advert to this particular sentiment\nof mine, in your observations on St. Paul's conversion, and very\njustly refuse to allow him to be an exception of the general rule. But\nare you not an exception of this rule? Do you not appear to be\nsolicitous to have your doubts removed without expecting the least\nadvantage by it? Are you not employing your time in writing\nvoluminously on a subject which you _know_ can yield you no\nrecompence? In search after the evidences of the christian hope, you\ncannot say: where is that faithful, that friendly witness by which I\ncan believe, and believing, enjoy as a precious reality that hope\nwhich is as an anchor to the soul, both sure and stedfast; which\nentereth into that within the veil, where our forerunner hath for us\nentered; which hope would enable me to sing that triumphant song; \"O\ndeath where is thy sting, O grave where is thy victory? Thanks be to\nGod who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.\" No, this\nhope would add nothing to your happiness, and what you want it for is\nnot for me to imagine.\n\nYou can employ the powers of luminous reason in contemplating eternal\nnothing with sweet complacency. This is \"exactly\" as it should be!\nVarying from this the proposition would need to be \"pruned!\" Dear\nbrother, does reason countenance all this absurdity? If it be a\npleasure to contemplate non-existence does it not involve the\nabsurdity of enjoying the expectation of the discontinuance of\nenjoyment?\n\nYou have expressed, with interjections, the value of truth. You seem\nalmost disposed to arrogate to yourself a peculiar regard for this\ndivine treasure. I can fancy I hear your secret addresses to this\nlovely divinity; in rapturous language, with aspect of eager affection\nsaying; O truth, the loveliest of all attractions, thou art balsam for\nevery wound, antidote for every poison; thou sweetenest every bitter\ncup; the gloomy prospect of living, in thy bright sunshine is by thee\nchanged into the joyous expectation of soon losing sight of thee\nforever in the elysium of non-existence!\n\nI will not burden you with further deductions, so repugnant to the\ndictates of reason; but I will cherish a hope, that you will see\nsufficient reason for rescinding the arguments which lead to them.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Perhaps the reader may be a little astonished here, that\nthe objector should ever have consented to publish arguments which\nmakes him appear so much to a disadvantage. But an honest objector,\nwho has been so blind to his own heart as not to perceive the real\ncause of a perfect reconciliation to the general providence of God,\ninstead of feeling _chagrined_, will feel _grateful_, when his errors\nare _honestly exposed_. Believing, therefore, that others may be in\nthe same predicament, these arguments are published to the world.]\n\nOn supposition divine revelation be true, you agree with me on the\nsubject wherein I differ from the general opinion, that a knowledge of\nthe gospel in this world is indispensable to the soul's felicity in\nthe next, but you are confident that this my sentiment will be viewed\nby the Christian world in general, with greater abhorrence than even\nyour own arguments, &c. And you hope I am prepared for the\nconsequences. Reply--I have little or no concern about what opinion\nreputed orthodoxy may entertain of the truths which reason and\nrevelation harmonize in supporting, nor am very careful about any\npreparation to meet the consequences which may result from the\ninseparable companions, _superstition_ and _ignorance_.\n\nIn my view, the commonly received opinion, on the subject under\nconsideration, is no more reasonable, than the supposition that the\nhappiness and wellbeing of our children, in this world, depend on\ntheir having had a correct knowledge of their parents, of their wisdom\nand parental providence for them, before they were born. The wisdom\nand goodness of God, according to scripture and reason, are universal.\nThe ignorance of mortals concerning them, on the one hand, makes them\nno less, and their knowledge, on the other makes them no greater. We\nmust duly regard, however, the evident fact, that the enjoyment of\nreasonable beings, is extended by the extension of knowledge, which\nrenders acquirements in science and divinity an object of the first\nmagnitude.\n\nThe sentiment which you express on the above subject is what I am well\npersuaded can never be refuted, and it appears to me that by placing\nthe system of divine revelation on the ground above noticed, it is\nrendered free from these absurdities which have rendered it\nexceptionable to the eye of reason and philosophy.\n\nThe gospel of everlasting life, like all real science, has always\nexisted, but like the sciences, has been developed by degrees, and\nbrought to the understanding of mankind as a mean of refinement,\nimprovement, and of conformity to mortal principles, as expressed by\nthat eminent divine St. Paul, 2 Cor. 5, 18, 19, 20. \"And all things\nare of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and\nhath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was\nin Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their\ntrespasses unto them: and hath committed unto us the word of\nreconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God\ndid beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled\nto God.\" Now to suppose that men, who on account of their ignorance of\nthe gospel are unreconciled to God, who has undertaken the gracious\nwork of reconciling them to himself, not imputing their trespasses\nunto them, are on account of their unreconciliation excluded from\nbeing the objects of divine favour is a grand absurdity to say the\nleast.\n\nThe fact is, the gospel is a dispensation of general favour, and it\nactually communicates many invaluable blessings to those who know\nnothing of its divine principles. There are millions of people in the\nworld who are blessed in a great variety of respects by means of civil\ngovernment, who know nothing of the principles of the governments by\nwhich they are protected. How many blessings are constantly falling,\nas it were like a shower, on our infants and youth in America, from\nthe favourable government of our happy country, and yet these children\nknow not the difference between an absolute monarchy and a republic.\n\nHow many millions of the human race are daily fed from the products of\nagriculture, who know nothing of the principles which produce those\nrich supplies. So there are multitudes who enjoy many blessings\nprocured by the gospel of Christ, who have no knowledge of the sublime\nprinciples of this religion. But here again I will repeat the remark,\nthat our rational felicity is greatly increased by an extension of our\nknowledge in the principles of the doctrine of Jesus, which\nconsideration is a proper incentive to grow in grace and in the\nknowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.\n\nKnowledge is food for the mind and nourishes and strengthens it as\naliment does the body. Our youth learn to read the books which they\nare favoured with in consequence of the discovery of the art of\nprinting, and they obtain great advantages by means of those books,\nwhile they remain entirely ignorant, many of them, of the art by which\nsuch a favour is put into their hands. But still it is healthy to the\nyouthful mind, to receive the knowledge of this and other arts, and\neven to know that an art so extensively useful was not known in the\nworld four hundred years ago. A person on being informed of the first\ndiscovery of this art, and of its being practiced, in the first place,\nwith separate wooden types, might be disposed to doubt the ignorance\nof men in those times. He might think it incredible that any thing so\neasy, that even children can perform was unknown to the learned world\nin those times when learning flourished in ancient Greece and Rome.\nAnd I am of opinion that many now, who are disposed to doubt the\ncircumstances which attended the first promulgation of the gospel, and\neven call themselves unbelievers, do in reality, owe even their\nexistence and of course every blessing they enjoy to those facts of\nwhich they now doubt. Yes, sir, the light of reason, and the knowledge\nof moral principles, on which you feel disposed to place so much\nconsequence, I am inclined to believe are reflections of that light\nwhich was the delightful theme of the evangelical Isaiah, chapters 6,\n7, 8. \"I the Lord hath called thee in righteousness, and will hold\nthine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the\npeople, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring\nout the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out\nof the prison house. I am the Lord; that is my name: and my glory will\nI not give to another, nor my praise to graven images.\" Am I deceived,\nsir, or is it evident, that the glorious LIGHT which illuminates our\nmoral hemisphere, and distinguishes our country from barbarism and\nsavage ignorance, is the gospel? The name of Jesus, his doctrine, the\nreformation, seceding from the Church of England and persecution for\nconscience sake, rank as causes of the settlement of New England by\nour forefathers, and of the existence of the men who are carrying on\nthis correspondence. This is mentioned with a view to direct your mind\nto the consideration of that course of causes and effects by which we\nare enabled to reason on what wo call moral and physical principles.\nAnd a hope is entertained that due regard will be paid to this\nself-evident fact, that nothing ever took place without an adequate\ncause to produce it.\n\nWith this reflection, I come to notice your remarks on the subject of\nSt. Paul's conversion; for it appears to me that you have allowed\ncertain facts without assigning any adequate causes by which those\nfacts came to exist. You make no attempt to deny that there was such a\nman as St. Paul, nor do you deny his having been educated, and\nreligiously instructed as the scripture history concerning this man\nsets forth. But you assign no reason why he became a believer in Jesus\nChrist, you assign no reason for his becoming a preacher of the\ndoctrine of Jesus, you assign no reason why he should so patiently\nsuffer for the religion, the truth of which you are now calling in\nquestion. You allow that before his conversion he persecuted unto\ndeath the \"weak and defenceless disciples of the meek and lowly\nJesus.\" But you assign no reasons why weak and defenceless men should\nbecome the disciples of Jesus. You would fain insinuate that what he\nrelates of the particular circumstance which happened to him on his\nway to Damascus was a mere reverie. But you make no attempt to show\nhow such a reverie could produce in this learned pharisee a belief\nthat Jesus, who was crucified had actually arose from the dead, when\nthere were not even the shadow of evidence existing to prove such an\nimprobable fact. You are inclined to this notion of a reverie on\naccount of some experience of your own, which your good sense and\nafter reflection have discovered to be nothing on which dependence\nought to be placed. Sir, where is the similarity of your case with\nthat of the learned pharisee? Do you really believe you ever\nexperienced a reverie, that would go in the least to cause you to\nbelieve in the resurrection of a man who was hanged in your sight, and\nwho you knew was buried, and of whose resurrection you had no\nevidence, only a vague reverie? Do you believe you ever experienced a\nmere imagination which was strong enough to produce the above belief,\nand which could continue to influence you all your life long, lead you\nto forsake a most honourable connexion, and to espouse a religion\nwhich all the prejudices of your education opposed, and to labour\ncontinually for its support and to suffer every thing for its defence?\nNo, you pretend to no such thing, therefore your case is very\ndifferent from St. Paul's.\n\nI agree with you, that the case of this apostle comes under the rule\nwhich you recollect I suggested in my sermon. He undoubtedly viewed\nthe religion which he received in room of the one he parted with the\nmost valuable. And to this agrees his own testimony. Phil. iii. 7, &c.\n\"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.\nYea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of\nthe knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the\nloss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ,\nand be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of\nthe law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the\nrighteousness which is of God by faith.\"\n\nAs you promise to say more on this subject, I shall _continue_ to\nexpect an attempt to deny the conversion of such a man as St. Paul is\nset forth to have been, to the Christian religion, under all the\ncircumstances which the scripture account mentions; or an attempt to\nshow that such a conversion could _probably_ take place without\nsupposing the facts on which the religion of Christ was founded were\nrealities; or lastly, an acknowledgment that this conversion may\nreasonably be allowed as evidence to us of the truth of the Christian\nreligion.\n\nShould you be disposed to disallow the account which the scripture\ngives of St. Paul, I will ask the favour of you to point out and show\nto my understanding where in Paley's Horae Paulinae fails of proving\nthe truth of the scripture history of St. Paul.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat follows is designed to notice your sixth number; out of which the\nfollowing subjects are selected, on which some remarks are made.\n\n1st. You observe that \"when we hear things, which to our understanding\nare improbable, the improbability of the facts raises a doubt in our\nminds; and certainly there can be no harm in suspending our judgment,\nnor yet in withholding our belief until we are fully satisfied.\" This\nfirst subject regards the degrees of evidences which are required in\ndifferent cases, and the moral propriety of withholding the assent of\nthe mind in the case of a want of evidence.\n\n2d. You are not disposed to doubt that many of the prophets were good\nmen; nor will you contend that they were not all such, and taught the\npeople according to the best of their abilities--And yet you hesitate\nto allow the divinity of their testimony.\n\n3d. I notice that you acknowledge that there are evidences in favour\nof divine revelation, which would support it, if there were nothing to\ncounterbalance their testimony.\n\n4th. You hardly know how to understand me where I suggest, that in\ndisproving the religion of Jesus Christ, you disprove all religion,\n&c.\n\n5th. An inquiry whether Jesus and the apostles might not be honest\nmen, and yet their testimony in certain cases not to be relied on!\n\n6th. You suppose that arguments equally energetic and equally\nconclusive might be drawn from our feelings against, as in favour of\nthe necessity of divine revelation.\n\n7th. In enumerating the virtues and enjoyments of one who does not\neven desire a future state, you mention unfeigned thankfulness for all\nthe happiness of which he is made susceptible.\n\n8th. You assert, that if a revelation ever was necessary, it was\nnecessary only to reconcile man to his present state efexistence. And,\n\n9th. You seem to fault me for supposing that in case you did not mean\nas I took you, on the subject of the apostles' testimony, you must\nmean the reverse, &c.\n\nThese nine particulars, it is true, do not comprehend every item\ncontained in your sixth number, but I believe that a candid reply to\neach of them will satisfy you that a competent degree of attention has\nbeen paid to this communication.\n\n1st. Concerning the degrees of evidence required in certain cases to\ncarry conviction of facts to the mind; it has always been allowed by\nthose who have vindicated the religion of Jesus, that a belief in\nmiracles requires more evidence than a belief in ordinary events\nrecorded in history. Having granted this they proceed to associate the\nevidences, which God in his divine economy has given and preserved,\nand conclude with grateful assurance that the evidence of the miracles\nof Jesus, his unspeakably glorious resurrection from the dead,\ntogether with the miracles with which the first promulgation of the\ngospel was effected, are abundantly sufficient to carry conviction to\nvastly the greatest part of candid minds.\n\nIn the mode the last sentence is concluded, I must, in justice to\nothers, take the sentiment there expressed to myself; for I am sorry\nto say that christians, who have contended against infidelity have,\ngenerally, been less charitable than the genius of the religion they\nhave, in many respects, most ably defended. I cannot find authority\nfor denying candor to one who is unable to believe on the ground of\nsuch evidence as may satisfy my mind of a fact. I will therefore\nsuppose that some who are candid, may, from some cause which we cannot\nanalyze, be unable to believe the great truths of the gospel, on such\nevidence as is abundantly sufficient to convince others who are as\nscrupulous as necessary investigation requires.\n\nIt is, sir, the opinion of some very learned authors, who stand in the\nvery first rank, for candor and erudition, that the proofs of which\nthe gospel is susceptible are, in all respects, equal to what they\ncould have been in any other way concerted, within the reach of human\nconception. This is going to a great length I confess; and yet I am\nstrongly inclined to their opinion. I will candidly state why I am\nso.--1st. Taking the subject in the gross, I am convinced of the truth\nof the gospel of Christ. Now as I believe this gospel is not of man,\nbut of God, I likewise believe that God in consummate wisdom has\nplanned the evidences by which it is and will be supported in the\nworld, until it fills the whole earth. 2d. As I believe that divine\nwisdom has planned, ordered and directed all the means which will\nfinally operate as evidences in defence of the gospel, I cannot\nbelieve that the wisdom or sagacity of man could have suggested a\nchain of evidences which could so well have secured the cause to be\nsupported. And 3d. I have spent much time in reflecting and studying\non this momentous subject, some time in reading authors on both sides\nof the question, a great deal of time in reading the scriptures, and\nhave come to this conclusion that no set of men ever lived in this\nworld that could either have planned such a scheme as the gospel, or\never have invented such a chain of evidences for its support.\n\nIf the single miracle of the resurrection be considered, as the fact\non which all other facts relating to the gospel seem to rest, it is\nconfidently believed that no human invention could have concerted a\nsystem so well calculated to secure the fact to all future\ngenerations, as that which has been adopted by the divine economy. Had\nthe whole of the Jewish nation with their Gentile neighbours, together\nwith the Roman authorities, all confessed Christianity, being fully\nconvinced of the resurrection of Jesus, and had they inscribed all the\nmiracles recorded in the new testament on monuments which should defy\nthe hand of time to bring them to decay, it requires but a moment's\nreflection to see that all this would have vastly increased the\ndifficulty now to prove that it was not all contrived by man's\ninvention.\n\nBut let us consider the unbelief of the Jews, the violent opposition\nof that ancient priesthood, its coalition with the Roman government\nagainst the gospel, the great jealousy which the acknowledged miracles\nof Jesus had excited, the vigilance by which he was watched by his\nreligious enemies, the careful scrutiny employed to discover fraud in\nhis miracles if it were possible; and then add to these considerations\nthat the miracles of Jesus were publically performed, and of such a\nnature as to admit of the easiest possible detection if they had not\nbeen real: and finally to disarm unbelief at once, consider that the\nministry of the gospel was set up by the apostles, on the bold\ndeclaration that God had raised the crucified Jesus from the dead! A\ndeclaration, which if it had not been true, mark well, sir, could have\nbeen as easily refuted and rendered the derision of all people as any\ndeclaration that could have been made. But I shall lose myself, and\nforget that you have not yet called my attention so directly to this\nsubject, as to justify my entering largely into it.\n\nWhat you have said on the subject of believing in the testimony of\nDavid, that the \"Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over\nall his works,\" also the same sentiment communicated by Jesus Christ,\nthat God loves his enemies and that he requires of us the same\nexercise towards our enemies, though perfectly reasonable, as I view\nthe subject, seems to call up the question, how it happens that\nthousands of professed Christians, who believe in the miracles of\nJesus, his resurrection and the miracles of the apostles, are\nnotwithstanding hostile to this divine and glorious sentiment of the\nblessed Jesus! Being compelled, by the visible evidences of divine\ngoodness, seen in the rain and sunshine, they advance so far as to\nacknowledge that _temporal_ favours are generally distributed, but\nthat God does really love the wicked, they utterly deny. Now while you\ncan believe this great moral truth without a miracle, Christian people\nin general cannot believe it with one. You are not to suppose that I\nam willing to allow that you believe this sentiment without a miracle,\nthough you would insinuate, that this is the case. My opinion is, that\nhad it not been for the miracles recorded in the new testament, the\ntruth of which you are disposed to call in question, you and I, if we\nhad existed, would have had no more light on this subject than the\nrudest savage, or what is worse, the most superstitious and contracted\nChristian. If you have any ground on which you can fairly refute my\nopinion on this subject, I hope you will faithfully perform it; if\nnot, it will be expected that you will express your acquiescence. Such\nis the power of natural prejudice which we know exists in the human\nmind, that without a divine revelation from God, supported by the most\nevident miracles, man will not extend his views of divine benevolence\nscarcely beyond the rivers and mountains which environ the\ncircumscribed vicinity of his birth. Trace the power and operation of\nthis prejudice and you find it maintaining hostility against the light\nof revelation itself, and it is only by slow degrees that it is\nbrought into submission. We reason very injudiciously when we bring\nourselves to believe, that by the light of reason we could know and\nunderstand all the moral truths which we have been taught by\nrevelation; we forget that revelation has illuminated our reason and\ntaught it how to see and understand.--Just as well might the sprightly\nyouth refuse to acknowledge that its mother learned it to walk, and\never gave it nourishment and strength to perform the exercise, and\nallege that it can walk as well as she can. As well might the learned\ngraduate refuse the grateful honours due to his instructors, and say:\nmy reason, my understanding comprehend these sciences, of what use\nthen are these learned professors and this college institution? But\nwould not reason point him to the condition of those, to whom the\nblessings of instruction, which, through much difficulty had given him\nthe light of science, had not extended? Would it not force the\ncomparison on his understanding, and humble him into gratitude?\n\nIt seems impossible, sir, for reason to compare our situation with\ntheirs, who have not been enlightened by the gospel, without kneeling,\nlike the woman in Simon's house, at the feet of Jesus.\n\n2d. If the prophets where not divinely inspired, will you suggest any\nway by which their pretentions to divine inspiration can be reconciled\nwith their honesty? They all speak in the name of the Lord, and\nevidently aim at the high pretention of being spoken to, in a special\nmanner, by God himself. Will you say: they were a set of poor deluded\nenthusiasts? But this would contradict your reason which can see in\nevery page of their writings a very different character. A passage\nfrom the 1st chapter of Jeremiah is here quoted for an example. \"Then\nthe word of the Lord came unto me, saying, before I formed thee &c. I\nsanctified thee; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Then\nsaid I, ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child: But\nthe Lord said unto me, say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all\nthat I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt\nspeak. Be not afraid of their faces; for I am with thee to deliver\nthee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my\nmouth; and the Lord said unto me, behold, I have put my words in thy\nmouth.\"\n\nHere Jeremiah evidently designed to declare himself an inspired\nprophet of God, by which he was justified in speaking in his name. Now\nif all this was mere fiction, how can it be entitled to a better\ncharacter than that of blasphemy?\n\nAs a specimen of this prophet's knowledge of future events we may\nnotice his prophesy of the seventy years captivity. See chap. xxv. 11,\n&c. xxix. 10, &c. Compare with 2 Kings xxiv. 2 Chron. xxxvi. Ezra i.\n1, and other corresponding passages.\n\nI will ask you to consult the character of Daniel, and observe with\nwhat genuine humility he pretends to divine inspiration, chap. ii.\nxxx. \"But as for me, the secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom\nthat I have more than any living, but that the secret might be made\nknown, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.\" If\nDaniel did not receive a divine revelation, it must be allowed that he\nwas deceived, or that he meant to deceive the king. But if he were\ndeceived, or if he meant to deceive, can you give any good account how\nhe could tell the king's dream and the interpretation, which reached\ninto the far distant periods of time, and which has been remarkably\nfulfilled in the rise and fall of the four great empires of the world,\nand is still fulfilling by the advances of the kingdom of Christ? I\nwill say nothing of the prophet Isaiah, who speaks of the Messiah more\nthan seven hundred years before he was born, as if he had been his\ncontemporary. Nor need I speak of Moses who foretold the dealings of\nGod with the house of Israel as if he had lived now and had written\ntheir history. But I must insist on your paying some nice attention to\nthe prophesies of Christ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. This\nprophesy is recorded very circumstantially in the 24th of Matt. Be so\ngood, sir, as to compare this prophesy with the history written by\nJosephus and let candor decide whether the author of that prophesy was\ndivinely inspired, or whether he was a poor deceived enthusiast.\n\nIf you allow that Jesus Christ was an honest man how is it possible\nfor you to deny his being divinely inspired? He certainly pretended to\nforetell events; he most surely pretended to perform most astonishing\nmiracles. Of these facts we have as much evidence as we have that\nthere was such a man. Now, sir, if he were honest, he was divinely\ninspired and endued, or he was an enthusiast even to insanity. And yet\nin every instance, where the powers of his mind were tried, by the\nprofoundest learning, and sharpest wit that could be brought against\nhim, he discovered a mind as clear as light. A volume of vast extent\ncould not exhaust the subject I am now upon, but as you have the same\nopportunity and means which I have to trace it, I shall insist on your\ntreating this subject with candor and shall expect you to acknowledge\nthat Jesus was divinely inspired, or show how he could be honest,\nwithout this divine endowment.\n\n3d. You acknowledge, that there are evidences in favour of divine\nrevelation, which would support it, if there were nothing to\ncounterbalance their testimony. I shall here find some fault. Why do\nyou allow that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation, and\nnot state what they are? Why do you insinuate that there is something\nto counterbalance their testimony and not state what it is? When an\nantagonist finds his opponent candid enough to allow that some\nevidence stands on his side of the argument is it not necessary for\nhim at the same time to be informed what it is? Does he not need to\nknow what his opponent is willing to allow to be evidence? And does he\nnot likewise need to know how this evidence is counterbalanced?\nHowever, as you have not favoured me with such necessary assistance, I\nwill attempt to proceed without it. But here I must go partly on\npresumption and partly by guess. In the first place I will inquire\nwhat particular circumstance recorded in scripture, which, if true,\nwould substantiate revelation; and which you may suppose there is\nevidence sufficient to prove, if there was nothing to counterbalance\nit? This I will presume is the resurrection of Jesus. Why I think you\nwould be most likely to have this particular in your mind, is, because\non this event, I believe all will agree, depend the validity of the\nprophecies, the truth of the testimony of Christ himself, and the\nauthority of the apostles. I will then presume that you acknowledge\nthat there is evidence of this wonderful fact; but at the same time I\nam to understand, that, in your mind there is something to\ncounterbalance, in some degree, if not entirely, this evidence.\n\nHaving proceeded so far, I am now to guess what the evidence is that\nyou think would support this all important fact, if it were not\ncounterbalanced. But here I find myself in difficulty. My difficulty\nis in finding any kind of evidence which could prove such an event, if\nthere were nothing to counterbalance it, that could possibly be\ncounterbalanced. Will you say that the testimony of the disciples,\nthat they had seen the man alive after his death would be sufficient\nevidence to prove the fact? Suppose twelve men of honest fame, should\nreport, and even depose, that the last man who was publicly executed\nin Boston, had actually arose from the dead, and that they had ate and\ndrank with him a number of times since he was executed. Should you\nsuppose this sufficient evidence, if there were nothing to do it away?\nBut what could do it away? If the people could go to the grave and\nfind the body there, the testimony of the twelve would remain no\nevidence at all, and therefore could not afterwards be called evidence\nsufficient to support the fact if there were nothing to counterbalance\nit. But suppose the people cannot find the body, would it not be\nthought that the body might possibly have been conveyed away by design\nof some who might have occasion to keep it a secret? But a guard is\nplaced to watch the grave; but a guard might be bribed. The one we\nhave account of was bribed, according to the story; and if they could\nbe bribed by the chief priests and rulers, why not by some body else?\nFinally, would the testimony of these men be sufficient to prove such\nan extraordinary fact even if the body could not be found? I think for\nmyself, that various opinions would result from such evidence. Some\nwould believe that these men had entered into some very extraordinary\nplot, and calculated that they should be most likely to succeed by\nmeans of persuading the people that they were favoured with a\nknowledge of this resurrection. Others might believe them honest men,\nbut by some crafty contrivance imposed on. Others might believe that\nthe spirit of this man had appeared to the twelve, but that no real\nresurrection had taken place. But I very much doubt whether any very\nstable people would consider the testimony of the twelve men\nsufficient to support this fact if there were nothing brought, or if\nnothing could be brought against it. Such a circumstance would no\ndoubt cause a great deal of talk, the depositions and the names of the\ndeponents would be published in the newspapers, perhaps for several\nweeks, but after a little time it would die away.\n\nFinally, I cannot conceive of any evidence that could sufficiently\nsupport the fact that Jesus who was crucified, did actually rise from\nthe dead, if nothing could be brought to counterbalance it, that could\npossibly admit of being counterbalanced.\n\nThe question seems to remain, and the substance of it is this. 1st. If\nJesus did actually rise from the dead what kind of evidence would his\ndisciples need in order to be satisfied of the fact? And 2d. What kind\nof evidence must they be able to bring to the people in order to\nconvince them of the fact?\n\nI will here suppose that it is not necessary to prove that the\ndisciples of Jesus, who preached him and his resurrection all their\nlives after they commenced at the day of pentecost, really believed\nwhat they preached; but the evidence by which they believed it I now\ninquire for. We must notice that the disciples did not expect the\nresurrection, they were not believers of this fact when their master\nwas crucified. They were awfully disappointed, and not _only_\ndisappointed but intimidated, as the account fully shows. They all\nforsook Jesus at his trial, and Peter for fear of being involved with\nhim denied being his disciple.\n\nThe evidence then of his resurrection must be such as will convince\nthose of the fact who have no expectation of the event. We will now\nlook at the account. \"And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene,\nand Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices,\nthat they might come and anoint him.\" This very rational account shows\nas plainly as the case will admit that these women had no expectation\nof his resurrection. I omit here what passed at the sepulchre when\nthese women were there, for this does not relate to the disciples. The\nangel at the sepulchre told these women that Jesus had risen, and\ndirected them to go and tell his disciples. \"Now when Jesus was risen\neariy, the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,\nout of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that\nhad been with him, as they mourned and wept.\" This mourning and\nweeping could not be the effect of the pleasing expectation of soon\nhaving their divine master with them; no, it was the natural effect of\nthe amazing disappointment which had closed all the hopes they had\nentertained. \"And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had\nbeen seen of her,\" believed? no, \"believed not.\" After that he\nappeared in another form to two of them as they walked, and went into\nthe country.--And they went and told it unto the residue: neither\nbelieved they them. \"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat\nat meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,\nbecause they believed not them which had seen him after he had risen.\"\nIt seems unnecessary to quote into this communication all the\ninstances related by the four deponents of Jesus' being seen of the\neleven; his frequently being with them, eating with them, holding\nlengthy conversations with them, &c. Now as these disciples knew that\nJesus had been crucified and buried, and a guard had been placed to\nguard the sepulchre, and moreover knowing for certainty that the body\nof Jesus was not where it had been deposited, and being favoured with\nhis presence on a variety of occasions for forty days, the evidence to\nthe disciples was of a character described by the author of the Acts.\n\"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many\ninfallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the\nthings pertaining to the kingdom of God.\" I believe, sir, that such\nevidence as Jesus is said to have given his disciples of his\nresurrection would be entirely sufficient to remove all doubts in\ntheir mind, however prone they were to unbelief. I am of opinion that\nsuch evidence would convince you and me of a similar fact.--Two\nquestions are here necessary. 1st. Can we conceive how the evidence\ncould have been less without being insufficient? And 2d. Can we\nconceive how it could have been stronger? I will not take up time to\nargue these questions, I feel satisfied on them myself. I will now ask\nwhether we can imagine the possibility of any evidence that could\ncounterbalance the evidence of the resurrection in the minds of the\ndisciples? Thus we are brought to the suggestion, that any evidence\nwhich could be sufficient to prove such a fact, if no evidence\nappeared against it, must be such as admits of no refutation.\n\nYou will not forget, and think that I have been endeavouring to prove\nthe resurrection of Jesus, or that the disciples even believed it; all\nI have been seeking for is that kind of evidence which would be\nnecessary to prove to the disciples such a fact, and to show that such\nevidence cannot admit of refutation. However, you will at once see\nthat, allowing our reasoning to be correct, and allowing the disciples\ndid really believe the resurrection, either of which, I do not believe\nyou will undertake to dispute, the resurrection is proved beyond all\ncontradiction.\n\n2d. Let us now inquire what kind of evidence was necessary for the\ndisciples of Jesus to bring to the people, in order to convince them\nof this all-important fact on which the whole scheme and ministry of\nthe gospel rested. It seems that the disciples did not believe on the\ntestimony of others, though of their own intimate acquaintance,\npersons in whom they would place as much confidence as in any in the\nworld, no doubt. Of course, they could not expect other people, who\nhad not been the disciples of Jesus, would believe in his resurrection\non their testimony. The evidence which the disciples had was\nsufficient for them, but their testimony would surely be much less;\nand any thing less would be insufficient as before stated.\n\nWe will now have recourse to the account. But first let us notice,\nthat we are not endeavouring to prove that the disciples ever\npersuaded any to believe in the resurrection of Jesus; this is, as it\nmust be, considered a fact, not disputed. The question is by what\nevidence did the apostles convince thousands of the people in\nJerusalem and its vicinity, that Jesus who was publicly executed, was\nnot only the true Messiah promised in the law and prophets, but that\nhe had actually arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Before\nJesus ascended, he, after saying many other things to his disciples\nwho were together in the city of Jerusalem, said to them; \"Thus it is\nwritten, and thus it behoveth Christ to suffer, and to rise from the\ndead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should\nbe preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And\nye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my\nfather upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be\nendued with power from on high.\" See the same account in Acts, \"But ye\nshall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and\nye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,\nand in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.\" According\nto this account, Jesus did not direct his disciples to undertake to\nconvince the people by their testimony, but charged them to wait for\ndivine power. Accordingly they did wait. Now look at the account which\nwe have, of what took place on the day of pentecost. I will not\nmutilate this account by quoting parts, there is no need of quoting\nwhat you have perfectly in your memory. Take particular notice of what\nPeter said to the people who had been accessary to the crucifixion of\nJesus. He who was so intimidated as to deny Christ, now stands in the\nmidst of the people and boldly asserts, that Jesus of Nazareth was a\nman approved of God among them by miracles and wonders, and signs\nwhich God did by him, among them; and that they knew this to be the\ncase. He further tells them that they had with wicked hands crucified\nand slain this man who was thus approved of God. And he assured the\nwhole house of Israel, that God had made this same Jesus whom they had\ncrucified both Lord and Christ. He moreover boldly declared that God\nhad raised Jesus from the dead. Now add to the testimony of Peter, the\nastonishing manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit, as\ndescribed in the account, and you have the evidence by which about\nthree thousand souls were convinced of the resurrection of Jesus in\none day. Here let us consider; the people had been acquainted with\nJesus, and had been eye witnesses of his miracles; many of them were\npersonally acquainted with Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead.\nThey had been, many of them, fed by his miracles and had seen his\nwonderful works. Now put all together and it is evident that they had\nsufficient reason to believe. I cannot conceive how reasonable people\nin the candid exercise of their judgments, could avoid believing.\n\nLook, sir, at the account of the miraculous cure of the lame man, who\nlay at the gate of the temple. Notice the words used to effect it. \"In\nthe name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.\" \"And all the\npeople saw him walking and praising God: and they knew that it was he\nwho sat for alms at the beautiful gate of the temple.\" Hear what Peter\nsays to the wondering multitude on this occasion. \"Ye men of Israel,\nwhy marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by\nour own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God of\nAbraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath\nglorified his son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the\npresence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye\ndenied the holy one and the just, and desired a murderer to be granted\nunto you; and killed the prince of life, whom God hath raised from the\ndead: whereof we are witnesses. And his name, through faith in his\nname, hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, and the\nfaith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the\npresence of you all.\" Here we have the evidence by which about five\nthousand men, besides women, believed--that is, owned their belief.\nWhen the high priest and others called Peter and John before them, and\ndemanded, by what power, or by what name they had done this thing,\nPeter answers, filled with the Holy Spirit; \"Ye rulers of the people,\nand elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done\nto the impotent man, by what means he is made whole: be it known unto\nyou all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus\nChrist of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead,\neven by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the\nstone which was set at naught by you builders.\" Hear what these rulers\nsay when Peter and John were sent aside. \"What shall we do to these\nmen? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is\nmanifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.\"\n\nSuch evidence as we have noticed, which the disciples were enabled to\nbring to the people, of the resurrection of Jesus, was sufficient to\nremove every reasonable doubt and to bring over to this faith, those\nwho had been his murderers.\n\nI will now inquire whether it is reasonable to suppose that less\nevidence would have effected such conviction?--And on the other hand,\nI will ask whether stronger proof could in the nature of things be\ngiven? And lastly, to come to our object again, does such evidence\npossibly admit of being counterbalanced? I understand that these\nquestions admit of no other answers than such as go to show, that if\nthere be any evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, sufficient to\nsupport it, if there were no evidence to counterbalance it, such\nevidence is not capable of being counterbalanced.--You will perceive\nthat our reasoning must issue in the truth of the resurrection, unless\nwe assume the extravagant notion, that the people who lived in\nJerusalem and its vicinity, at the time of the crucifiction of Jesus,\nwere not brought over to believe it.\n\nIt is hoped that no objection will be brought from the circumstance of\nthe rejection of the gospel by the rulers of the Jews, and by the\nmajor part of that hierarchy, as long as it is perfectly evident that\ntheir opposition and unbelief were indispensably necessary for the\nfulfilling of the prophecies, for the carrying of conviction to the\nGentiles, and for the purpose of perpetuating the necessary evidences\non which we, at this day, must rest our belief of this religion.\n\n4th. You hardly know how to understand me when I suggest, that in\ndisproving the religion of Jesus Christ, you disprove all religion,\n&c. I think I added, that there is no choosing between this religion\nand some other, we must have this, or none.\n\nBy the religion of Jesus Christ, I mean to comprehend all that the\ndoctrine of the scriptures encourage us to believe in and hope for,\nand also all that this doctrine requires, also all that it teaches us\nto expect as resulting from obedience and disobedience. I am fully\npersuaded that you never can disprove this religion, so as to do away\nits effects on your own mind. Its maxims contain all the morality you\nknow of, and all that a Deist calls natural religion, he has been\ntaught from the revealed wisdom of God. The further you advance into\nthe society of man, where the light of the holy scriptures has least\nextended, so much the more do you lose sight of the moral virtues; and\nso much the more do you lose sight of the simple unity and divine\nbenevolence of God.\n\nMy meaning, sir, however, was not very extensive. It was to say, as in\na familiar conversation, I might express myself as follows: Brother,\nif we disprove the religion of Jesus Christ, that is, if we give up\nour present belief, there is no other religion, that we have heard of,\nthat can have the least claim to our belief. Judaism, Paganism,\nMahomedanism, could neither of them have any claims; nor in fact could\nwhat people call Deism, or the belief in one God. If you say there is\ncertainly demonstrated in the very nature of things an eternal\nunchangeable principle or law which governs all things; I will answer,\nI am surprised to hear a rational being, who cannot remember\nforty-five of our short years, and knows not that he shall live in the\nworld another hour, talk about eternal things, use great swelling\nwords of vanity about unchangeability, and yet deny that God has made\na revelation to man! I am really of the sentiment expressed by him who\nis justly styled the light of the world, who said \"No man knoweth the\nFather save the Son, and he to whom the Son revealeth him.\"\n\n5th. You seem to inquire whether Jesus and his apostles might not be\nhonest men; and yet their testimony, concerning a future state be\nerroneous. Answer, this case comes into the same argument as the case\nof the prophets, to which attention has been paid. We have no more\nreason to believe that Jesus and his apostles were honest men, than we\nhave to believe that they pretended to divine inspiration, and to the\npower of working many very astonishing miracles. It does not appear\nreasonable to suppose that these servants of God, thought they could,\nand did heal the sick and raise the dead, when in fact they could do\nno such thing. Therefore, if they pretended to do such things and did\nthem not, they were all impostors, and surely deserve no better\nappellation. Now if I can bring to your mind my inference, it is this.\nGod would not endue Jesus Christ and his apostles with power to work\nmiracles, by which the attention of the people would be drawn to them\nand by which they would naturally be led to place confidence in their\ntestimony, and yet leave them in the dark concerning those things of\nwhich they speak to the people.\n\nWhat you say on this subject, indicates that you did not understand me\nto infer the validity of the apostles' testimony concerning a future\nstate, from any higher authority than their simple honesty unconnected\nwith the other part of the argument, which was as plainly set forth in\nmy former communication as you will now find it in this.\n\n6th. You suppose that arguments equally energetic, and equally\nconclusive might be drawn from our feelings, against, as in favour of\nthe necessity of divine revelation.\n\nThough I am not of your opinion, yet I am disposed to think that\ndesires very fervent may in some instances exercise the human heart\nagainst the knowledge of divine truth. But, sir, this is the effect of\nmoral disease, not of a sound mind. A foul stomach will nauseate at\nthe sight of wholesome food; distempered eyes are rendered painful by\nthe rays of light; one whose deeds are evil loves darkness for this\nvery reason. Now that people affected with these infirmities should be\nexercised with fervent desires to avoid what gives them uneasiness is\nsurely very natural; but that a person in health and having good\nexercise should loathe that which is good and nourishing, that one who\nhas sound eyes should dislike the enlivening beams of the sun, or that\none whose works are wrought in God, should love darkness rather than\nlight is not reasonable.\n\nYou are cautioned against supposing that these remarks are designed to\nbe applied to yourself, for I bear you record that your exertions and\nassiduity for the attainment of true knowledge have been laudable, and\nworthy of imitation. But all this only proves to me that your\nreasoning is unnatural, and that no man would be more rejoiced to know\nthe truth of divine revelation than yourself.\n\n7th. That a person who does not even desire a future existence should\nrealize the goodness of the divine Being, and feel truly grateful for\nall enjoyments does not stand in a clear light in my mind. I cannot\nconceive that it is possible that any thing could remove a desire to\nexist in the future, except a very strong fear that that state would\nbe awfully miserable. To be thankful to God, and to rejoice in his\ngoodness, and at the same time feel no desire to continue in the\nenjoyment of such favour is to me a complete solecism, which\nsufficiently refutes itself.\n\n8th. Your assertion, that if a revelation was ever necessary, it was\nnecessary only to reconcile man to his present state of existence, is\nthought to be an error of no small magnitude. If you had said that\nrevelation was necessary only for the improvement of man in his\npresent state it would have been more correct.\n\nAs for man's present existence, it seems he has love enough; people\nwish to live here, and no doubt they would wish to stay forever if\nthey had no hope in the future. By improving our present state by a\ndivine revelation, I wish to be understood to comprehend all that is\nmeant by the ministry of reconciliation. This has for its object the\nreconciliation of man to God. But it is a soul rejoicing fact, that of\nthe precious things brought forth by the sun of righteousness, the\nhope of immortality is its most precious jewel. This makes every thing\nvaluable. Hence we may lay up our treasures where neither moth nor\nrust can corrupt, nor thieves break through and steal. Here God's\nbright favour will never grow dim, nor will our love and gratitude\never decay. Do you see this celestial form leaning on her anchor, and\nwhile the raging waves of a restless sea dash against her, feel\nunmoved? Do you observe her aspect firm, and her eyes turned towards\nHeaven? And wouldst you wish to cast her down and wreck her on the\nquicksands of dismal doubt? Go, brother, to the chamber of sickness,\nwhere life's waning embers can no longer warm the dying heart, there\nhear from cold and quivering lips this hope expressed, I long to be\nwith Christ, I long to be at rest. Would you blast this amaranthine\nflower? Would you plant in its stead the night shade of dispair?\n\nDo not, dear sir, listen too long to the wild suggestions of vain\nfancy and wandering imagination, under the specious pretence of\nsearching after truth. I am apprehensive that she who persuades you\nthat she is truth, really deserves another name. Jesus is the way, the\ntruth and the life, he also is made unto us wisdom.\n\n  Give me the light of this bright sun to see,\n  All other lights like met'ors are to me;\n  Give me that way, that pleasant path to know,\n  I'll walk no other path while here below.\n  Wouldst thou be wise? This wisdom learn to scan,\n  Which brings to God, the wandering heart of man.\n\n9th and last. You misunderstand me in supposing that I meant to\ninsinuate, that by what you _wrote_ respecting the apostles' stating\nnothing more than what was substantially true, you must mean that they\nstated falsehood. I meant, if you do not believe that they stated the\ntruth you must believe that they stated falsehood, in which case I\ncalled on you to make a short work of our argument by proving that\nwhat they stated was not true. I wonder you should not have thought of\nthis way to understand me, because there is no way to explain your\nwords into the meaning which you supposed I had attached to them,\nwhile what I now suggest is fairly the necessary result of what you\nstated.\n\nOn this subject I am disposed to say a little more. If we find\nourselves in serious doubts respecting any important particular of our\nreligion, and we wish to have the matter cleared up to our\nsatisfaction, why should we spend much time and write many sheets,\nwith no other apparent object, than to keep away from the subject\nwhich labours in our minds? If you were under the necessity of\nbringing a tree to the ground, and of removing it from the forest,\nwould you ascend the tree and begin your work on the extreme twigs, or\nwould you cut the trunk off near the roots, when the whole mass would\ncome down together?\n\nYou will apprehend my meaning. The fact is, if the Christian religion\nis ever overthown, it must be done, not by proving that professors of\nit have held errors and have been superstitious, and have ever\npractised wickedness, using the name of Christ for a cloak, &c. but by\nproving the testimony, of the new testament false. Cut the trunk of\nthe tree off at this place and the work is done.\n\nBut if it were possible, in the nature of things for the testimony\nborne in the new testament to be proved false, can you persuade\nyourself to believe that it would not have been done? If a book\ncontaining the grossest falsehood, the most palpable frauds,\npretensions the very easiest to be detected of any that can be\nimagined, could be got up and published, and be copied by many hands,\nand be translated into different languages on purpose to overthrow the\npopular religion of all countries where the book is sent or carried,\nand if in spite of truth, and all the learning of a learned age, if in\nspite of all sorts of superstition combined with civil government, if\nin spite of reason, argument, persuasion, the tender love and\ncompassion of parents, interest, honour, ease, peace and quiet; if in\nthe face of the most cruel sufferings and most awful deaths, this\nbook, with all its abominable lies, and most palpable frauds could\nsucceed, its doctrines run and be glorified; if ancient superstitions,\nthan which nothing can have a more despotic sway over the human heart,\nif the priests of long venerated idols with thousands of their\nvotaries were humbled before this testimony, what is there now on\nwhich we can rely for success against it?\n\nHow beautiful are reason and candor. Dr. Gamaliel gives us a handsome\nspecimen. \"Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves, what ye intend\nto do as touching these men.--For before these days rose up Theudas,\nboasting himself to be somebody: to whom a number of men, about four\nhundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed\nhim, were scattered and brought to naught. After this man rose up\nJudas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people\nafter him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, wore\ndispersed. And now, I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let\nthem alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come\nto naught; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye\nbe found even to fight against God.\"\n\nLet us remark, 1st. You will notice that this passage ranks with\nhundreds of others which to the understanding of sound judgment wears\nevery feature of an honest and true statement of facts. I will take it\non myself to say that it does not appear reasonable that men who were\nfabricating a falsehood, would ever have thought of such a method as\nthis to give it currency. 2d. You will naturally observe that this\nlearned doctor of the law was himself persuaded of the truth of the\napostles' testimony, and though he was not willing to make so great a\nsacrifice as he must if he professed Jesus openly, he was willing to\nespouse the cause so far as his learning and influence would go,\nwithout rendering himself odious to his friends.\n\n3d. It is pretty evident, that whatever Theudas made a handle of in\norder to obtain disciples, Judas of Galilee had that very unpopular\ntax (I do not consult any authority as it is immaterial, but only\nfollow a probable suggestion) which was collected about the time of\nthe birth of Jesus, or some other, by which he no doubt, strove to\ndisaffect the Jews against the Roman government, which they very\nnaturally were opposed to. But Judas did not succeed.\n\n4th. Jesus never tried to persuade the people against the civil\nauthorities, nor did he ever promise his disciples any worldly\nbenefits, nor try to allure the people after him by holding out, as\ninducements, any thing that the carnal passions of men are in love\nwith; and yet he succeeded though he lost his life. 5th. Dr. Gamaliel\nwas of opinion that if the gospel were not of God, it would come to\nnaught, but it did not, nor is there the least probability it ever\nwill.\n\nYours, &c.\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. VII.\n\n[In this number the objector gives the whole ground of his objections,\nand the reasons for his doubts: _which he states as follows_, viz.\n\n\"1. Mankind, in all ages of the world, have been, and still are prone\nto superstition.\n\n\"2. It cannot be denied, but that a part of mankind at least, have\nbelieved, and still are believing in miracles and revelation, which\nare spurious.\n\n\"3. The facts on which religion is predicated are unlike every thing\nof which we have any positive knowledge.\"\n\nUnder the first article, the objector appealed to the known\nsuperstitions of the world: not only of the Pagan; but of the Jewish,\nMahometan, and Christian world. He took a view of the present state of\nAsia, spake of the \"voluntary sacrifices of human life to the great\nimage at Hugernaught!\" and of women \"voluntarily climbing the funeral\npile to be burned with their deceased husbands!\" He took a view of the\n_Inquisition_ in Old Spain; and finally of the various superstitious\nnotions and practices among the different sects of christians in our\nown country.\n\nUnder the second article, he discanted largely on the pretension of\nMahomet, and of their great influence and extent; and also of the\nparticular tone given to the Christian religion by Constantine, who,\nholding the reigns of government, had superior means in extending his\ninfluence over the Christian world. Having made these remarks, the\nobjector proceeds:]\n\n\"If therefore, he had happened only to have favoured the opinions of\nthe Gnostics, we might have expected, and probably it would have been\nthe fact, that the learned clergy of the present day would have held\nthat Jesus was not a man in reality, but only a man in appearance;\nthat he assumed a body that he could put on or throw off at pleasure;\nand that he died and was raised again _in appearance only_. Or\notherwise, if he had been disposed to come down to the simplicity and\nunderstanding of the common people, then indeed Christ might still\nhave been considered as the Jews' expected Messiah; yet we should have\nconsidered him a man, and nothing more than a man; though 'a man\napproved of God;'--'a man who hath told us the truth;'--even 'Jesus of\nNazareth, the son of Joseph;' as it seems was the opinion of Peter,\nJohn and Philip. But the former opinion had been too long treated as\nheresy by all the bishops to be imbibed by Constantine, while the\nbishops themselves, on the other hand, had been too long contaminated\nwith the Platonic philosophy to descend to the simplicity of the\nlatter; therefore we have a religion, compounded, partly of the\nsimplicity of the truth, and partly of Platonism. Constantine,\nhowever, being supported by a great majority of all the bishops, in a\ngreat measure effected his purpose; though not fully to his\nexpectation: for it seems he did not expect that any one would presume\nto oppose the decisions of this grand council, which he had summoned\nand convened at his own expense, or at the expense of the empire, but\nin this he was mistaken; for many, even after this, would take the\nliberty not only to think for themselves, but also to speak their own\nthoughts.\n\n\"One circumstance more I cannot avoid mentioning in this place, viz,\nthe conversion of Constantine from heathenism to the Christian faith.\nGreat men, if turned about at all, must be turned about by great\nmeans! But whatever might have been thought of Constantine's\nconversion by the people of that day, the account given of it does not\nargue any thing very forcibly in my mind, in favour of the truth of\ndivine revelation. Great men, however, are not always free from\nsuperstition; and they are just as likely to be deceived respecting\nthings which are above their comprehension as others. This is the most\ncharitable way in which I can reconcile the following account which,\nas Eusebius, the contemporary and historian of Constantine, says, was\nstated under the solemnity of an oath. For a full account of this\nextraordinary story. See the 2d vol. of Dr. Priestley's Church\nHistory, per. 7, sec. 9. I shall not attempt to quote it in full, nor\nis it necessary, and what I do quote is from memory only, as I write\nabroad, my books not being with me.\n\n\"Reflecting on the ill success of his predecessors in the numerous\nwars in which they had been engaged, when their priests and oracles\nhad ever promised them success, and also considering the better\nsuccess of his father, Constantine concluded from these circumstances\nthat his father prayed to, and was assisted by a different god! When\nhe prayed, therefore, he always prayed to the God of his father. And\nbeing thus praying one evening, towards the going down of the sun,\nwith his face toward the same, he saw the appearance of a _cross_ in\nthe sun, with these words over it in Greek, [Greek: tetw nika] _by\nthis conquer_. Not knowing, (or else pretending not to know) what this\nsign should mean, he called together some of the christian priests for\nan explanation; who explained it as might naturally have been supposed\nthey would, that it was a representation of the cross, on which Christ\nwas crucified, and that there could be no doubt but that he had now\ninterposed as God, in behalf of the christians, to deliver them from\ntheir enemies, and of course from further persecution! I do not\npretend to be any thing more than _substantially_ correct in the above\naccount (by which you will further see how I use the word\n_substantially_, about which we have had some dispute) i. e. I may,\nyea undoubtedly, have differed, as to words, yet I know I am correct\nin the most material part, and of the use which Constantine made of\nthis supposed miraculous, or supernatural appearance. He said also,\nthe soldiers saw it as well as himself! Now, if we give full credit to\nthis account, what must we think of Christianity? The meek and lowly\nJesus, who was led 'like a lamb to the slaughter,' without the least\nresistance, and who had suffered thousands to follow him in the same\nway, now, by a miraculous interposition, arms a man with carnal\nweapons, and, Mahometan like, authorizes him to vindicate his cause,\nand avenge his wrongs, by shedding the blood of his enemies! Or, if we\ndo not credit this account, what must we think of Constantine? and\nalso of Christianity so far as it can be traced to, and made to depend\non his influence? That candor and charity, however, which I ever wish\nto maintain, will oblige me in this, as in all other cases of a\nsimilar nature, to take the middle course. I shall therefore suppose\nthat there was some natural appearance, perhaps a parhelion, the cause\nof which Constantine did not fully understand, and, from the\nappearance in the sky around it, his fancy, aided by superstition,\npainted to his imagination the supposed cross, as also the Greek\nwords, which being pointed out to the soldiers they might easily\nimagine the same, or, if they did not, would not like to oppose the\nopinion of their general. Thus circumstanced, whether he really\nbelieved it to be any thing supernatural or not, Constantine was\ndisposed to make the most of it he could, by turning it to the best\npossible account.[2]\"\n\n[Footnote 2: \"Upon the whole,\" says Dr. Priestly, (vol. 2, p. 96) \"it\nappears to me most probable, that Constantine and his friends saw a\nnatural parhelion, and that all the other circumstances were either\nimagined, or invented; and that the story has lost nothing in passing\nthrough the hands of Eusebius.\" Constantine also states (which I\nforgot to mention above) that \"Christ appeared to him in a dream, the\nnight following, with the very same sign which he had seen in the\nheavens, ordering him to make a military standard like it, and\nassuring him that it would be his security in battles.\" \"By this note\nit will be perceived that I have compared what I have written with the\npart of the history from whence it was taken, and that I find nothing\nin it materially erroneous.\"]\n\n\"It appears, however, after all, that Constantine was a man of great\nmoderation, and on the whole, a very good man: yet, that he was not\nwholly clear from superstition is very evident from the following\ncircumstance. Notwithstanding his extraordinary, and what was supposed\nby all, miraculous conversion, together with his great pretensions;\nand all that he had done for christianity, yet he neglected his own\n_baptism_ till he found he was very nigh his end; when he dressed\nhimself in white, and the bed on which he lay, also all in white, in\nwhich dress he was baptised and partook of the _sacrament_! and thus\nhe continued in _white_ till he died. This was undoubtedly from a\nmistaken notion, that there was something really purifying in those\noutward ceremonies, and also from the doctrine of the Navatians, a\ncertain sect, whose opinions it was supposed he favoured, though not\nvery openly, i.e. if a person committed sin after having been thus\npurified he could not die in union with the church.\n\n\"You may perhaps object here and say, all this is to no purpose, as\nchristianity was well established before; and had existed for nearly\nthree centuries, and increased too, notwithstanding the many most\nbitter and cruel persecutions. Therefore what you say respecting\nConstantine only proves that christianity has been corrupted, but it\nis no objection against its truth. Very good. If the facts above\nstated are admitted, let them prove what they will, I am not the\nauthor of those facts, nor accountable for what is proved by them. The\nconversion of Constantine, however, if correct, bears some analogy to\nthe conversion of St. Paul: hence, the supposition that one is not\ncorrect, brings a little doubt over the mind respecting the truth of\nthe other: for both being by means which were supernatural; if both\nare supported on equal testimony, why should they not both share the\nsame fate in our minds? Both were equally possible; it is the want of\nprobability, therefore, arising from the want of equal evidence in its\nfavour, which leads us to reject the truth of the circumstances\nattending the conversion of Constantine, rather than those attending\nthe conversion of St. Paul. The conversion of Constantine also, if\ngenuine, seems to have been designed for a very different object, and\nwas attended with a very different effect. This would incline me to\nbelieve in the validity of that of the apostle's, rather than that of\nthe emperor. Nevertheless, as it respects the facts; he who caused a\nlight at mid-day, above the brightness of the sun, might as easily\nhave painted the sign of the cross on his disk; and he who spake to\nSaul from Heaven, with an audible voice, in the Hebrew tongue, might\nas easily have painted letters and words in Greek, so that they might\nbe distinctly read in the firmament!\n\n\"Leaving all ancient miracles and revelation, I will come down to\nthose of our own times, and in our own country.--Strange to tell,\nthere is a sect of people now among us, who sprang up less than half a\ncentury ago, whose religion is professedly founded on miracles and\nrevelation. On miracles wrought by the first founders of the sect, as\nby Christ and his apostles, and on a revelation also made directly to\nthem, and through them to the believers, as by the inspired writers of\nthe new testament. They appear to be something similar in sentiment,\nas it respects the person of Christ, to the ancient Arians; with this\ndifference only, they conceived that as Christ made his first\nappearance in Jesus, the son of a _carpenter_, so he has made his\nsecond appearance in Ann, the daughter of a _blacksmith_, whom they\ncall _mother_; and they consider their church the _New Jerusalem_,\nthat holy city which was to come down from God out of Heaven.\n\nIn the year 1808, about the same time after their first rise as it was\nafter the days of Jesus to the writing of the new testament, they\npublished a history of their sect, in a work entitled '_Christ's\nsecond appearance,' or the New Jerusalem Church_, setting forth their\nrise, progress and present state; together with their principles,\ncustoms and mode of worship. This work contains an account of their\nmother _Ann_, and the first elders; and particularly an account of the\nmiracles said to have been wrought by them. If my memory serves me,\n(as the book is not by me) there is an account of about _forty_\nmiracles, all of which are well attested, and though they acknowledge\nthat most of them are inferior to those wrought by Jesus and his\napostles, yet they contend that they are no more inferior to those\nthan those are to the miracles wrought by Moses. They contend that for\nthe plagues in Egypt, the dividing the red sea, bringing water out of\nthe rock, feeding Israel forty years in the wilderness with bread from\nheaven, and that there should always fall a double portion on the\nsixth day, but none on the seventh, that that which fell on the sixth\nday, should keep two days, but on all other days it would keep but\none, and that afterward, some of the same bread or manna was laid up\nin the ark of the covenant which kept for ages, as a memorial; also\nthe dividing the waters of the river Jordan, and the fall of the walls\nof Jericho; yea most or all of these, according to reason or human\nappearance, are as much greater than the miracles wrought by Jesus and\nhis apostles, as those are greater than those wrought by Ann and her\nelders! It is true, they did not pretend to raise the dead, but either\nthese accounts are all fabrications and lies, or else they had among\nthem the gift of healing, and that too miraculously. A woman who had\nfell with her horse, by the falling of a bridge, and had broken\nseveral of her ribs, besides being otherwise very much bruised, was\ncured in one evening, so that she joined in the dance! A boy who had\ncut his foot so that a person might have laid his finger into the\nwound, which bled very profusely, was cured in a few hours so that\nnothing was to be seen of the wound excepting a white streak, about\nthe bigness of a common thread! and many others of a like kind, too\nnumerous to be mentioned in this place.\n\n\"You will readily perceive that I allude to the _Shakers_; a people\nwho are enjoying privileges among us which no other people enjoy,\nexcept the Friends, called also _Quakers_: and who are debarred from\nno privileges excepting those from which they either religiously or\n_superstitiously_ debar themselves. Thus people, in consequence of\ntheir religion, have entirely changed their manners, customs, and\nmodes of worship. They have also endured considerable persecution; and\nthat they have not suffered martyrdom in defence of their religion, is\nno fault of theirs. There can be no doubt but that there has been\nfanaticism enough on their part to have done it, if there had been\nonly bigotry and cruelty enough in the people, at that time, to have\nput it in execution. Let the same spirit reign among the people for a\nshort time, which reigned in Boston when the _Quakers_ were put to\ndeath for their religion, and the _Shakers_ also would be able to\nboast of their martyrs in defence of the truth of their particular\nsect, and of course of the miracles and revelation on which it is said\nto have been founded.\n\n\"And here I wish to remark a little on _martyrdom_, seeing it is often\nbrought in defence of the truth of divine revelation. I am aware that\ngreat stress has been laid upon this, and it will still be considered\nas one of its main pillars. I apprehend, however, that more stress has\nbeen laid upon martyrdom than what it will justly bear. If this is a\ntest of the truth of religion, there is scarcely any religion but what\nmay be proved true. Only make death honourable, of any kind whatever,\nin the eyes of the people, and there are always enough who are ready\nand willing to die for the sake of the honour which will be in\nconsequence attached to their names. But only let any particular kind\nof death be considered, in the eyes of the people, _meritorious_, and\nthe sure and certain road to _endless bliss_, and there will not only\nbe enough found willing to undergo this death, if they can find any to\ninflict it upon them, but they will absolutely court it! Instead\ntherefore of having my faith strengthened by reading the book of\nmartyrs, as I thought I had some reason to expect, it has produced a\nquite contrary effect. Notwithstanding these accounts were taken down\nby the friends of the martyrs, and by them have been handed down to\nus, who, as we may well suppose, were rather prejudiced in their\nfavour, yet nevertheless, it is impossible to disguise the spirit and\nmotives with which many of those infatuated people eagerly sought and\nmet death.\n\n\"In all those accounts it is but too clearly discovered, what has been\ntoo often the fact, that the most bitterly persecuted would have\nbecome the most violent persecutors, if there had been only a chance\nfor them so to have done, and if there had been, in their view, an\nequal occasion. The persecutors of people for their religion have\nalways considered the persecuted, either heretics or infidels; who if\npersecuted by heathens, unless they could be brought to sacrifice to\ntheir heathen gods, or if by christians, unless they could be brought\nto acknowledge the particular faith embraced by the _orthodoxy_ of the\nday, were considered as mere nuisances or pests to society; and\ntherefore for the public good, it was thought necessary to take them\nout of the world! While on the other hand, the persecuted have always\nconsidered that, if they suffered death in defence of their religion,\nthey were certain of being raised to great honour and dignity in\nanother world; a privilege which they undoubtedly believed their\npersecutors would never enjoy! And, whatever was the opinion of Christ\nand his apostles on this subject, it cannot be denied but that the\nidea very soon become prevalent among their followers that the\ndistinction between them and a wicked world, particularly their\npersecutors, would be eternal! Under these circumstances, I do not\nwonder at all that men have been found willing to die for their\nreligion; yea, and even to court death by all the means of which their\nown consciences would approve!\n\n\"But, you may say, all this does not account for the death of the\nfirst martyrs. Very true. I admit that it does not. But it shews that,\nonly let the work be begun, from any cause whatever, there is no\ndifficulty in its being continued.\n\n\"Suppose then, if you please, that the first martyrs were killed by a\n_mob_, a mere _rabble_, without any legal process, or even form of\n_trial_; as, from which appears by the account, was the case with the\ndeath of _Stephen_, the first christian martyr; and, according to\ntradition, most of the other apostles: (and it may be remarked here,\nit is only by tradition that we have any account of the death of the\napostles; as all authentic documents on the subject, if there ever\nwere any, are lost:) I say, let such a circumstance as the death of\nStephen take place in any country, and in any age of the world; but\nmore especially in that age and country in which he lived; and then\nlet the same honour, and the same supposed consequences be attached to\nsuch a death, as undoubtedly were attached to the death of Stephen;\nand there can be no doubt but that others would be willing to follow\nthe example.\n\n\"Only let the blood once begin to flow, no matter how, and then only\nattach eternal consequences to it, and hold out inducements of an\neternal nature, and persuade men to believe them (which is not so\ndifficult a thing as some may imagine) and you will never want for\nvictims, so long as you can find a zeal sufficiently blind and _mad_;\nas to continue the slaughter. In this way, I conceive martyrdom, of\nevery species and kind, may be rationally accounted for.\n\n\"But it may be said all this does not disprove the miracles and\nrevelation on which the christian religion is founded.\n\n\"I acknowledge it does not; neither do I expect to disprove them. I\nadmit that revelation, and of course the christian religion may\npossibly be founded in truth, notwithstanding the truth of all that I\nhave as yet urged, or shall urge against it. But I call on you, sir,\nto disprove the miracles and revelation which I have mentioned, of a\nmore modern date, or else acknowledge their truth. If you acknowledge\nthe truth of those miracles, I shall expect you will conform to the\nreligion predicated upon them; and of course forsake your bosom\ncompanion (which I presume would be a much greater cross than ever you\nhave yet taken up,) and also your darling offspring (or else take them\nwith you) and go and live with the _Shakers_!!! But if you prove them\nfalse, it will only be that people may become so infatuated as to\nbelieve in miracles which are spurious.\n\n\"For notwithstanding the smallness of the numbers of this people,\nwhich by the way, are considerable; and notwithstanding the\ncontemptible view in which they have been, and still are held by the\nworld; yet, you may find it more difficult to prove the falsity of\ntheir pretended miracles than at present you are aware; for they are\nvery well attested; and some of the witnesses are still living, or\nwere so when their testimony was first published; as also, if I\nrecollect right, some of the persons on whom the miracles were said to\nhave been wrought; who, no doubt, would still testify to the same\nthings. If they testify falsely, who can help it?--Although thousands\nmay _believe_ to the contrary; many of whom being too in situations,\nprobably to have known these things, if true; yet I believe it would\nbe difficult, and very difficult indeed, to find any who could\nabsolutely say that those things did not take place.\n\n\"And if there is a people now existing among us, in different parts of\nthe country, and in different, but large extensive families, whose\nmanners, customs, and worship are all very different from ours, and\nwho believe in miracles on which their religion is said to have been\nfounded; and if those miracles, although not founded in truth, cannot\nnow be proved false, notwithstanding they are said to have taken place\nin our own country, and ever since we were born, I would ask, ought\nany one to be censured for not giving full credit to miracles said to\nhave been wrought, all of them nearly two, and most of them above\nthree thousand years ago; and among a people too, of which we know but\nvery little? I say, ought any one to be censured for doing this,\nalthough he should not be able to prove any of those miracles false?\n\n\"I conclude I shall not be censured for not believing in the miracles\nsaid to have been wrought by the Shakers; but let the government\nundertake to annihilate that blind and superstitious class of people:\nlet them increase their numbers by persecution, which, like the\neffects of all other persecutions, undoubtedly they would; let them,\nin the course of two or three centuries, get the reins of government\ninto their own hands;[3] let them then follow the example of\nConstantine in demolishing the temples of the heathen gods; let them\ndemolish every steepled meeting-house, and introduce an entire new\norder of things; let them also remake their scriptures, change in some\ndegree their mode of worship and manner of living, and fix every thing\nto the policy of the state; let the old opposition be entirely\nextinguished, and new sects spring up among themselves; let this be\nthe order of things for a number of centuries, and then let a man call\nin question the truth of Shaker miracles or Shaker revelation, and he\nmust do it as his peril! It would undoubtedly cost him his life!\n\n[Footnote 3: Were it not for other causes besides that of\nChristianity, I should think this full as likely as it was that\nChristianity should ever get the reins of government, judging from\nwhat Christianity was when it had existed no longer than the Shakers.]\n\n\"I might also mention here another person now living in the western\npart of the state of New-York, who also makes pretensions to be Christ\nin his second coming, and in imitation of him has chosen _twelve_ as\nimmediate apostles, and who has a considerable number of followers.\nBut as this person is still living, and it is uncertain whether the\nsect will take much root, I choose to pass it over in silence.\n\n\"I shall only call your attention to one circumstance more, and then\ndismiss my second proposition.\n\n\"You very well recollect, I presume, the account given by Mrs. A----,\nof W----, N. H. in which she affirms that she saw and conversed with\nher husband, Mr. John A----, for about an hour and a half, who\nappeared to her some considerable time, I believe about three months,\nafter he had been dead! This is no fiction. Mrs. A---- is still\nliving, and still affirms to the truth of what she has testified;\nwhich account you know was published by two respectable witnesses who\ntook it down, for that purpose, from her lips.\n\n\"It is true, there has been but very little said in the world\nrespecting this matter, and I presume, for this plain and obvious\nreason; the account did not correspond with the views of what is\ntermed _orthodoxy_ in Christianity. If if had, i. e. if he had brought\nas much tidings concerning the supposed _hell_ in another world, as he\ndid respecting the supposed _heaven_, the account would have been\npublished in every magazine, in every religious tract, and in every\nperiodical work throughout the globe! Why not so, as well as many\naccounts which were similar in other respects? But as this account did\nnot favour such views, it is left to die in oblivion.\n\n\"As the particulars of this account, however, make nothing either in\nfavour or against my present purpose, I shall not occupy time and room\nto relate it. Suffice it only to say, if there were no mistake or\ndeception in the matter, this account can be nothing short of a\nrevelation from God; as much so as any revelation which has ever been\nmade from God to man.\n\n\"For no one can believe that Mr. A. could appear to his wife, after he\nwas dead, unless God sent him; and if God sent him, no one can doubt\nthe truth of his testimony. No one can well conceive of any motive\nMrs. A. could have in giving this account, unless she fully believed\nit. Her daughter also was able to corroborate the account in some\ndegree, by saying that she heard her mother conversing in the bedroom,\nbut heard no other voice; and she interrogated her on the subject when\nshe came out, by asking with whom she had been talking, &c. But\nsurprised on being informed that it was with her father, and\nsupposing, as she naturally would, that her mother had been talking in\nher sleep, she requested her to say nothing about what she had either\nseen or heard, saying, that no one would believe her if she did. But\nMrs. A. was able to convince her daughter that she had not been\nasleep, by telling her of persons who had gone by her window during\nthe time; one man in a soldier's dress, and another driving a yoke of\noxen. I state these things from memory only, for I have not seen the\naccount since soon after it was published, or at least within three or\nfour years, that I now recollect; yet I believe I could state the\nwhole of it nearly verbatim as it was published. Now I do not believe\nthat Mrs. A. ever designed to state, or that she now has the least\nidea that she has stated any thing incorrect on this subject. And yet\nafter all, I doubt of its reality!\n\n\"Such is my incredulity; and I see no way to avoid it. If it be a\nfault in me, may God forgive it; though I am wholly unconscious of\nit's being one.\n\n\"When one of two things presented to the mind must be true, and the\ntruth of one absolutely excludes the truth of the other, a rational\nman will always believe that which to his own understanding is the\nmost probable. Concerning therefore the account given by Mrs. A. it\nstands, in my mind thus: either it is all a reality, i. e. that her\nhusband did absolutely appear to her; that he did give her the account\nwhich she has stated; and that that account is in fact true; or else,\nit was nothing more than the power of imagination, which a certain\ntrain of ideas and reflections had produced in her mind, which, like a\nkind of reverie, seemed to her like a reality. And although I should\nnot have made the same conclusion once, yet from my present knowledge\nof human nature, together with my own experience, I do not hesitate to\nreject the former idea, and believe the latter. If in judging thus, I\ndo injustice either to Mrs. A. or to the truth of God, I can only ask\nforgiveness of a wrong, which, in truth, is by no means intended. But\nin justice to my own understanding I could not state differently, if I\nknew this would be the last sentence I should ever write.\n\n\"Hence after making proper deduction for all that can be accounted for\nin this way, laying out of the question at the same time all that we\nmay justly suppose were the mere glosses of the historian, or the\nlubricous figures of the poet, which are very peculiar to the ancient\nstyle of writing; after making due allowances also for interpolations,\nor what in more modern times have been considered _pious frauds!_ and\nafter rejecting every thing (if any such there be) which savors of\ngross imposition! if there be any thing left to support the truth of\ndivine revelation, then it may rationally be believed.\n\n\"3. The facts on which revelation is predicated are unlike every thing\nof which we have any positive knowledge.\n\n\"Of the truth of this proposition you must be sensible; yea, unless\nthe revelation had been made directly to ourselves, it is impossible\nthat it should be otherwise than true. Neither of us have ever seen\nany thing miraculous! The ancients, however, were carried away with\nthis _supposition_; the same as the moderns have been with the idea of\nwitches, wizards, ghosts, apparitions, &c. and many things which once\nwould have been considered _ominous_, are now rationally accounted\nfor. In this way, things once supposed to be _miraculous_ also, may\nhave lost their supposed divine qualities.\n\n\"This much, however, I believe, and of this much I have no doubt, that\nPaul and the other apostles were convinced of the truth and the\nsalutary effects of the moral precepts which had been taught and\npractised by Christ; and they were willing to preach and enforce them\nby all the means in their power, even at the risk of their lives.\nBelieving this, and practising accordingly, constituted them wise and\ngood men; and happy would it have been for the Christian world if they\nhad always followed in their steps, without ever undertaking to\ndictate to others, either modes or forms of worship, or to use\ncoercive means to compel men to the faith.\n\n\"That the apostles also believed in the resurrection, and also in\neternal life, I have no doubt; this sentiment, however, was neither\nnew nor peculiar to them, but had been held long before, not only by\nthe pharisees, among the Jews, but by some of the Grecian\nphilosophers; and the truth of it I am not at all disposed to dispute;\nyet nevertheless, whether the evidences on which it was founded were\nnot originally mere _visionary_, like the appearance of Mr A. before\nmentioned, is the subject under consideration.\n\n\"There may be, and undoubtedly are principles in nature which are not\nyet understood by any; and many more which are understood only by a\nfew. The operations of these principles would undoubtedly, even at the\npresent day, appear miraculous to thousands; and must appear very\nextraordinary to every one until they are understood. But this I\nconclude is not what is meant by miracles. Respecting miracles, I have\nonly to ask myself this question, viz.--Which is the most likely to be\ntrue; either that men should have been honestly deceived, in the first\ninstance, or otherwise facts should have been so misrepresented, that\nfabrication should have been honestly believed for truth; or else,\nthat things so contrary to every principle of which I know in nature,\nshould have taken place? Let reason only dictate the answer.\n\n\"Another source of evidence in support of divine revelation is\nprophecy. And here, notwithstanding I think it very probable that much\nimportance has been attached to many writings, under the idea of their\nbeing prophetic, which are nothing more than the poetic effusions of a\nfruitful imagination; yet I have long been of opinion that there have\nbeen, and perhaps still are men in the world who are endowed, by\nnature, with gifts and faculties differing from men in general; and\nparticularly, say if you please, with a _spirit of prophecy_, which,\nhowever, I must consider nothing less nor more than a _second_ or\n_mental sight_. By this sense, or faculty of seeing, they are enabled\nto bring events which are yet future, as well as those otherwise out\nof sight, present to their minds; and thus they can behold them with\ntheir mental eye, as clearly as we behold objects at a distance.\n\n\"This, you may say, is visionary indeed. And you may wonder how I can\ndoubt of the truth of miracles, if I can believe in such a chimerical\nidea as this!\n\n\"But stop, my dear sir, you believe in such a power some where or\nother; for without it there could be no such thing as prophecy, and if\nsuch a power exist, even in the universe, why may it not exist in man?\nFor myself, I cannot account for the spirit of prophecy in man, (and\nit must be in man, or else men could not be prophets) in a more\nrational way. I should not be disposed, however, to consider such a\npower, sense, faculty, or by what other name it might be called, any\nmore supernatural than the organs of sight and hearing. If the natural\neye is so formed that objects may be painted on it, simply by the\naction of vision, to the immense distance of the fixed stars, so that\nwe are enabled to behold them, why may not the mental eye be so\nconstituted as to bring future events present to the mind with equal\ncertainty?\n\n\"If such a power, however, were once known to exist, it would be\nlikely to be counterfeited; and hence we may suppose, arose that horde\nof impostors, by the name of soothsayers, sorcerers, necromancers,\nmagicians, &c.\n\n\"But even where this power exists, if it be a natural power, it must\nhave its limits, and some may have it to a greater degree than others,\nand also some may make a good use of it, and others bad.\n\n\"Accounting for prophecy in this way, you will readily perceive that\nit is no certain evidence of a future state; for although the time may\ncome when all creatures in all the vast dominions of God may be made\nhappy in the enjoyment of his blessings, yet it does not necessarily\nfollow that you and I shall _exist_ at that time! i.e. in conscious\nidentity!\n\n\"If I am asked why I wish to explain every thing upon natural\nprinciples, without admitting the immediate agency of the Deity, my\nonly answer is, because to my understanding it is more rational, and\nof course more likely to be true.\n\n\"That men could divine, or foretell future events, or declare present\nthings which are beyond their sight by intuition, all of which seems\nto be embraced in the word _prophecy_, is an idea which has existed\nperhaps from time immemorial; and however unaccountable it may seem,\nyet, to a certain degree, at least, we are obliged to admit the fact;\nbut whether, after all, this is any thing more than the effect of that\nkind of foresight or ratiocination, which all men (idiots excepted)\nhave to a greater or less degree, but some much greater than others,\nis still a question. But should I be obliged to admit the truth of\nprophecy, in the sense in which it is generally understood, I should\naccount for it in the way you have seen.\n\n\"I do not perceive, at present, how a revelation could be made to the\nunderstanding of any man only through the medium of the operations of\nnature. Unless it were made to some of his outward senses, how could\nhe know whether it was any thing more than a chimera of his own brain?\nIf there were any faculty in his mind by which he could view these\nthings over and over again, (the same as we look at the heavenly\nbodies) and did he always behold them in the same light, then he would\nfeel safe in declaring that such things did exist; and unless the\nprophets had some such criterion by which they could determine on the\ntruth of their predictions. I do not see how that even _they_, and\nmuch less _we_, should feel safe in placing any real confidence in\nthem.\n\n\"The prophecies of our Saviour, however, concerning the destruction of\nJerusalem, are more clear and striking than any thing else we have of\nthe kind; and if it were certain that these were written before the\nevent took place, it would be a very strong proof of something more\nthan what any one can suppose could have been the result of human\nforesight. There must, at least, on such a supposition, have been a\nfaculty of seeing which we do not possess. These predictions, however,\nif made by Jesus, must have been made in the hearing of John, as well\nas Matthew; and of course, he must have known them with more certainty\nthan Mark or Luke; who, in consequence of not being personally\nacquainted with Jesus, could have known them only from hear say; and\nas it is pretty generally agreed, that John wrote his gospel more than\ntwenty years after the event took place, it is very remarkable that he\nshould be entirely silent on this subject! John, as we must suppose,\nknowing of this prediction; knowing also that it had been recorded by\nall three of the other Evangelists, (though Luke is not very\nparticular on the subject) and knowing also that they had all written\nbefore the event took place; and he living to see the whole verified,\nand then wrote his gospel afterwards, how natural it would have been\nfor him, first to have recorded this prediction, at least, in\nsubstance, and then to have mentioned its fulfillment, as a\nconfirmation of the prophecy! But not a word on the subject.\n\n\"This, however, is no evidence that Jesus did not deliver those\npredictions, and that they were not written by Matthew and Mark, and\nalso hinted at by Luke before the events took place; yet still it\nraises a doubt and a query in the mind whether these are not\ninterpolations, or else the books wholly written after the events took\nplace, and of course these predictions put into the mouth of Jesus by\nthe historian. When the copies were few in number, and those kept by\nthe Christians only, interpolations might have been made without much\ndanger of detection. The heretics were early accused of interpolating,\naltering, and forging the scriptures; and although they, i. e. the\nmajority of the believers, as it is likely would be very careful to\ndetect any thing which contradicted their views in point of doctrine,\nyet whether they would be equally careful respecting those\ninterpolations which favoured the Christian faith is a question worthy\nof consideration.\n\n\"In Calmet's dictionary of the bible, under the word gospel, we have\nan account of between thirty and forty gospels, of which he gives\ntheir names, but none of which are now extant. Neither is there any\nthing, which I now recollect, of any disputes about the validity of\nthe writing of the apostles, except what is merely traditional, until\nabout the year 180, when Celsus undertook to disprove the whole. I may\nbe incorrect, in this, however, if I am, you will correct me: for\nexcepting barely the bible, as I have informed you before, I have no\nbooks by me on this subject.\n\n\"Another circumstance must be taken into consideration, and which\nbears great weight in my mind. That is, the great and astonishing\ndifference there has been made in the state and condition of mankind\nby the discovery or invention of the art of printing; an art for which\nwe cannot be too thankful, nor too highly appreciate its benefits. For\nit would be very difficult now to realize the situation of mankind\nprevious to the invention of this art.\n\n\"Writing, it is true, as we may rationally suppose, was carried to a\ngreater state of perfection at that time, than it is at present; for\nit was of more use, yet its use must have been very limited, and it is\nreasonable to suppose that a very great proportion of the common\npeople could neither read nor write. For it could be of but little use\nto them, as they had nothing to read, for books of all descriptions,\nand upon all subjects, must have been, comparatively, very few. This,\nas you would readily perceive, would have a tendency to cause the\ncommon people to place great confidence in any thing that was written.\nHence, generally speaking, it was sufficient barely to say, concerning\nany matter, [Greek: gegraptai], _it is written_ to gain full belief.\n\n\"It is with all ancient sects, as it is with ancient nations and\nkingdoms; their history may be traced back until we find it veiled in\nmystery, and mingled with fable. We are not to suppose, however, that\nthese things were done at the time, with an intent to deceive; but\nafter the events, whatever they were, had passed away, and the\nimagination had been long in operation respecting the traditions\nconcerning them, they are dressed up with all the appearance of real\nhistory; and might so be construed and believed, were it not for\nimprobability. The probability is, that when such histories were first\nwritten, they deceived no one, or at least, no one thought it worth\nwhile to undertake to detect them, because, not knowing what effect\nthey would have, they considered their errors were of no material\nconsequence. The Shaker Book has been published nine years; and\nalthough I conclude that very few, if any, except the Shakers\nthemselves, believe the miracles therein recorded; yet no one that I\nknow of has thought it expedient to undertake to refute them. And\nunless the sect should grow to more consequence than it is at present,\nI presume that no one will give himself much trouble on the subject.\nIf it should be thought necessary, however, to refute these pretended\nmiracles, in order to prevent those in scripture from growing into\ndisrepute, then it will alter the case.\n\n\"I am perfectly reconciled and willing, however, that whatever is\ntruth should be true; and have not the least inclination, even if it\nwere in my power, to alter one truth respecting eternity. This is the\nstate of my mind exactly; a state into which it has been growing,\ngradually, for many years; and, strange as it may seem to you, I can\nassure you in the fear of that God before whom I stand or fall, and by\nwhom I have been supported hitherto, it is the most happy state of\nmind in which mortals can be placed! \"Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in\nterra pax in homines benevolentia.\" Luke ii. 14, Beza.\n\n\"Whatever may be your opinion concerning miracles, I believe it must\nbe admitted that there was no more of a miracle in the production of\nman, originally, than there was in the production of other animals;\nand as nature has not provided man with clothing for the body, which\nit does for other animals, especially those which inhabit cold\nclimates, it is evident that man was originally produced under the\ntorrid zone; and that he could not have lived in any other part of the\nworld, had it not been for art. What alteration the discovery of the\narts has made in the original constitution of man, it would he\ndifficult now to determine.\n\n\"What man must have been previous to the discovery and use of _fire_,\nis difficult now to conceive. We can trace man down, however, from\ngrade to grade, until we are at a loss to determine whether such a\nrace of beings belongs to the human species.\n\n\"I have long desired, and should be glad if some one of sufficient\nlearning and skill would point out to me the line of demonstration\nbetween the human and brutal creation; and say where the human ends,\nand where the brutal begins!\n\n\"Naturalists take care to say but little on this subject, and I\nbelieve the task would be more difficult than what people in general\nimagine.\n\n    \"Come then, ye learn'd, ye great and wise,\n  Unfold the soul to mortal eyes;\n  Say where eternal life shall end,\n  Or where eternal death begins!\n  For death eternal theirs must be,\n  Whose souls no future life shall see!\n  And why should mortals vainly weep\n  For creatures wrapt in endless sleep?\n  They've had their day, they've had their bliss,\n  Their life, their joy, and happiness,\n  And now must we forever mourn,\n  Because their life will not return!\n    \"O foolish man! go, and be wise!\n  Learn where the source of greatness lies;\n  To be content is to be blest:\n  A cure for woes is endless rest.\n  If God be good to all the race\n  Of animals before his face,\n  Although the life of some be short,\n  (One day begins and ends their sport)\n  Shall we presume he is less kind\n  To human souls of nobler mind,\n  Unless he lengthen out their days\n  To endless years in future maze?\n    \"It cannot be! His love is such,\n  Whate'er he gives, little or much,\n  Is always good: faith, hope, desires;\n  Or any grace which he inspires.\n  All, all are good: for man indeed,\n  (Whilst here) such gifts, such helps may need!\n  All bring him to his final goal,\n  Where nature's law winds up the whole!\n\n\"But you will say, does God inspire man with faith and hope barely to\ndeceive him; and does he not mean that he should ever realize the\n'things hoped for?' which must be the case, unless the hope is founded\non a reality. Answer: Let us rather say, unless the _hope_ be a\nreality. The hope of man is in fact a reality, as much so as any thing\nelse which exists. It is, however, what it is, i. e. _hope_; and not\nwhat is not, i. e. the 'things hoped for.' But hope never deceives any\none, it continues as long as the creature has any use for it; and it\nis never taken away from any (except a disordered mind, to which all\nmen are liable) as long as it can be of any service to the creature.\n\n  \"That hope is given for thy blessing NOW.\"--_Pope_.\n\n\"Mankind, if ever, are very seldom made unhappy and wretched in\nconsequence of doubting the existence of a future state. Thousands, no\ndoubt, think they should be wretched in this condition: but, although\nI have been acquainted with a number of this description, I never saw\none made unhappy in consequence. It is the _fear of endless misery_\nwhich produces so much wretchedness in the world.--This idea, it is\ntrue, beggars all description! It produces that fear which hath\ntorment. It disturbs the brain; destroys the mental faculties; and, by\ndistracting the imagination, fills the soul with horror! It is\ninfinitely more to be dreaded than _endless death_! But what fear or\ndread can there be in the idea of _endless sleep_? Surely none. People\nare too apt to confound the idea of the absence of immortality with\nendless misery, believing this to be the only alternative. This is not\ncorrect. Mortality and death are the only opposites to immortality and\neternal life. The former I know is true, and yet I am satisfied with\nknowing, (i. e. for an absolute certainty) nothing further;\nnevertheless, as I feel truly thankful for my present existence,\nshould I be so happily disappointed as to find all my doubts, founded\nin error, I trust, as I should be inexpressibly happy, so I should be\ninexpressibly thankful for a future life.\"\n\n\"Yours, &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER VI.\n\n_Dear sir, and brother_,--In replying to your seventh number, I\npropose taking the advantage which you have favoured me with, by the\ndivision of your subject. I hope by this, to be able to compress my\nremarks on your reasoning, and avoid any unnecessary protraction of\nthis epistle.\n\nYou allow, that a \"general view of the whole ground\" on which the\nscriptures seem to rest, would be sufficient to support the truth of\ndivine revelation, were it not for the following considerations.\n\n1. Mankind, in all ages of the world, have been, and still are prone\nto superstition.\n\n2. It cannot be denied, but that a part of mankind, at least, have\nbelieved, and still are believing in miracles and revelations which\nare spurious.\n\n3. The facts on which revelation is predicated, are unlike every thing\nof which we have any positive knowledge.\n\nIf I rightly apprehend your meaning of \"the whole ground\" in which the\nscriptures seem to rest, a general view of which would be sufficient\nto support a belief in revelation, were it not for the three\nconsiderations above quoted; it occupies, at least, prophecies\nconcerning a Messiah and the fulfillment of those prophecies by a\nMessiah, according to the account which we have in the New Testament.\n\nAs it will serve to circumscribe the bounds of our present reasoning,\nit is thought best to direct our inquiry to the consideration of the\nfacts recorded in the New Testament, presuming if these be admitted,\nthe prophecies will not be denied.\n\nBut have I not occasion, sir, to be surprised to find your first\nproposition adduced as evidence unfavourable to the christian\nscriptures? Was there ever a time when the world of human kind, both\nJews and Gentiles, was more deeply involved in the darkness and\nstupidity of superstition than when the Messiah entered on his public\nministry? If the doctrine of Jesus had been pleasing to the\nsuperstitious Jews, if it had accorded with the idolatrous notions of\nthe Gentiles, (which was impossible) if his Messiahship had been\nespoused by both, and by their consent and influence had been handed\ndown, and declared to have been evidenced by all the miracles recorded\nin the four Evangelists, do you not see that your first proposition\nwould be of Herculean strength against this religion? On the contrary,\nit being well established, from unquestionable authority, that as St.\nPaul observed, Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews, and\nto the Greeks foolishness, the whole force of Jewish and Greek\nsuperstition, as it opposed, serves to strengthen the evidences of our\nfaith.\n\nWill you be so good as to read the account which is recorded of the\nmiracle which Jesus wrought in giving sight to the man who was born\nblind, and inquire carefully from beginning to end for any thing that\nlooks in the least as if the writer was endeavouring to write a\nfalsehood in a way to have it deceive the reader. This request might,\nas I humbly conceive, be made in respect to any of the other miracles;\nbut what I had in view, particularly when this subject came to my\nmind, was the following words, spoken by the pharisees to him who had\nbeen blind; \"Thou art his disciple: but we are Moses' disciples. We\nknow that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow we know not from\nwhence he is.\" Is it not plain from this as well as from many other\nscriptures, that in the same degree that the pharisees' superstition\nrun in favour of Moses, it operated against Jesus? I know the objector\nmay say, the Jews expected a Messiah; but then they did not expect\nsuch a character as was Jesus. They also expected Elias to come first,\nbut they did not expect such a character as John. You, and all the\nworld know that the protestant clergy in Europe and America used to\npray for the downfall of the Pope; but when he was humbled, they all\njoined in fervent prayer to set him up again. How did this\ninconsistency happen? Answer: The way in which it pleased God to\nhumble the Pope, was not the way which clerical wisdom and prudence\nhad planned; and we all see now, that they are better pleased with the\nPope and the Inquisition, than they were to have him lose his power in\na way which endangered their own. Now, sir, if liberal principles do\nobtain, and if the cause of civil and religious liberty should finally\ntriumph, in spite of popish and protestant clergy with monarchy\nunited, do you believe that this triumph will ever be imputed to the\nsuperstition of king-craft and priestcraft? On the ground of your\nfirst proposition this would be your conclusion. The pharisees and\nthose who adhered to them, built the sepulchres of the prophets, whom\ntheir fathers killed, and said; \"If we had been in the days of our\nfathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of\nthe prophets.\" These _holy_ men were sure that they were much better\nthan their fathers who persecuted the prophets; they had no\ndisposition to persecute; all the wealth in the world could not have\ntempted these _godly saints_ to kill a prophet of God. However, St.\nPaul writing to the Thessalonians, says, \"For ye, brethren, became\nfollowers of the churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus:\nfor ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as\nthey have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own\nprophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are\ncontrary to all men.\" But the Jews would not have put Jesus to death\nif he had been a pharisee, and had not departed from their traditions\nand superstitions. But he was not a pharisee, nor did he adhere to\ntheir superstitions; and for this cause he was to them \"a root out of\ndry ground.\" To them, he had no form nor comeliness, no, nor had he\nany beauty that they should discern him. Say, brother, is not this the\nsuperstition which you are urging as unfavourable to the evidences of\nchristianity? And does not the passage above quoted from Thessalonians\ngo to prove what all ecclesiastical history as well as the New\nTestament proves, that the Christians were persecuted by the Jews and\nby the Gentiles? Did any thing but superstition ever persecute? It\nsurely does not aim to build up that which it persecutes: and\ntherefore in room of its being evidence against the genuineness of\nwhat it opposes, is justly admitted as a valid evidence in its favour.\nIt is well known that our Christian doctors, clergy, and laity have\nbeen long persuaded that a glorious day of universal peace and gospel\nlight is not only promised, but fast approaching; and if their prayers\nhave any influence, it is evident that the time is hastened by their\nmeans. All this looks very well, and a man would be thought to be\nimpious, if not insane, who should intimate that these saints were\nsuperstitous or illiberal, or that they possessed the spirit of\npersecution.--But what has been their spirit for, say, twenty-five\nyears past towards a doctrine which teaches universal peace on earth\nand good will towards man? Is there any thing bad which they have not\nspoken against this doctrine? Have they not treated its preachers with\nall the contempt and even ridicule of which they were capable? Have\nthey not used all their influence to keep the doctrine from being\npreached in their meeting houses, and have they not dealt with church\nmembers who have believed this benign doctrine of love, with\nexcommunications attended with as many aggravations as they could\ninvent? In a word, is there one bitter herb in all the ground which\nwas cursed for man's sake, that has not been used against what is\ncalled the poison of this abominable heresy? If they had the power of\nthe pope, if the inquisition were at their command, would they let\nsuch power lie dormant for want of zeal? Balaam smote his ass with a\n_staff_, but said: \"I would there were a _sword_ in mine hand, for now\nwould I kill thee.\"\n\nBut after all that has been said and done against this doctrine of\nuniversal benevolence and grace, its progress confounds its enemies,\nencourages its friends, and calls to mind the parable of the mustard\nseed. Suppose for a century to come it should continue its advances\naccording to what it has gained for the twenty-five years above\nmentioned, is it not evident that the knowledge of God would cover the\nearth as the waters cover the sea? But would any body then, being\nacquainted with the history of these times, think of making use of the\nsuperstition of our clergy to oppose the evidences of this doctrine?\nWould such a one say, it is probable that in those times of\nsuperstition, the clergy who had great influence with the common\npeople, might alter many passages of scripture, and in room of using\nthe word _elect_, interpolate the words _all men_? If I understand\nyour argument, this is the use you make of superstition. But, sir, I\nam satisfied that the superstition of our times will be sufficient\nproof to future ages, that the scriptures which so abundantly prove\nthe doctrine of universal salvation, were not the production of a\nsuperstitious clergy who were known to oppose this doctrine with all\ntheir learning and influence.\n\nNow if you please, you may indulge in strengthening your hypothesis,\nand prove by the faithful histories of different nations, that Jews,\nGreeks, and Romans were most stupidly superstitious. Also that India,\nTurkey, and Arabia are now groaning under the ponderous weight of this\nvanity. Go on and enlarge on all that you have said, and point out all\nthe superstitions of which we read or know; show how powerful this\nsuperstition is in the human heart; how it renders its votaries blind\nto reason and the principles of moral truth; show how hard it is to\nbreak in upon this almost invincible phalanx; but consider, sir, the\nblacker you represent this cloud, the brighter you render the\nevidences of the religion of Jesus.\n\nYou need not be informed, what the Christian world all knows, that the\ndoctrine of Jesus Christ, founded on the miracles recorded in the four\nEvangelists and in the Acts of the Apostles, was propagated among Jews\nand Gentiles, whose superstitions, though various, rendered them both\nhostile to this new religion, and incited them to persecutions which\nsubjected the \"weak and defenceless disciples of the meek and lowly\nJesus\" to trials and sufferings, fears and temptations of which we can\nhave but a faint conception.--The grand hypothesis on which the gospel\nwas advocated, and by which it succeeded in obtaining vast multitudes\nof Jewish as well as Gentile converts, was the resurrection of Jesus,\nwho was publicly executed on a cross by the Roman authority instigated\nby the rulers of the Jews. All this must be accounted for in a\nrational way. The facts are as well attested as any thing of which\nhistory gives any account. The four gospels have been commented on,\nand quoted, and adverted too by a greater number of controversial\nwriters, than any other book of which we have any knowledge. The\nepistles of St. Paul when compared with the Acts and with each other\nhave all the necessary characteristics of being genuine, and of\nrelating nothing but realties.\n\nYou, sir, allow that the authority on which this religion rests, would\nbe sufficient to support it, if it were not for the consideration of\nyour three propositions, the first of which, I trust, you will\nacknowledge stands in its vindication.\n\nYour second proposition may now be noticed.\n\nThat part of mankind have believed and still are believing in miracles\nand revelations which are spurious, we have no interest in denying,\nbut we feel under no obligation to admit this fact as any evidence\nagainst Christianity, or of any force to counterbalance the evidences\nwhich stand in its favour. What would you think of such kind of\nreasoning as should contend, that as it is evident that many have\nbeen, and still are imposed on by counterfeit money, it justifies\nserious doubts whether there ever was any true money in the world?\nWould you not reply, that as the counterfeit is entirely dependent on\nthe true for its imposition, in room of being evidence that there is\nno true money, it demonstrates that there is?\n\nIt being well known, nor ever doubted by the friends or enemies of\nChristianity, that its founder and his apostles proved the divinity of\ntheir missions by miracles alone, it was nothing more than might be\nrationally expected, that impostors would rise up under those sacred\npretensions, with a view to establish themselves. But if this religion\nof Jesus Christ, had not at first been built upon this foundation,\nimpostors would never have thought of imposing on people with such\npretensions. Impostors, therefore, together with all their deceptions,\ncannot, as I humbly conceive, be admitted as evidence _against_ the\ngenuineness of the gospel, but in _favour_ of it.\n\nAs to Mahomet of whom you speak, I have always understood that he made\nno pretensions to miracles. He pretended to hold correspondence with\nthe angel Gabriel, and to receive revelations from God in this way;\nbut he never attempted to sanction his divinity by miracles; and\nindeed there was no need of this, for he declared he was commissioned\nfrom heaven to propagate his religion by the sword, and to destroy the\nmonuments of idolatry. His kingdom was of this world, therefore did\nhis servants fight; but they did not fight always alone, for he fought\nat nine battles or sieges in person, and in ten years achieved fifty\nmilitary enterprizes. He united religion and plunder, by which he\nallured the vagrant Arabs to his standard. He asserted that the sword\nwas the key of heaven and hell; that a drop of blood shed in the cause\nof God, a night spent in arms are of more account than two months of\nfasting and prayer. He assured those who should fall in battle, that\ntheir sins should be forgiven at the day of judgment, that their\nwounds would be resplendant as vermillion and odoriferous as myrrh,\nand that the loss of limbs should be supplied by the wings of angels\nand cherubim. But what you can find in Mahometism which in the least\nmilitates against the evidences of Christianity I know not. It is\naffirmed by writers, that he collected his ideas of God and of morals\nfrom the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.\n\nFrom Mahomet you go to the conversion of Constantine, taking\nparticular notice of the account given of his seeing the sign of a\ncross in the sun, &c. And as we are now on the subject of miracles, we\nmust not forget the miracles of the _Shakers_ which seem to _shake_\nyour faith! Two _notable_ miracles you have honoured with a place in\nyour epistle, or honoured your epistle with them, which, I shall not\nundertake to determine. A bridge fell with a horse on it, which fell\nwith the bridge; the rider was a woman; by the fall several of her\nribs were broken, and she was otherwise bruised; but she was\nmiraculously recovered so as to be able to dance in one evening. A boy\ncut his foot, the wound bled profusely; the boy was miraculously\nhealed in a few hours. These are the miracles; but whether mother Ann,\nor some of her elders performed these miracles you do not inform me.\nIt seems to be allowed that _most_ of these Quaker miracles are\ninferior to the miracles recorded in the New Testament, but not more\ninferior to them, than they are to the miracles of Moses.\n\nDoctor Priestley, with his usual candor, endeavours to assign a\nnatural cause for what Constantine saw, and you are inclined to his\nopinion, to all of which I have no objections to make; and I am by no\nmeans certain, that a proper attention to the pretended miracles of\nthe Shakers, might not issue in assigning a natural cause for them.\nBut however this may be, I cannot see how the matter affects our\nbelief in Jesus Christ. Do you not discover a difference too wide\nbetween the case of Jesus and his doctrine, and Ann Lee and her\nprinciples to admit of the comparison which you seem inclined to make?\nYou have also mentioned the case of Mrs. A----'s seeing her husband\nand talking with him after he was dead, which you would draw into the\nsame comparison. That Mrs. A---- may have satisfactory evidence of her\nhaving seen and conversed with her husband since his death, I am not\nat all disposed to dispute; but here the matter ends. God has not seen\nfit to endue her with the power of working miracles. If this woman\nshould come into a public assembly and work astonishing miracles\nbefore all the people as an attestation of her having seen her\nhusband, and you and I should be present, and see these marvellous\nthings with our own eyes should we doubt the woman's testimony?\n\nI have already, in a former communication shown that the declaration\nof the apostles of the resurrection of Jesus, until it was accompanied\nwith power from on high, was never even communicated to the public, or\nordered to be communicated. But in fact the disciples were strictly\ncommanded to tarry at Jerusalem until the gift of the Holy Spirit.\n\nConstantine would have had no occasion to depose under the solemnity\nof an oath, concerning the sign of the cross, &c. if he had had power\nto evidence his declaration by miracles. If Ann Lee's disciples will\nheal the sick, restore the lame, and raise the dead in so public a\nmanner that the people at large may know these facts, then, sir, they\nwill no longer need to purchase poor children in order to increase\ntheir societies. And if God should see fit to call me from my wife and\nchildren by such evidences as these, I hope I should not disobey his\ndivine mandate.\n\nBut will you reply, that miracles having ceased, we have no right to\nexpect them? In return it may be asked, how we are assured that\nmiracles are not now necessary as they were twenty or thirty years\nago? Will you retort this question and ask why miracles are not now as\nnecessary to evince the truth of christianity as in the days of Jesus\nand his apostles? To this we reply: the miracles on which the gospel\nwas founded, or propagated, were of the most extraordinary kind; they\nwere of extensive publicity, and of ocular notoriety; they were vastly\nnumerous, extending to the infirmed of all descriptions; and they were\ncontinued long enough to answer the purpose for which they were\nintended.\n\nYou will feel satisfied that the _enemies_ of Jesus and his apostles\nknew for certainty, that those miracles wrought by them were\nrealities; and that they, in room of imputing them to the divine\nagency, violated their own reason, by referring to an evil agent such\npower and acts of goodness; I say you will feel satisfied of all this,\nif you will set down and read all the accounts relative to this\nsubject, in the four gospels, carefully regarding this question: Do\nthese writers discover any marks of deception or fraud?\n\nIn no instance do the evangelists betray the least anxiety for fear\nwhat they relate will not be credited. Even when they pen the\nastonishing miracles of which they pretend to be eye witnesses, they\nmake no pause to clear up any thing; but tell the whole as if the\nwhole was publicly known. In a word, this history, this sacred\ntestimony, carries its own competent evidence within itself.\n\nIt has been noticed by those who have written on this subject, as\nevidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the real authors of\nthose books which bear their respective names, that a great many\npassages are alluded to or quoted from the evangelists, exactly as we\nread them now, by a regular succession of Christian writers, from the\ntime of the apostles down to this hour; and at a very early period\ntheir names are mentioned as the authors of their respective gospels;\nwhich is more than can he said of any other historian whatever. See\nLardner and Paley. I will not call up Ann Lee in this place, but I\nwill suppose an attempt should be made now in New-England to convince\nTrinitarians of the error of supposing there are three persons in the\nGodhead. This shall be undertaken by men who are wicked enough to\nattempt to deceive by pretended miracles. One is selected as a leader,\nand the others to the number of twelve profess to be his followers.\nThe leader pretends to a revelation from God, the substance of which\nis, that Jesus Christ is a created being and dependent on the Father.\nThis doctrine he preaches and directs his followers to go into every\ntown in New-England and proclaim this truth to the people, and exhort\nthem to repent of their former doctrine and turn to God. This impostor\npretends to work miracles in confirmation of his divine mission; and\nalso pretends to give his disciples power to work miracles. He informs\nhis friends that he is to lose his life and that they must lose\ntheir's, in order to establish this doctrine. Stop, we have come to an\nabsurdity. Who would undertake to deceive their fellow creatures for\nno other reward than the loss of their lives? But let us pursue on.\nThis leader pretends to give sight to blind people, to heal the sick\nwith a word, and to raise the dead. It is reported all round the\ncountry that many such cases have actually taken place; that the blind\ndo receive their sight, the sick are raised to health at once, and one\nman in particular who was dead four days, has been called out of his\ngrave. People now are waked up; many believe the reports; thousands\nare flocking from place to place to hear this man and to see his\nmiracles. In this case who would be most likely to place themselves\nvery near to this pretender? Who would one expect to find near his\nperson? Answer, some of the Trinitarians; chosen ones too; men of\nsound judgment, and who could be depended on as able to detect any\nfraud. How long is it reasonable to suppose these pretensions could\npossibly continue with any success? It may be asked likewise, whether\nall honest, reasonable, and candid Unitarians would not express their\nabhorrence of such pretensions? Are you, sir, of opinion that such a\nfraud could possibly be managed in a way to insure success? A moment's\nreflection is sufficient to put the question to rest.\n\nBut we will still pursue our supposition. The Trinitarians enter a\ncomplaint against this teacher, to the authorities, alleging that he\nis guilty of treason; he is arrested, convicted, and publicly\nexecuted. At the time of his arrest his disciples all forsake him, and\none being found near him denies that he knows the man. All is over\nnow, and people go about their common avocations; once in a while a\nword or two may be dropped on the subject of the impostor, but the\nthing is dying away, till all at once the twelve disciples of him who\nwas executed came boldly before the public and proclaim the\nresurrection of their leader, charge the rulers of the people of\nhaving murdered him, and declare that God has raised him from the\ndead, and appointed them to be witness of this to the people, and to\npreach Unitarianism. What would be thought of these men? Would the\ndoctrine of the divine unity be likely to triumph over its opposite,\nthe Trinity, by the preaching of the twelve? Would there be any\nattention paid to these men, except by authority, to disperse them and\ncause them to desist from such madness, and go about some honest\nbusiness? But now they pretend to work miracles in confirmation of the\ntruth of the resurrection! Enough. Suppose, sir, I should tell you\nthat I believe such pretensions might be so managed as to succeed\ncompletely, would you not reply, that the success of such pretensions\nbeing altogether a fraud, would itself be as great a miracle as is\nrecorded in scripture, with the addition of absurdity? You will\nremember that you suggested that it would require a miracle to\ndissuade me from my belief; and I hope you will see that you must\nbelieve in a miracle in order not to believe with me!\n\nWill you say that the foregoing does not come to the difficulty, that\nthe question is, was not the account we have of those things in the\ngospels, forged long since the days in which they are represented to\nhave taken place? Then, sir, in room of the above supposed fraud,\nundertaken to propagate _Unitarianism_, you may take the supposition\nof a forged book published by the friends of that doctrine, in which\njust such a story is told of the first propagations of the sentiment\nas is told in the New Testament of Jesus and his apostles--and the\nTrinitarians shall be made to act the part of the old pharisees. Can\nyou, sir, conceive that the book would meet with any better success\nthan the impostors themselves? Would our learned doctors of the\nTrinitarian school be silent while such a book was in circulation?\n\nWould they suffer it to be handed down to posterity unanswered and\nunrefuted? Would they see their churches imposed on in this way, their\ndoctrine sat at nought, and this most extravagant imposture obtain\ncredit? Ask likewise on the other side; would honest Unitarians pay\nany attention to such a book? Would they impose on their fellow\ncreatures in this way? Would they instruct their children to believe\nwhat they knew to be a lie?\n\nIt should be kept in mind that when the gospels were written and for\nmore than two hundred years afterwards, christianity was hated and\npersecuted beyond what we can easily conceive, by the emperors of Rome\nand their wicked governors, who being authorized by special edicts for\nthat purpose put to the most cruel tortures and horrid deaths the\nfollowers of Jesus. The superstitious priests of heathen idols, were\nconstantly active with all possible inventions calculated to excite\njealousies and sharpen the edge of persecution against a doctrine that\nwas calculated to subvert their order and demolish their temples. It\nwas not until A. D. 311, that Maximin Galerius, who had been the\nauthor of the heaviest calamities on the christians, published a\nsolemn edict, ordering the persecution to cease, which his\nindescribable horrors and painful sickness compelled him to do. The\nnext year Constantine, and his colleague Licinius granted to the\nchristians a full power of living according to their own laws and\ninstitutions.\n\nFor nearly three hundred years then the gospel ministry, founded on\nmiracles, which, if not real, were as easily detected as any falsehood\nwhatever, was oppressed by cruel edicts acted upon by the bitterest\nenemies. Where was all the boasted learning of this learned age? Where\nwas all the sagacity of the sagacious? Could not a priesthood, for\nages improved in scarcely any thing but imposition and fraud, succeed\nin detecting pretensions, which, if not real, were too grossly absurd\nto impose on the most artless?\n\nYou, sir, are entirely right in saying you cannot prove this christian\nrevelation and the miracles on which it was founded, false. For if\nthis could ever have been done, there can be no reasonable doubt that\nit would have been by its enemies in its first rise; but the day is\npast for the detection of this fraud, if it be one; for the age in\nwhich all the means of detection were in possession of its enemies,\nhas long since passed away and those means are lost. The imposition,\npossessed at first of no solidity, might have been blown into the air\nwith a breath of common sense, has magnified and petrified till it\npromises to fill the whole earth, and is as hard as an adamant.\n\nWe hear of no writer's undertaking to disprove Christianity till about\none hundred years after the apostles' day, when Celsus wrote a violent\nwork against the Christians, who were, at the same time, suffering\nsevere persecutions. But this author, though a bitter enemy to Christ,\nallows his miracles; but like the old pharisees imputes them to a\ndifferent power from that of God. Why should this enemy of Jesus, his\nreligion, apostles and followers allow those miracles?--It seems that\nthere can be no good reason for this unless they were realities. You\nsay, \"that no miracles or revelations that have come down to us are\nsupported by so good authority as those recorded in the New Testament,\nI admit.\" But how can you conceive of _any good evidence_ of such\nmiracles as are recorded in this book? We have no account of any\ntestimony under oath that they were realities. And even if we had,\ncould the solemnity of an oath be admitted as good evidence? I think\nnot. Indeed there was no authority that would allow the apostles to\ndepose in favour of the resurrection of Jesus; but there were no\nauthorities that could prevent their bearing a mere convincing\ntestimony. I have endeavoured heretofore, to show that there can be no\ngood evidence of such a fact as the resurrection, which is capable of\nbeing refuted; and I will here add, of admitting reasonable doubts of\nthe fact, in the mind. It is a question which properly belongs to this\nsubject, and which should be often called up, whether the evidences of\nthe resurrection were not as strong as they could have been, both to\nthe disciples and to those who believed on Jesus through their\ntestimony; and furthermore, whether we can conceive how the evidences\ncould have been stronger on which we believe, without perpetual\nmiracles, which not only seems an absurdity, but would, if as powerful\nas they were at first, preclude the exercise of our reasoning\nfaculties and the necessity of investigation, which is one of the most\nrational enjoyments of which we are capable.\n\nI grant, if the vulgar error, that our eternal salvation depended on\nour being correctly acquainted with this subject, were true, it would\nfollow, of course, that the least difficulty in the way of our knowing\nthe whole matter, might be attended with fatal and awful consequences.\nAnd for myself, should I adopt the popular opinion that those who go\nout of this world not understanding the doctrine, or believing in\nJesus Christ, must hereafter be forever excluded from the blessed\nimmortality which is brought to light through the gospel, it would be\ndifficult for me to account for the least obscurity nameable, and much\nmore difficult would it be to account for the limited circle in which\ndivine truth has been caused to shine. But I have before intimated\nthat the consequences of our unbelief here, can with no more propriety\nbe carried into an eternal state, than the consequences of our\nignorance of any science. It is derogatory to the sacred loveliness of\ndivine truth, either to promise any further reward to those who seek\nand find her than the enjoyment she brings to the soul in her own\nnative sweetness, or to threaten those who neglect so divine a\ntreasure with any other inconvenience than the loss of such felicity\nduring their foolish neglect.\n\nIt becomes the philosopher and perhaps more the christian to exercise\npatience, but patience is sometimes tried with the bigotry and\nnonsense of the self-righteous, self-wise, and self-knowing, who\nprofess the religion of Christ, yet stand tiptoe, like James and John,\nto call fire from heaven to consume all who do not receive their\nmaster. But the true spirit of our religion rebukes such blind zeal\nand foolish arrogance, by showing that such a disposition is the\nmalady which the gospel is designed to cure. While the Christian\nclergy have spent their breath and wore out their lungs in\nanathematising with eternal vengeance, those whom they call infidels,\nhave been worse than infidels, and brought a greater stigma on the\nname of Jesus, than his open enemies from _Celsus_ down to T. Paine. I\nwould by all means except from the above remark a goodly number who\nhave done honour to our religion by treating its opposers, as its\nspirit dictates, with candor and sound argument well mingled with\ndivine charity.\n\nIndeed I think I see much reason to look on what is called infidelity,\nwith a charitable disposition for this plain reason, it has greatly\ncontributed to enlighten the Christian commonwealth, by calling into\naction the very best of human abilities and directing them to search\nfor the true grounds on which our faith securely rests.\n\nI hardly know how I ought to reply to what you say about the\npersecution of Stephen, &c. At one time you write as if you would\ndoubt the authenticity of those New Testament accounts; then again you\nadvert to them for assistance. But why should you go over such ground,\non which so much depends, as if you did not realize that the subject\nwas worthy of a pause for consideration?\n\nWhen you advert to the martyrdom of Stephen by a mob, (which by the\nway was _the council_), you take no notice of the cause of his being\narrested, accused or condemned.\n\nLet reason and candor look at the account. \"And Stephen full of faith\nand power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Then there\narose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the\nlibertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Celicia\nand of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist,\n&c. Then they suborned men, which said, we have heard him speak\nblasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up\nthe people, and the elders, and the scribes, and come upon him, and\ncaught him, and brought him to the council, and set up false\nwitnesses, which said, this man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words\nagainst this holy place, and the law: for we have heard him say, that\nthis Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and change the\ncustoms which Moses delivered us. And all that sat in the council,\nlooking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an\nangel. Then said the high priest, are these things so?\" Here follows\nthat admirable speech of Stephen before the grand council of his\nnation, which defies all conjecture of forgery, and enraged his\nenemies against him. And they stoned him for pretended blasphemy. The\nconcluding clause of this speech is particularly worthy of notice.\n\"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have\nslain them which shewed before of the coming of the just one; of whom\nye have been now the betrayers and murderers; who have received the\nlaw by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.\" Now, sir, is\nthere any more evidence for believing that there was such a man as\nStephen stoned according to the above account, than for believing that\nhe was stoned by the authority of the council, and for what is here\nset forth?\n\nThis council which put Stephen to death, was the same before which\nPeter was arraigned on account of the miracle wrought on the impotent\nman; which according to Dr. Hammond was the Sanhedrim.\n\nBut you seem much engaged to prove that martyrdom does not prove the\ntruth of a belief for which the martyr dies. Here you have not been\ncareful to distinguish cases. A _Papist, who has been brought up to\nbelieve in the divine presence_, might perhaps suffer death rather\nthan renounce it; and yet we should not consider this sufficient to\nprove the doctrine of _transubstantiation_; but no candid person would\ndoubt the _sincerity_ of the martyr. But why should we hesitate to\nbelieve the doctrine for which he suffered? Answer, the doctrine is\nnot a subject of which he could have positive knowledge. He could not\nbe eye nor ear witness of the fact. But the testimony for which the\ndisciples of Jesus suffered, was a testimony concerning a matter of\nfact, of which their eyes and ears could take proper cognizance; and\nif their sufferings are allowed to prove their sincerity, then it is\ngranted that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus. If the entire\nunbelief of the disciples in the resurrection could be overcome, and\nthey brought to believe that they saw Jesus and talked with him, and\nate with him, and were frequently in his company after his\nresurrection, for forty days; and if they were willing to suffer\npersecution and death rather than desist from troubling the people\nwith this testimony, it appears to me that reason will allow that this\nis, at least, some evidence of the truth of this astonishing fact;\nthough this was not the evidence which carried conviction to so many\nthousands of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles. This we have before\nshown was the manifestation of the mighty power of God in the\nmiraculous wonders which God wrought by the apostles.\n\nYou speak of the honour, which was no doubt attached to the martyrdom\nof Stephen, as being an inducement to others to submit to this\nexample, &c. You hereby allow that the testimony for which he suffered\nwas surely believed, otherwise no honour could attach to those who\nsuffered for it. Why then do you not attempt to show the probable\nground on which this testimony was erroneously believed?\n\nI humbly conceive that your observations which regard to the\nuprightness of the apostles are too indefinite. You say, \"This much,\nhowever, I believe, and of this much I have no doubt, that Paul and\nthe other apostles were convinced of the truth and the salutary\neffects of the moral precepts which had been taught and preached by\nChrist; and they were willing to preach and enforce them by all the\nmeans in their power, even at the risk of their lives,\" &c. And this\nyou think, \"constituted them wise and good men.\" Here, sir, do you not\nleave room for the notion that the apostles would enforce their moral\ndoctrine with the testimony of the resurrection of Jesus and their\npretensions to miraculous powers, when they had no belief in the\nformer, and knew the latter to be an imposition? If these men\nendeavoured to enforce any principles by practicing such impositions,\nhowever pure those principles were, these men were vile impostors, and\nmerited all their sufferings. I solemnly protest against the wisdom or\ngoodness of any man who is an impostor.\n\nI proceed to notice your third proposition, which is as follows:\n\n\"3. The facts on which revelation is predicated are unlike every thing\nof which we have any positive knowledge.\" \"Of the truth of this\nproposition,\" you say I \"must be sensible.\" You must indulge me, sir,\nin saying that you have made a mistake. I am insensible of the\ncorrectness of your statement. The FACTS on which the Christian faith\nis predicated, are of that description which come within the\nobservation of the outward senses of men.\n\nI know of no fact on which Jesus called the people to rest their\nfaith, that they could not as easily judge of, through the medium of\ntheir senses as of any facts in nature. See John v. 36, \"But I have\ngreater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath\ngiven me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that\nthe Father hath sent me.\" 10th, 24th, 25th, \"Then came the Jews round\nabout him, and said unto him, how long doest thou make us to doubt? If\nthou be the Christ tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you,\nand ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they\nbear witness of me.\" 37th, 38th, \"If I do not the works of my Father,\nbelieve me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the\nworks; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in\nhim.\"\n\nAll the works of which Jesus spake, were such as the people could know\nand examine by seeing and hearing, and concerning which there was no\nnecessity of their being ignorant or imposed upon. See the account of\nJohn's sending two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he were the\nChrist. Luke vii. 20, &c. \"When the men were come unto him, they said,\nJohn Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, art thou he that should\ncome? or look we for another? And in that same hour he cured many of\ntheir infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that\nwere blind he gave sight. Then Jesus, answering, said unto them, go\nyour way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that\nthe blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear,\nthe dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.\" Of such\nfacts the people were capable of judging, and on such facts the\nMessiahship of Jesus rested. And furthermore, it was on such facts\nthat the testimony of the apostles concerning the resurrection of\nJesus rested. Now it is evident that those facts on which divine\nrevelation is predicated, are like facts of which we have positive\nknowledge, in all respects as it regards the case of knowing them. It\nwas just as easy for people to know those things, as it is for us to\nknow the things which are familiar to our senses.\n\nIf you mean by the above proposition, simply that miracles are not\nwrought before our eyes, it is granted; but have you shown that a\n_continuance_ of miracles would more rationally vindicate the gospel,\nthan the divine economy has done by preserving the _variety of\nevidence_ which is now at our command? If this cannot be done, then\nthe discontinuance of miracles is no reason why we should doubt the\ntruth of this revelation. How then is your third proposition, even in\nany sense in which it can be true, to be understood unfavourable to\ndivine revelation?\n\nIt may not be improper to notice some reasons why the continuance of\nthe miracles, on which the gospel was first propagated, would not\ncomport with the divine economy.\n\n1st. As has been before suggested, it would, if combined with the\nforce it first had, preclude the exercise of the mental powers of\ninvestigation.\n\n2d. This power of working miracles must have been distributed to\nvarious sects and heresies, or by being confined to one order, prevent\nthe existence of any other, which would be another preventive of\nimmense reasoning, and tend to circumscribe the sphere in which the\nhuman mind is capacitated to move.\n\n3d. The continuance of those miracles must have changed the order of\nnature, and continued men on earth forever, or from generation to\ngeneration; for if this power had been exercised on some and not to\nthe advantage of others, it would look like the partial systems of\nmen, and in room of commending the impartial goodness of God, would\nhave refuted it.\n\nBut, the manifestation of this divine power, in those miracles on\nwhich our religion is founded, while it is attended with none of the\nevils which a continuance would evidently produce, besides forming an\nimmoveable rock on which so glorious a superstructure is safely\nfounded, furnishes an immense subject for the power of ratiocination.\n\nYou will excuse me for not noticing particularly all you say about\nmodern pretensions to revelations and miracles, as I think it would\noccupy time that may be better employed. But I will observe on your\nopinion, that it is remarkable, that Saul when he was converted, did\nnot go to Jerusalem to inquire more fully into the circumstances of\nthe resurrection, that if he had done this, you would not have\nhesitated to make use of it against his declaration recorded in Gal.\ni. 11, 12. \"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was\npreached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,\nneither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.\"\n\nWhy do you mention that we have not a particular account of St. Paul's\nconversion written by his own hand? Do you think that what a man\nwrites of himself is more to be depended on, than what his biographer\nwrites of him? Your suggestions on this subject seem to indicate, at\nleast, some scruples respecting this conversion, but not in a way to\nshow where the ground of scruples lies. What is there for me to\nanswer? Why do you treat this subject with such neglect? In a former\ncommunication, I requested your attention to it in a special manner,\nwith a view to confine our reasoning to our subject, and to avoid\nrambling from one thing to another without making ourselves acquainted\nwith any thing. In your reply you never attempted to give any account\nwhy Saul should embrace the religion he had persecuted; you made no\nattempt to give any reason why he preached Jesus and the resurrection;\nnor did you assign any reason why he should be willing to suffer the\nloss of all earthly enjoyments and endure persecutions for Christ's\nsake; nor did you attempt to prove that there never was such a man and\nsuch a conversion. The subject you considered still before you, and in\nthis seventh number you have spoken of it again, but have paid no\nparticular attention to it.\n\nWhat you say on the subject of prophecy, does not appear to me, either\nto reflect any light on it, or to call up any question of importance.\nYour query whether the books of the New Testament were not written\nafter the destruction of Jerusalem, which would suppose that the\nprophecy of the destruction of that city was written after the events\ntook place of which the prophecy speaks, is an old suggestion in which\nI am unable to see any thing very reasonable. And I will remark here,\nthat men who seem to lay an uncommon claim to reason, ought to make\nuse of it when arguing on such momentous subjects. What difference\nwould it make whether St. Matthew wrote his gospel before, or after\nthe destruction of Jerusalem, as it respects the prophecy which Jesus\ndelivered concerning it? You allow St. Matthew to be an honest man.\nYou do not doubt then but Jesus did deliver such a prophecy before his\ndeath, which was certainly before the destruction of the city. Then\nsurely it makes no difference whether the prophecy was committed to\npaper before, or after the fulfilment of it. Besides, you seem to urge\nthe _silence_ of St. John on the subject as unfavourable to the\naccount, because he wrote his gospel after Jerusalem was destroyed. As\nto interpolations which you think might have found their way into the\ngospels, it appears to me, sir, that a candid consideration of this\nsubject would issue in this conclusion; if any important\ninterpolations had been admitted, they would have produced such a\ndisagreement as to effectually destroy the validity of the books; for\nif one heresy could be indulged, it is reasonable to suppose that\nanother would be, and so on, which in room of allowing us the\nscriptures in their present consistent form, would either have\ndestroyed their existence altogether, or have varied so as to confound\ntheir ideas.\n\nFor a candid, learned, and impartial view of the scriptures of the New\nTestament, I refer you to Paley's evidences, and in particular to his\neleven propositions, which he has proved in a manner satisfactory, as\nI conceive to the candid inquirer.\n\nThese propositions begin on page 103, and are the following.\n\n1. \"That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby\nthe four gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded\nto, by a series of christian writers, beginning with those who were\ncontemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and\nproceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the\npresent.\n\n2. \"That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or\nalluded to with peculiar respect, as books _sui geneus_, as possessing\nan authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in\nall questions and controversies among christians.\n\n3. \"That they were in very early times collected into a distinct\nvolume.\n\n4. \"That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles of\nrespect.\n\n5. \"That they were publicly read and expounded in the religious\nassemblies of the Christians.\n\n6. \"That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out of\nthem, different copies carefully collected, and versions of them made\ninto different languages.\n\n7. \"That they were received by Christians of different sects, by many\nheretics as well as catholics, and usually appealed to by both sides\nin the controversies which arose in those days.\n\n8. \"That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles\nof St. Paul, the first epistle of John, and the first of Peter, were\nreceived without doubt, by those who doubted concerning the other\nbooks which are inclosed in our present canon.\n\n9. \"That the gospels were attacked by the early adversaries of\nChristianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religion\nwas founded.\n\n10. \"That formal catalogues of authentic scriptures were published, in\nall which our present sacred histories were recorded.\n\n11. \"That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books,\nclaiming to be books of scripture; by which I mean those books which\nare commonly called Apochryphal.\"\n\nThe first evidence adduced by this celebrated author to prove his\nfirst proposition, proves that the gospel of St. Matthew, which\ncontains a very particular account of the prophecy of Jesus concerning\nthe destruction of Jerusalem, was written before the event took place.\nThis evidence is a quotation from the epistle of Barnabas, St. Paul's\ncompanion, in the following words: \"Let us therefore, beware lest it\ncome upon us, _as it is written_, there are many called, few chosen.\"\nSt. Matthew's gospel is the only book in which these words are found;\nand you will perceive by the expression, \"as it is written,\" that\nBarnabas quoted the passage from an author of authority. Barnabas\nwrote his epistle during the troubles which ended in the destruction\nof the Jews and their city. This epistle of Barnabas is quoted by\nClement of Alexandria, A.D. 194: by Origen, A.D. 230. It is mentioned\nby Eusebius, A. D. 315, and by Jerome, A. D. 392. (Paley's evidences,\np. 106.)\n\nYour insinuations that the origin of the christian scriptures is\ninvolved in fable and mystery, should have been accompanied with a\nclear refutation of the arguments used by Lardner, Paley, and others,\nwho have with much learning and labour traced the stream to its\nfountain.\n\nI must say something on the subject which you introduce concerning\nman, as a species of being, or you may think me inexcusable for the\nneglect. There seem to be two main questions suggested on this\nsubject; the first inquires what man was farther back than history\nreaches; and the other directs the mind to a \"line of demarcation\"\nbetween the human and the brute.\n\nWe have no account that I know of when the use of fire was not known.\nWe read Gen. iv. 22, that Tubal-cain was an instructor of every\nartificer in brass and iron, and if reason has any thing to do in this\ncase, we may suppose that the use of fire was known to these\nmechanics. The date to which this reading belongs, is 3875 years\nbefore Christ; but there can be no reasonable doubt but that the use\nof fire was known long before, and that it was used in the offerings\nwhich were made by Cain and Abel.\n\nThat the discovery of arts and the progress of science have changed\nman from what he originally was, is no more reasonable, than to\nsuppose that the education which a child acquires by degrees, by the\nsame degrees changes him in respect to his nature. That the arts and\nsciences serve to improve and extend the human intellects is\nreasonable enough, but that they add any thing to the natural\nprinciples or faculties of man is not conceivable.\n\nIn fixing the \"line of demarcation\" between the human nature and the\nbrutal, I will suggest two characteristics which you have noticed by\nwhich the distinction may be ascertained.\n\nThe first is the power or faculty of improving from generation to\ngeneration his condition by means of art, and knowing how to advance\nfrom one degree of science to another. This I will suppose belongs to\nman and is peculiar to our race of being. We know of no other animal\non earth that has ever improved his condition by the discovery of the\narts or an increase of science.\n\nThe other characteristic is one of your propositions, on which you\nbuild your system of doubting, viz. _Superstition_. This is found in\nno creature but such as is susceptible of religion. Man is the only\nreligious animal, if I may be allowed this form of expression, found\non the earth.\n\nThe progress which man has made in arts and sciences, and the progress\nhe has made in divine or religious knowledge distinguish him from the\nbrutal creation. As in the former he has run into thousands of errors,\nso in the latter he has wandered in darkness, with now and then a\nblessed ray of light which improved his mind. When the knowledge of\nthe arts became generally defused by means of the extension of the\nRoman government, it pleased our blessed Creator to cause the sun of\ndivine light to rise on the Jew and Gentile world. And gave him a\ncovenant of the people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory\nof his people Israel.\n\nYour opinion that men are seldom made unhappy in consequence of\ndoubting a future existence, may be true in a comparative sense, for I\nbelieve there are few in comparison with the whole, who do doubt on\nthis subject. Generally speaking, it is the few, who like the\nphilosopher that rendered himself blind by endeavouring to find out\nwhat the sun was composed of, thought there was no sun nor any light,\nthat so far give up a hope of futurity as to be miserable in their\nbelief.\n\nThat the idea of endless torment, such as our clergy have represented,\nand with which they have most horribly terrified thousands and driven\nthem into black despair, is more horrible than no existence at all\nwill be allowed by every candid mind. But in contemplating an infinite\nsource of divine benevolence, and his means of giving and perpetuating\nexistence, and of rendering existence a blessing, the mind is not\ndriven to the necessity of selecting between these two evils. No, sir,\nthe mind thus employed has sweeter themes and brighter prospects--in\nbelief of that invaluable treasure, that divine testimony of the\ninspired apostle: \"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be\nmade alive;\" which sentence you nor I ever heard a preacher of endless\npunishment recite in a sermon in our lives, the soul rises by faith\ninto sublime regions of future peace and everlasting enjoyment, when\ndeath shall be swallowed up of life.\n\nI need not tell you, my brother, that it has been through many trials,\nafflictions, doubts, and temptations, that your feeble humble servant\nhas found the way to this rock; you cannot be altogether ignorant of\nthis travail of mind. Permit me then to call to remembrance the\nbondage we have escaped, the sea through which we have passed, the\nsweet songs of deliverance and salvation which we have chanted to our\nRedeemer in the faith of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. And here\npermit me to request your assistance in giving me support, and in\nstrengthening my hands in the work of the Lord.\n\nYours, &c.\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. VIII.\n\n\"In regard to the story reported among the Jews, respecting the body\nof Jesus, I admit there is a greater probability of there being such a\nreport, especially if the body could not be found, and the apostles\naffirmed that he was risen from the dead, than there is that the\nresurrection, should be actually true: hence, perhaps, I was not so\nmuch on my guard in the expression as I ought to have been. What I\nparticularly had in my mind was, that I might find it difficult to\nprove even the existence of such a story, i. e. in the days of the\napostles; and still more difficult to prove, even on the ground that\nthere was no resurrection, that this story was true; and therefore\nthere could be no use in urging the truth of this story in order to\ninvalidate the truth of the resurrection. I do not conceive, however,\nthat because I doubt the _fact_, I am under obligations to account for\nthe _fallacy_. It always belongs to the advocates of the truth of any\nstory, to bring forward sufficient evidence to prove the same. I can\nthink of a solution, however, that would appear to my understanding\nmuch more probable, than to suppose, as mentioned in your seventh\narticle, the 'account written long since the apostles' day;' yet it\nmay, perhaps, be attended with equal or greater difficulties, viz.\nthat the body was not stolen by the apostles, but was taken away by\nother persons, who were willing that Jesus should be _deified_,\naccording to the then common acceptation of that word among the\nGreeks, and who studied this stratagem with an express design to\ndeceive the Jews, as a punishment to them for so cruelly putting him\nto death, and also to deceive his disciples, in order to inhance the\nhonour of the name of Jesus.\n\n\"This might have been done, as I conceive, by persons who never became\nhis open followers, so far as to suffer death on his account, but were\ncontented in having gained their object; to do which, it was only\nnecessary in the first instance to frighten the soldiers. It may be\ndifficult after all, as I have observed concerning the human species,\nto say where the truth of the account ends, or where the fallacy\nbegins; but that some such thing should have taken place is more\nprobable to my understanding than that the literal resurrection of\nJesus should have been true. But I perceive that my expression,\nconcerning the report among the Jews, was a little too strong; and\ncarried rather more in it than what I was aware. For even on my\nhypothesis, as well as on every other which admits the absence of the\nbody, such a report would appear very probable.\n\n\"It must be granted, as you have suggested, that there was such a\nreport among the Jews at the time when that record was made, or else\nthat record would not appear at all to 'advantage' in support of the\ntruth of christianity.\n\n\"That 'reason is candid,' I also admit; and if I am blundering in\nmaking mistakes, I believe you will have the goodness to acknowledge\nthat I am candid in retracting them again when they are so pointed out\nto me that I can see them.\n\n\"Respecting divine revelation, it is true, I understood you to mean\nsomething more than barely what is predicated on the resurrection of\nJesus; yet in the second proposition of the three which you made, viz.\n'Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of being proved,' I understand\nyou to state one single fact, on which you are willing to rest the\nfinal issue of the argument. This being the most important fact,\nrelative to the truth of christianity, and which, probably, is as\ndifficult of proof as any, I do not perceive any disingenuousness in\nconfining you _now_ to this proposition till it is either proved or\nadmitted. Neither do I perceive how this can embarrass your argument,\nas you have proposed to consider them 'true, disjunctively,' as well\nas conjunctively. When therefore you have proved the three\npropositions _disjunctively_; particularly the second, above named,\nthen I shall be willing you should avail yourself of their\n_union_.--You may say, perhaps, I have proposed to admit the truth of\nyour three propositions; but you will also perceive, it was only for\nthe sake of introducing a fourth proposition, which it will not be\nnecessary for you to consider until the three first are proved true.\n\n\"I conceive that reason has no more to do in this case than to judge\nof the evidences of facts; and then, if the facts are supported,\nreason can judge of their relation one to the other; but to assume, in\nthe first place, the truth of revelation, and then infer from _that_\nthe probability of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, appears to\nme to be unreasonable. Therefore, if you attempt to prove the truth of\nrevelation, I conceive you must in the first place prove,\n'disjunctively,' the truth of the resurrection. If, therefore, you\nhave considered yourself excused from proving the facts on which the\ntruth of revelation seems to rest, because I have granted them for the\nsake of the argument, you have misapprehended my meaning. I grant\n_nothing_, respecting the main question, until it is _proved_.\n\n\"Notwithstanding what you have said about 'the known facts,' and\n'facts which you grant, for the sake of the argument,' &c. you will\nperceive by my seventh number, that I do not consider the 'miracles of\nJesus, his resurrection, and the miracles wrought by the apostles,'\neither granted or proved, i. e. in relation to the main question; and\nhence, whatever weight your argument may have, when you have succeeded\nin that (if you should succeed at all) at present they seem to be\nhardly conclusive. I know it would save you much time, if you could\ndraw from me an acknowledgement of the truth of the facts on which you\nrely; and you seem to argue, if I understand you, as though that was\nalready the case; but whatever you may have understood, I must\ndistinctly disavow any such acknowledgement; and I shall still expect\n(unless it is done in answer to my seventh number) when you come to\nreply to this, that you will state distinctly, and together, the\nevidences and arguments on which you mostly rely.\n\n\"If, however, you have meant nothing more by all this than to point\nout the use you shall make of the miracles, &c. (which have been\ngranted for the sake of the argument) when those miracles, &c. shall\nhave been either proven, or else acknowledged true, in relation to the\nmain question, then I have no fault to find; but otherwise, your\nargument in this place seems to be a little premature.\n\n\"You say, 'the known facts, such as the miracles, &c. I used as proof\nof the divine mission of the servants of God. This divine mission\nbeing proved gives the ground on which I contend for the merit of\ntheir testimony, concerning a future state.'\n\n\"Here you will perceive, sir, that, according to your own statement,\nto prove this divine mission, you must first prove the certainty of\nthose miracles, &c. on which the truth of the divine mission is\npredicated. And these are things about the truth of which, as I\nindicated all along, there may be serious doubts.\n\n\"I am at a loss also to understand, what you mean by a 'divine\nmission.' You inform me that I misapprehended you 'in supposing that'\nyou 'mean to contend, that what the apostles have said respecting a\nfuture state, was spoken by way of _conclusions_ from certain known\nfacts.' Here, I must confess, I am really at a loss to understand you:\nhow that either Jesus, or his apostles, could understand a divine\nmission, even if they had received one, unless it were by\n_conclusions_ from _certain known facts_, that is, facts well known to\nthem, I cannot conceive; and therefore must have some further\nexplanation on this subject before I can fully answer you. For I must\nbe better informed than I am at present, what you mean by a _divine\nmission_, before I can see the necessity of 'denying the reality of\nthose miracles--or of granting the authority of their (Christ and his\napostles) testimony;' that is, in regard to a future state. But even\nif I should be made to see this, it would be of no use for the\npresent; because as it respects the final issue of the argument, I\nhave not, neither do I now admit the reality of those miracles: as you\nmust have seen by my seventh number.\n\n\"The next particular which demands notice is the quoted passage which\nI pronounced _Most excellent_!\n\n\"Here a serious query suggests itself to my mind. I ask myself: am I,\nor am I not, as capable of writing my sentiments, so as to be\nunderstood by a rational man, as those plain illiterate men who wrote\nthe gospels? And yet if my words are so wrested by logical\n_twisticisms_ (if I may be allowed to use that expression) so as to\nmean what never entered my heart, and all this with apparent serious\ncandor too, what may have been the fate of the writings of the\nevangelists? Now this is something in which I cannot be deceived, i.\ne. as it respects myself; for any man of common sense does know his\nown meaning, whether his words fully express his meaning or not, or\nwhether they may be made to mean something else or not.\n\n\"Permit me therefore once more to explain. The expression, _Most\nexcellent_! was not so much intended to have been applied to the\nsentence preceding it, as to the author of that sentence, whose\ngoodness, in stating so explicitly what he understands by the\nchristian faith, I commended. And you must excuse me for not being\nable to see any inconsistency, absurdity, or contradiction in my words\nwhich follow that expression. Suppose a case. You have a good and\nfaithful servant, who feels happy in your service, and is perfectly\ncontented with his fare. You promise him with some favours which you\nhad never before made known to him. He is elated with the idea of your\ngoodness, which he has never doubted, but did not know till now that\nit was to be manifested in this particular way. You tell him that a\nknowledge of this, with his former knowledge, 'is as much as his\npresent welfare requires.' He very readily assents to the truth of the\nproposition; and further adds, it is even 'more than is necessary for\nhis present welfare,' for he was contented and happy before. Would any\nrational man say that your servant talked unreasonably? Would he say\nthat such reasoning was absurd? I think not. Your servant does not\ndespise either your goodness or your bounty; he considers that his\nmaster knows best, what is best for his servant; and he receives with\ngratitude whatever is bestowed. Your argument would have appeared to\nme more just, if, after fully understanding me, which I perceive, by\nthe use you have made of the quotation from my sixth number, you now\ndo, you had proved from well known facts, or from conclusive argument,\nthe absolute necessity of the hope of a christian in order for the\n'present welfare' of mankind. In doing this you would have ingenuously\nrefuted the proposition which I say would have been _exactly right_.\n\n\"You do not seem, sir, yet to have fully understood me as to my object\nin searching for truth. You ask, saying, 'Do you not appear to be\nsolicitous to have your doubts removed, without expecting the least\nadvantage by it?' You must know, sir, that this is only on\nsupposition, that my doubts are founded in error; in which case I\nshould reap the advantage, as my object is truth. You will recollect\nthat my first object was to search for _moral truth_; without being at\nall solicitous where, or on what ground it shall be found. Truth\n_only_ is my object. In this _only_ I feel at all interested in this\nargument. Hence I shall be just as much obliged to you to _confirm_ me\nin my doubts, admitting they are founded in truth, as I shall to\n_remove_ them, admitting they are founded in error.\n\n\"I once thought just as you, viz. that the idea and contemplation of\nenjoying future life was absolutely necessary to present enjoyment;\nbut I am now fully convinced, yea, more, it is absolutely known to be\na fact, that the idea is altogether visionary and illusive. I admit\nthat a knowledge of the truth, so far as the truth may be known, is\nperfectly _congenial_ with the present happiness of mankind: though it\nis often the case that a partial knowledge of the truth, in relation\nto any particular subject, produces distress and misery rather than\nenjoyment. I now am very happy in knowing some things, which, once,\nonly the idea of their being true would have given me pain. I am\ninclined to think that the idea of _now_ enjoying the pleasures, or\n_now_ enduring the pains of a future life is altogether chimerical. I\ncan enjoy the life or lives of others in a future tense just as well\nas I can _now_ enjoy my own future life. I have as much reason to\nbelieve that rational intelligence always did exist, as I have to\nbelieve it always will; yea, one idea is just as certain to me as the\nother, and no more so. And as I cannot reflect on the idea of eternity\npast, only with a kind of reverential _awe_ mingled with sublime\npleasure; so the idea of eternity to come produces in me the same\nsensation; yea, feeling myself equally ignorant of both, (which must\nbe the case on the supposition that revelation is not true.) I can\nperceive no difference. I feel anxious to know, however, every thing\nwhich can be known on this subject; and yet, at the same time, I am\ninclined to think I should _doubt_ of every revelation of which I can\nhave any conception, unless it should be so made that I could see its\ntruth, (or at least the evidences of its truth) over and over again,\nand that they should still remain by me at all times, so that I could\nexamine them, and re-examine them, the same as I now look at the stars\nin the firmament.\n\n\"Thus I have opened my mind to you, more fully than I have ever done\nbefore, on this subject; and notwithstanding your writings may be very\nbeneficial to others (as well as mine, for some may stand in need of\none, and some of the other) yet, here comes up my doubts again, if I\nam benefited by them, I expect it will be in a different way than that\nof being any more persuaded of the truth of divine revelation.\nNevertheless, I am no less anxious to continue the correspondence on\nthis account.\n\n\"Your address to TRUTH, which you are pleased to put into the mouth of\nmy argument, is closed with an idea which does not grow out of my\nhypothesis. 'The joyous expectation of soon losing sight of thee (i.\ne. truth) forever in the ellysium of non existence!' _Non-existence_,\nsir, does not _exist_! Neither does the term convey an idea to my\nunderstanding of any thing. I know of no existence, neither can I\nconceive of any, except that which I believe to be eternal in its\nnature. And the idea of _something_ being formed or made out of\n_nothing_, or of something's returning to nothing again, I have long\nsince exploded. Every thing, however, excepting first principles, is\nliable to _change_. Hence arises the various modes, states,\ncircumstances, conditions and situations in beings and things: also\ntheir different properties, relations and dependences.\n\n\"I know not whether consciousness is a being, or whether it be only a\nmode of being. If it be the former, it always did, and always will\nexist, in some state or other; if the latter, the state of the being\nmay be so changed that although identity exists, yet consciousness is\nnot there. And there is no more absurdity in this idea than there is\nin supposing that the same matter which forms a _cube_, may become a\n_globe_. I can as well conceive of a conscious being to day, becoming\nunconscious to-morrow, as I can conceive of a person in a sound sleep.\nBut _non-existence_ (strictly speaking) sounds to my understanding\nsomething like the _falsity of truth_!\n\n\"I now come to your reply to my sixth number; and in my remarks, which\nwill be but few, I shall follow the arrangement which you have made.\n\n\"1st. The candid concessions which you have made, and the charity\nwhich you have extended towards doubting Christians, or candid\nunbelievers (for such I conceive there may be) is honourable both to\nyourself and to the cause which you have espoused, and your writing,\nof course gains a much more favourable reception than the writings of\nthose who appear to be filled with a spirit of acrimony, and are ready\nat once to deal out anathemas against every thing of which they cannot\napprove. But, sir, you will permit me to say, we ought to be cautious,\nlest our personal attachment to an author, and his charitable feelings\ntowards us be such, as imperceptibly to blind us to correct reason,\nand cause us to imbibe his errors, merely because they are his, and\nmistake them for truth.\n\n\"I am well aware that I should find it difficult to prove that I now\nbelieve what I do without a miracle, as you have suggested; for if\nmiracles have existed they may have, indirectly, more influence in my\nmind than I am at present sensible of; and therefore I will not\nundertake to say that I am not principally indebted to them for my\npresent views of the character of the supreme Being. I am disposed to\nacknowledge in humble gratitude all the blessings which I have\nreceived, and am made sensible of, let them come to me by what means,\nor through what channel soever. But I do not see how you had a right\nto expect that I should either _refute_, or else _acquiesce_ in your\nopinion on this subject.--What! must I either prove that there have\nbeen no such things as miracles, or else admit their truth! Must I\neither refute your notion that they have had great influence on my\nfaith and practice, or else '_express my acquiescence_' that such is\nthe fact! Hard lines! I choose to take the easier course, and confess\nthat I am too ignorant to do either. I am willing, however, still to\nbe instructed.\n\n\"2d. I have nothing at present to say on the subject of prophecy; i.e.\nto reconcile the pretensions to it with the honesty of the prophets,\nwithout admitting divine inspiration, better than what I have written\nin my seventh number. When I have received your answer to that I may\nhave something more to write. I would suggest, however, here, that as\nyou frequently make use of the expression 'divine inspiration,' I want\nthe expression more fully defined and explained. I have no distinct\nidea, that I know of, of _divine inspiration_. I suppose you mean the\nsame by it which you did by the 'divine mission,' given to the\napostles, or at least something similar; but still I am ignorant of\nthe subject. You have sometimes spoken of divine revelation, as though\nit was something distinct from this divine mission, and which was a\nproof of it; but, you must excuse me, I am still all in the dark about\nit. Do be so good as to inform me how you suppose the prophets, or\napostles, or even Jesus, could know for a certainty that they were\ndivinely inspired?\n\n\"3. When I acknowledged that there are evidences in favour of divine\nrevelation, I did not suppose it necessary to state what those\nevidences are; because some of them, to say the least, are very\napparent. The bare report of any thing, I conceive to be evidence of\nthe report's being true; and would be sufficient to acquire belief\nshould nothing arise in the mind to counterbalance it: and as I had\nrepeatedly promised to give you the reasons for my doubts I expected\nto have been indulged a little longer before I should have been again\nfaulted on this subject. But as it respects this matter I am all\npatience and submission, if it may be so that truth shall finally come\nto light.\n\n\"Under this article you have gone into a very lengthy discussion to\nshew that the evidence by which the apostles believed in the\nresurretion could not be counterbalanced, &c. And if I understand what\nyou have written it amounts in my mind to about the following, viz.\nthe apostles could not have been convinced of the fact of the\nresurrection by any evidence short of the fact itself. 2dly. If the\nfact did exist there is no evidence which can conterbalance it.\n_Ergo_. As the apostles were convinced of the truth, the fact did\nexist. This is pretty much like saying, if the fact were _true_, it\ncould not have been _false_! But I spoke of the evidence in relation\nto _ourselves_ rather than the _apostles_: we believe or disbelieve\nfor ourselves, and by such evidence as _we_ have. You think if twelve\nmen should testify in favour of a resurrection, and the body could not\nbe found, 'various opinions would result from such evidence.' If so,\nsome might believe the account true; and they might persuade others to\nbelieve it; and only let it be reported and believed that some one had\ndied for the truth of it, and it would make no difference after this,\nas it respects the influence of faith, whether the account was true or\nfalse.\n\n\"You will excuse me for making no further remarks on what you have\nwritten under this article till you have answered my seventh number,\nand also given me a more clear definition of _divine inspiration_.\n\n\"4. What you have written under the fourth article, generally\nspeaking, is satisfactory, till I come to the last sentence; and even\nwith that I have not much fault to charge you with. It is true we may\nbe mistaken as to our ideas of the eternity or immutability of any\nthing; but then, as it respects argument, it is just as well as though\nwe were correct, as no one can prove us otherwise; no, nor even raise\na reasonable doubt on the subject. But even if it could be\ndemonstrated that there is not a rational being now in the universe\nwho existed two centuries ago, or one who will exist two centuries\nhence, I conceive, as the fact could not, so the knowledge of the fact\nought not to make any difference in the relation, dependence and moral\nobligation between man and man. Man learns by his own experience, as\nwell as from the experience of others; and _vice versa_; hence we\nprofit by the experience of those who have gone before us.\n\n\"When man shall universally learn this great moral truth that much of\nhis happiness is inseparably connected with the happiness of his\nfellow beings, which is one of the immutable principles of moral\nnature, then each individual will strive to the utmost to promote the\ngeneral welfare; for in so doing he increases his own individual\nhappiness, and also the happiness of posterity.\n\n\"5. What you have said under the fifth article, for reasons already\ngiven, will be considered in my next number, when I hope I shall he\nfurnished with more light on the subject.\n\n\"I will only observe here that a miracle, as I conceive, must be\nperformed agreeable to, or else it must be a violation of the laws of\nnature. If the former, whatever it might be to others, to those who\nunderstood the means of its operation, it could be, strictly speaking,\nno miracle; and if no miracle, no evidence, to them, of divine\ninspiration: but if the latter, and those who performed the same were\nignorant of the power by which they were performed, I do not see how\nthat the performance of a miracle could give them any knowledge of\nfuturity. And if not, what did give it to them, and in what way was it\ngiven?\n\n\"It will still be recollected that I do not admit the existence of\nmiracles, although I speak of them as though they were true, merely to\nshew that even if they were true I should still have my difficulties\nrespecting the truth of divine revelation.\n\n\"6th. Your remarks under the sixth article are satisfactory, though\nthey have not convinced me of the incorrectness of my opinion; because\nthat which is founded in _truth_ is, after all the only thing that is\n'good and nourishing' to the understanding. The sound mind pants only\nafter truth; and as he knows eternal truth is unalterable, he is not\nfoolish enough even to desire, it should be what it is not. The reason\nwhy we often desire that which we cannot have is because, not knowing\nthe whole truth, we do not know but that we may have the things we\ndesire.\n\n\"7th. As it respects 'not even deserving a future existence,' I was\nnot fully understood. I only meant an _anxious_ desire, as I expressed\na little before, and as also I expressed _anxious concern_ a little\nafter; that is a desire which is incompatible with reconciliation to\ntruth whether that truth gives us little or much. Had not truth been\nfavourable to our existence we certainly should not have existed; and\nI can see no reason to fear a truth which has been so favourable as to\ngive us being. It is true, a desire to exist as long as we can enjoy\nlife seems to be inseparably connected with our moral nature; and yet\nI can see no terror in that which takes away our sensibility, whether\nit be for a night, for ages, or for eternity. I should just as soon\nthink of being terrified at the idea of a sound and sweet sleep. If\nthe truth be what I suspect it is, I see no good reason why it should\nbe revealed to us, any more than the hour of our death! This truth is\nwisely concealed from us.\n\n\"8th. You have seen me so long in the dark that I begin to doubt\nwhether you would be willing to own me correct, even if I should come\nfully into the light; i. e. according to your understanding. Is it\npossible sir, that you should suppose me capable of writing so great a\nsolecism as the following, viz.: If a revelation were ever necessary,\nit was necessary only to convince mankind that a revelation is not\ntrue! But it seems that such must have been your construction, or very\nnear it, or else you could not have found the error of so great\nmagnitude, of which you speak. Although I did not express my idea so\nfull and explicit as I might, and perhaps ought to have done, yet I\ncan assure you that, by reconciling man to his present state, I meant\nnothing less than what you have expressed in a former letter; and I\nmeant to include all for which you have contended in the article now\nunder consideration. For 1st. If divine revelation were necessary, the\nthing revealed is undoubtedly true. 2d. If true, I am fully satisfied\nwith your views on the subject.\n\n\"9th. Your explanation relative to what you suggested in a former\nletter (i. e. _that I must mean that the apostles stated falsehood_)\nis satisfactory; though what you now say you meant, as I have already\ninformed you, was not exactly my meaning. The fact is, I did not mean\nto express any opinion as to the truth or to the falsity of the\napostles' testimony. I very readily grant, however, that, if I 'do not\n_believe_ that they stated the truth' 'I must believe that they stated\nfalsehood;' unless (which would be very extraordinary) the weight of\nevidence be so exactly balanced in my mind that it is impossible for\nme to form an opinion on the subject.--But supposing I disbelieved\ntheir testimony altogether; what could I do more than to give my\nreasons for not believing it? Would it be reasonable to call on me to\nprove their testimony false? It is a very hard thing to prove a\nnegative!\n\n\"You will have already perceived by my seventh number that I have no\nidea that the facts on which the Christian religion is said to have\nbeen founded can now be proved false. No, whatever might have been the\ncase in the time of it, they were neglected too long before any\nattempt of this kind was made, though the accounts should have been\nsupposed ever so erroneous as to promise any success in their\nrefutation. And I am inclined to think that one century _then_ would\ninvolve facts in as much obscurity as five centuries would _now_. But\nI have already expressed my doubts whether the facts on which the\nreligion of the _Shakers_ is said to be predicated, although not half\na century standing, can now be proved false; and yet if they are true\nthey are nothing short of miraculous.\n\n\"The Christian religion therefore, true or false, undoubtedly will\nstand, in some shape or other, and be believed more or less, as long\nas man remains upon the earth. For if it was introduced without any\nviolations of the laws of nature, i. e. without miracles, which\nprobably was the case, if false, we cannot expect any such violations\nfor the sake of destroying it; and without such violations I do not\nsee how it could be destroyed, because the believers of it,\ninvariably, believe it to be established on such mysterious\nsupernatural principles; and I expect but very few, comparatively,\nwill ever have sufficient strength of mind to throw off the mystic\nveil.\n\n\"Yours, &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER VII.\n\n_Dear sir, and brother_--Desiring to bring our present correspondence\nto a close as soon as the merits of its subject will admit, I propose\nin replying to your 8th number, to remark only on the most essential\nparticulars, taking no particular notice of two classes contained in\nyour communication, viz. that which seems to grow out of a\nmisconstruction of my arguments and that in which you appear to agree\nwith them. Indulging in this liberty, the subjects to which I will\nendeavour to confirm myself are the following.\n\n1st. Your method of accounting for the absence of the crucified Jesus,\nfrom the sepulchre where it was laid and guarded by the Roman\nsoldiers.\n\n2d. What you suggest respecting the divine mission of Christ and his\napostles, the miracles which were wrought by them in attestation of\nthe Messiah, and the credibility of their testimony regarding a future\nstate.\n\n3d. What you contend for respecting the _utility_, or _inutility_ of\nthe christian hope of future felicity.\n\n4th. Something on the instructions of Jesus to his disciples\nrespecting their conduct toward their enemies.\n\n5th. What you suggest respecting Jesus' not being known to the two\ndisciples, &c.\n\n6th. Your criticism on my argument respecting the evidences of the\nresurrection, &c.\n\n1st. You propose to account for the absence of the body of Jesus, by\nsupposing, that some persons by frightening the guards were enabled\nthereby to convey the body away, which they did being willing that\nJesus should be thought to have risen from the dead, whereby he would\nbe deified, according to the notions of the Greeks respecting deifying\nmen after they were dead, &c. Those who thus stole the body were not\nthe disciples of Jesus, but some persons who were desirous thereby to\npunish the Jews for so cruelly putting Jesus to death.\n\nHere you have proposed two subjects as forming the cause, in the mind\nof those who stole the body, of their undertaking so hazarduous an\nenterprise, neither of which appears to me to wear the necessary marks\nof probability.--1st. If they wished to have Jesus deified according\nto the notions of the Greeks, there was no need of establishing the\nbelief of his having rose from the dead. This was not the case with\nthose who among the Greeks were deified after their death. The tombs\nof their heroes whom they placed among the gods, remained among the\npeople.\n\n2d. Who that then lived in Jerusalem or its vicinity could look on the\ncrucifixion of Jesus as an act of cruelty? Others than Jews would not\nfeel very much interested in this affair, as Jesus had confined his\nministry to the Jews, and directed his disciples not to enter into any\nof the cities of the Gentiles, this matter was a case which seemed to\nconcern the Jews only. Now look at the case. The Jews expected a\nMessiah, a deliverer, one who should become their prince, and deliver\nthem from the bondage of the Romans. Jesus pretended to be sent of God\nas their Messiah of whom the ancient prophets had spoken; he pretended\nto work miracles in confirmation of his divine mission; but in room of\ndelivering the Jews from the Roman yoke, he prophecied of their\ndestruction by the Romans. Now, sir, if Jesus made all these\npretensions without divine authority for so doing, if he caused to be\nreported that he wrought miracles when he never wrought one in his\nlife, if he kept the people in a continual uproar driving about the\ncountry from one extreme of Palestine to another all by his frauds and\nfascinating deceptions; and in order to quiet the people, and have\nthings go on in a regular order, those who were charged with the\npublic concerns brought about the crucifixion of this impostor, who\nknowing all these things, being a Jew would think of accusing these\ngodly pharisees and rulers of cruelty for so doing? If Jesus did not\ndo the works which he pretended to do, he certainly was an impostor,\nand it is in vain to attempt to save him from such a charge. And if he\nwere such a _blasphemous_ impostor as to pretend to work miracles by\nthe power of God, when he knew he had no such power, it appears very\nplain that he deserved to die according to Jewish customs. If the\nmiracles of Jesus had been of a different description, there might\nhave been some deception. That is, if such miracles had been pretended\nas you state of the Shakers; in such a case nobody would trouble their\nheads about the matter. Some would say, the good woman perhaps was\nbadly hurt, and she thought her ribs were broken, when in fact they\nwere not, and with a little good nursing she was able to join the\ndance; others might be extravagant enough to suppose that something\nmarvelous had taken place, but who would know? Or, I will add, who\nwould care? But will you undertake to argue that the most learned and\nartful could impose on people by pretending to have power from God to\nopen the eyes of the blind, to heal all manner of diseases with a\nword, and to raise the dead from their graves? No, sir, if Jesus did\nnot perform the miracles which he pretended to perform, there is no\npropriety in believing that any body was disposed to charge the Jews\nwith cruelty for ridding community of such an impostor. But after all,\neven allowing your proposed method of accounting for the absence of\nthe body, which by no means is half as probable a story as that\nreported by the Jews, as this does not account for the disciples'\nbelieving that Jesus had actually arose from the dead. What is to be\ndone with this circumstance? Are we to suppose that as soon as the\ndisciples found that the body was missing, they took it into their\nheads that he had actually arose from the dead without any further\nevidence? Well if they really believed it they could honestly state\ntheir belief to the people. You will remember that you have agreed\nthat the apostles were honest men. But then the apostles go further,\nthey assert that they were certified of the real resurrection of Jesus\nby many _infallible_ proofs, that they saw him, conversed with him,\nate with him, heard his discourses in which he expounded the\nscriptures of the law, of the prophets, and of the psalms which\nrespected his passion and resurrection. Will you allow these men to\nhave been honest men, and still suppose that somebody stole the body\nof Jesus from the sepulchre? The boldness of the disciples in\ndeclaring the resurrection, their willingness to suffer all manner of\npersecutions for the name of Jesus, show plainly that they did believe\nin his resurrection. Here I refer you to my former arguments in which\nI have attempted to make it appear that the disciples could not have\nbeen deceived.\n\nBut even allowing, that the body was stolen, and that the disciples\nwere deceived, there is still, if possible, a greater difficulty to\naccount for, viz. the success of the preaching of Jesus and him\ncrucified. Here I wish, in a special manner, to call your attention.\nThe four evangelists and the acts of the apostles were written in the\nlife time of the disciples of Jesus; this, Paley, in his Evidences of\nChristianity, fully proves. He likewise proves beyond any reasonable\ndoubt that they were written by the men whose names they bear. These\nhistorians then relate all the miracles recorded in the four gospels,\nand inform us that Jesus actually performed them. They give each of\nthem an account of the crucifixion and resurrection of their divine\nmaster. They relate the things of which they were eye witnesses. But\nsupposing they were deceived, which I humbly conceive, is not\nsupposable, can we reasonably believe that these gospels in which such\nbarefaced falsehoods were recorded would ever gain credit among a\npeople whose religious education was to be all overthrown by coming\ninto the belief of those writings?\n\nBut the apostles had not these books to assist them in their ministry;\nthey went on in preaching Jesus and the resurrection, first in the\ncity of Jerusalem, and throughout all Judea, and among the Gentiles\nwith astonishing success before they wrote the accounts which we have.\nNow, sir, on the supposition that the body was stolen will you account\nfor the people's being persuaded that Jesus rose from the dead?--Is it\npossible to conceive of any thing to which the Jews could have been\nmore opposed, than to the testimony, that the man whom they had\ncrucified was the Messiah, and that God had raised him from the dead?\nNow turn to the account given in Acts, chap. ii. and let reason and\ncandor have their voice in the matter under consideration. \"Therefore\nlet all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that\nsame Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.\" Can you\nconceive of any thing that could have been more trying to the feelings\nof the people? Observe, \"whom ye have crucified.\" Bring the matter\nhome to yourself. Suppose you had been active in the prosecution of\none of your fellow creatures, and the prosecution should have\nterminated in the execution of the accused, how would it try your\nfeelings for your neighbours to come and tell you, that you had been\nthe murderer of a good and innocent man? But in the case under\nconsideration there are circumstances that heighten the importance of\nthe subject. The great Messiah in which all the Jews were educated to\nbelieve, as much as we are educated to believe in Christ; this\npersonage is the subject. See the account, \"Now, when they heard this,\nthey, were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to the\nrest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?\" Why do we\nhear this exclamation? \"Men and brethren, what shall we do?\" Why\nshould the people now feel thus affected? Why do they not cry out\nagainst the men who accuse them of having done this wickedness, as\nthey did against Jesus a few days before? Can you, sir, believe that\nall that caused this, was the body's having been stolen from the\nsepulchre, the disciples having gotten the whim into their heads that\nJesus had arose from the dead, now run about like mad men and accuse\nthe people of having murdered the great Messiah, the anointed of God,\naffirming that God had raised him from the dead, when barely the\nabsence of the dead body was all the evidence on which this could be\nfounded? Not only did the testimony of Peter, on this occasion, which\nwill remain a most memorable one while the world stands, carry pungent\nconviction to the very hearts of the people, but it happily issued in\nthe glorious triumph of faith in the risen Jesus in about three\nthousand of the then present audience.\n\nIn the fore part of this chapter we have an account of the\nmanifestation of the mighty and miraculous power of God which was the\nevident cause of the conviction of the people; and to no other cause,\nI humbly conceive, can we impute such consequences.\n\nPermit me to remark here, that all that ingenuity has ever invented\nabout how the body of Jesus was disposed of, can have no weight at all\nagainst the doctrine of the resurrection which the apostles\npropagated. The body's being absent from the sepulchre never convinced\none reasonable being in the world, of the fact of the resurrection. It\ndid not convince those who first saw the sepulchre empty.\n\n\"Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping; and they (the angels)\nsay unto her, woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto him, because\nthey have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.\nAnd when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus\nstanding, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, woman,\nwhy weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She supposing him to be the\ngardner, saith unto him, sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me\nwhere thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto\nher, 'Mary.' She replied, 'RABBONI!'\" How naturally is this account\ngiven. In what an artless manner is the story told. I so much admire\nthe sincerity and unaffected love of Mary to her master that the\nfollowing reflections demand a place here. The person who but three\ndays before was crowned with thorns, was reviled and spat upon, was\nmost ignominiously crucified between two thieves and laid in the\nsepulchre is so much the object of Mary's affection that she appears\nsolicitous for the body. I cannot doubt the truth of Mary's being\nhere, for the story is told without any design. But why is Mary here?\nIf Jesus was an impostor she never knew of his working a miracle in\nher life. But if Jesus was in fact what he pretended to be and if he\nwrought those miracles which are recorded of him, all is explained.\nBut it is evident that Mary had not thought of Jesus' having been\nraised from the dead, when she saw that he was absent from the\nsepulchre. When Jesus spake to her, and called her by name as he had\nfrequently done before, she knew him. When this Mary and the other\nwomen that were with her went to the eleven, and told them the story,\nthey did not believe it, nor does it appear that Peter believed in the\nresurrection, even after Mary and others had certified him, and he had\nbeen himself to the sepulchre and found it empty; but he went away\n\"wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.\"\n\nThe evidences by which the disciples believed in this all-important\ntruth were equal to its importance and to its extraordinary character.\nThese evidences have been noticed.\n\n2d. The mission of Christ and his apostles, the miracles wrought by\nthem in attestation of that mission, and the credibility of their\ntestimony respecting a future state may now receive some notice.\n\nYou are disposed to call on me to inform you what I mean by this\nmission, to which I reply; I mean a divine appointment to act in a\ncertain official character, accompanied with certain powers by which\nthey were _enabled to evince_, by miracles, this their appointment.\n\nJesus was appointed by God himself to reveal the divine character,\nnature, and will of the Father to the world, by his preaching, by his\nmiracles of mercy, by his sufferings, by his death and resurrection.\nThe apostles were sent by Jesus Christ on the same mission, on which\nJesus himself was sent. See his prayer, John xvii. \"As thou has sent\nme into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.\"\nThose who believed in Jesus, and acknowledged him to be the Messiah,\nbelieved on account of the miracles which he wrought, and as I have\nbefore argued, Jesus never required of any a belief in him, barely on\nhis testimony of himself, but on the evidence afforded by the works\nwhich he did in his Father's name. So likewise, those who believed on\nJesus through the ministry of the apostles, never were called on to\nbelieve but by the authority of as great wonders as were wrought by\nChrist himself. I need not say much on this particular, as you must\nknow that the ground on which I have here placed this subject, is the\nground on which the New Testament places it.\n\nThe absurd notions which have been erroneously adopted by Christian\ndoctors and councils concerning the mission of Christ to appease the\ndivine wrath, to reconcile God to man, to suffer the penalty of the\ndivine law, &c. &c. which have rendered the gospel a mystery and a\nmist, in room of a high way for the ransomed of the Lord to return to\nZion in, is chargeable to the enemy who sowed tares among the wheat.\nThese opinions with a multitude of studied inventions about a\nmysterious work of sovereign elective grace wrought in certain\nindividuals, in an unknown way and frequently in an unknown time all\nwhich is to be followed by a system of mysterious sanctification,\nconnected most mysteriously with final perseverance, together with all\nthe intricate unknown items set down in the Westminister Catechism,\nhave only served to perplex some, puff others up with spiritual pride\nand exalt them in the kingdom of spiritual wickedness in high places,\nto drive some to despair, and to disgust reason and common sense in\nothers. There is not a word of all the above jargon in the sacred\nscriptures, which give us a most rational account of the great object\nof the gospel ministry. This object is the redemption of mankind from\nmoral darkness, which is the whole occasion of moral evil, and to\nproduce that improvement in the religious world which science is\ndesigned to effect in the political. It is to bring truth to light, to\ncommend the character of God to man, to lead all men into the true\nknowledge, spirit, and temper of the divine nature. Thus we discover\nin Jesus no partialist, no sectarian, no friend to any one\ndenomination, more than another. And when he had accomplished, by his\nsufferings, what the prophets had foretold, he then sent his gospel of\nthe love and mercy of God to the whole world. His divinely inspired\napostles followed the examples of their leader and preached the\nuniversal, impartial goodness of God to all men, and confirmed their\nmission by similar miracles to those wrought by Jesus.\n\nYou further inquire the grounds on which we are to believe Jesus and\nhis apostles respecting a future state. Reply, on the same ground on\nwhich we believe them in other matters, viz. because they have proved\nthe divinity of their mission or appointment to teach truth by the\npower of the God of truth. See 2 Cor. xii. 12, \"Truly the signs of an\napostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders,\nand mighty deeds.\" You need not be told that an _apostle_ is a\nmessenger, and that a messenger must have a mission. What then were\nthe signs of St. Paul's mission? Answer, patience, signs, wonders, and\nmighty deeds. Jesus is said to be the great _apostle_, and high priest\nof our profession, and he evinced his apostleship by signs, by\nwonders, and mighty deeds. Now, sir, as these signs were designed to\nprove to us that Jesus and his apostles were divinely inspired, so\nthey are the ground on which we may safely believe their testimony in\nall things.\n\nIf your inquiry extends further than the plain statements and facts\ngo, you will at once see that they go beyond the demands of reason,\nfor it is an unreasonable thing to require of an uninspired person any\nfurther account concerning the way by which an inspired man knows what\nhe says to be true, than it has pleased God to enable his messenger to\nmake known.\n\nWhen the pharisees asked the man who was born blind, to whom Jesus had\ngiven sight, \"What sayest thou of him? that he hath opened thine eyes?\nhe said, he is a prophet.\" How comes this man to believe that Jesus\nwas a prophet? Because the sign of a messenger of God had been given.\nIf the pharisees had asked him, how he knew that Jesus was a prophet,\nwould he not answer them by the miracle wrought upon him? If they\nshould further ask him of particulars, how Jesus could be a prophet,\nhow he knew things which others did not know, would they have\ndiscovered any wisdom in their questions? or would he have discovered\nany in attempting to answer them?\n\nIf I may further remark on the mission of Jesus and his apostles, it\nseems reasonable to say that it comprehends the whole doctrine of the\ngospel, that is to say, they were appointed to preach the gospel which\ncomprehends the whole ministry of reconciliation, or a manifestation\nof reconciling truth. There is, therefore, no truth in the gospel\nwhich is not calculated in its nature to reconcile man to God, when\nsuch truth is understood.\n\nIf our heavenly Father had from all eternity predestinated far the\ngreatest part of mankind to a state of endless un-reconciliation, the\nrevelation of this to them who were thus destined, could have no\neffect in reconciling them to God. What had Jesus or his apostles to\ndo with such doctrine as this? Nothing. They make no mention of any\nsuch thing. If according to the vain traditions received from the\nwisdom of this world that cometh to nought, our tender babes were\ndoomed to everlasting wrath for the sin of the first man who lived on\nearth, the manifestation of such a truth could reconcile none of those\nvictims to this God of unmerciful vengeance. But what had Jesus to do\nwith such blasphemous doctrine? See him as the representative of God,\nas the great apostle of heaven to man, notice what he does and what he\nsays. He takes young children in his arms and blesses them, he says\nsuffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of\nsuch is the kingdom of heaven. If our Creator was full of wrath and\nvindictive vengeance towards sinners, the manifestation of such a\ntruth would by no means reconcile sinners to God; but when God\ncommendeth his love towards the sinner through the mission, ministry,\nor dispensation of Jesus Christ, such truth when revealed, naturally\nreconciles the sinner to God. God is eternally the same, his love is\nthe same, his will to do his creatures good is always the same, and\nhis means to carry his good will into effect are always at his\ncommand.\n\nJesus taught sinners, enemies to God, that God to whom they were\nenemies, loved them. This he demonstrated by the rain and sun shine\nwhich was communicated to the evil and the good, and this impartial\nlove of God, he urged as the perfect pattern for our imitation, and\nset it up as the mark where lies the prize to be won by our Christian\nvocation. I say unto you love your enemies, pray for them that use you\nspitefully and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your\nFather which is in heaven; that is, that you may imitate him in your\nconduct and moral character. Now, sir, what has all this to do about\nreconciling God to man? What has it to do about appeasing divine\nwrath? If Jesus taught the doctrine of God's love to sinners, and our\ndoctrine taught by our Christian doctors of God's wrath and hatred\ntowards sinners be true, the matter is settled at once. These doctors\nbeing ministers of divine truth, Jesus may be any thing else, but he\ncannot be an apostle and high priest of God.\n\nBut I need not extend this article, you are as well persuaded of the\nerroneousness of these doctrines of men as I am; but it belongs to\nthis subject, to take a general view of the ministry of Jesus and his\napostles. It is so especially, because this view shows at once the\nnecessity as well as the nature of this divine ministry. If you view\nthe nature of truth as you have heretofore expressed it, and as I am\nconfident you do, you cannot reasonably doubt the necessity of having\nit manifested to the world.\n\nIt was necessary then for God to endue one with this ministry of\ntruth, it is reasonable that others, being taught by him should be\nappointed to the same ministry; but you will see at once that truth\ncould not be preached to the Jews without moving the superstitious\nscribes, pharisees, and doctors of the law against it, this opposition\nhid its natural tendency, and terminated in the death of the divine\nteacher; and if the disciples had gone on and preached the same\ndoctrine, reason would suppose that they would all have been put to\ndeath immediately, and the work of reformation would have stopped.\nNow, sir, if I am able to reason at all, it was necessary for God to\nmake a display of divine power in vindicating truth, which would place\nit on ground too high for all the superstition of the world to remove.\nYou contend that the voice of reason should be heard. What does it\nsay? It says that God produced man in the first place on this earth,\nin a different way from that by which man is now multiplied. Reason\nsays, there was a necessity for this; but it does not say that the\nmeans of procreation now do not answer even a better purpose than to\nhave man multiplied by the same means by which he came first to exist.\nThe same reason will contend that in the establishment of the gospel\nministry in the world, different means were necessary from those which\nare successfully employed in perpetuating it.\n\n3d. You contend that the Christian hope of a future happy existence,\nis not necessary to our present happiness; and that there is nothing\nmore disagreeable in the thought of an eternal cessation of existence,\nthan there is in the thought of reposing ourselves in quiet sleep.\nNotwithstanding what you say about non existence, all your play on\nwords makes no difference about the thing talked of. Nor do I see that\nreason in your observations on this subject, for which you contend.\nYou very well know that to cease to possess an identity of being and\nof intellect is what we mean by non-existence, and this is just the\nthing for which you argue. Now when we contemplate taking refreshment\nin sleep, it is in hope of awaking again in a better condition for\nenjoying ourselves and others, and for the performance of our duty.\nBut the contemplation of passing out of existence, never to have\nanother thought is certainly very widely different as to the nature of\nthe subject, from the former. Now, sir, why should not these different\nsubjects produce different sensations in the mind? And wherein one is\nentirely repugnant to the other, why is it not reasonable that the\ncontemplation of them should be attended with effects in the mind as\nrepugnant to each other as are the subjects? If it be a pleasure to a\nparent to contemplate, when he retires to rest with his family, the\nexpectation of seeing them again in the morning, all refreshed and\ninvigorated anew is it not reasonable to suppose that a contemplation\nexactly reverse from this would produce mental pain? I can conceive,\nwithout any violation of my reason or senses, how a fond mother can\ntake satisfaction in nursing her babe to sleep, knowing that the\ntender being needs this repose; but I cannot conceive how the same\naffectionate mother could be equally pleased with the thought that her\nchild would never wake again in time or in eternity. I feel grateful\nto the giver of every good and perfect gift, that he has given that\nblessed hope which is as an anchor to the soul, whereby the Christian\nin his dying hour is enabled to take a short farewell of his friends,\nexpressing his hope of meeting them soon in a better world. And I\nthink it unreasonable, even in the extreme, to suppose that a rational\nperson could, in a similar situation, feel as well satisfied with an\nexpectation of an extinction of being.\n\nYou fault the address to truth, which you say I put into the mouth of\nyour argument, but this you do without the least occasion, nor is it\nin your power, sir, to show that your argument does not afford all I\nhave made it say. You might, or rather you have varied the language a\nlittle, but the sentiment is preserved entire. The address to truth\nwould, as before, extoll her existence, express the most ardent and\nconstant love for her divinity and finish the climax by _soaring down_\nto non-existence, which you can contemplate with as much satisfaction\nas you could an eternal existence in the enjoyment of the object of\nyour love!\n\nBut you contend that truth is lovely, and if your doubts are\nconsistent with truth you shall be happy to be confirmed in them; &c.\nThis hypothesis, sir, is too large to suit your own views; for you\nhave before decided a choice between the doctrine of eternal misery\nand that of, I will call it, annihilation for this is its true\nmeaning. You have revolted at the thought of eternal misery, but your\nhypothesis allows you no such liberty. Truth is lovely, and if the\ndoctrine of eternal punishment, with all the fire and brimstone that\nhas ever been preached by the most zealous advocates of torment be\ntruth, your hypothesis compels you to embrace the goddess, and\ncontemplate eternal misery with the same pleasure that you do\nnon-existence, or with the same you would everlasting felicity did you\nbelieve in it!\n\nIf we would reason well, we must reason from what we know. We know\nthat man is capable of being miserable, he is capable of great\nsufferings; likewise he is capable of being happy, he is capable of\ngreat enjoyments. Now to pretend that he has no choice, that it is as\nwell for him to be miserable as to be happy, as well for him not to\nexist as to exist, is the reverse of reason.\n\n4th. As Jesus, in the instructions which he gave to his disciples,\nrespecting their conduct towards their enemies, had no design reaching\nto the laws of a body politic, but only to the conduct by which the\nministry of the gospel would best succeed in its early beginning,\nwhile it was _necessary_ for it to be persecuted, by which we are now\nfavoured with its evidences, we may now err in applying those\ninstructions differently from their primary design. St. Paul, as much\nas any of the disciples of Jesus, submitted himself to the directions\nof non-resistance, yet he insists on submission to the higher powers,\nbecause they were the ministers of God, even revengers to execute\nwrath upon them that do evil.\n\n5th. With a confidence rather unusual, you challenge me to account for\nJesus' not being known by the two disciples while he walked with them\non their way to Emmaus; you bring a comparison, and urge the subject\nin a way to signify that you have found something in the scripture\naccount that \"_refutes itself_.\" You might have considered Mary's case\ntoo as a similar one. She saw Jesus with whom she had had a familiar\nacquaintance, but she thought it had been the gardner, and talked with\nhim without knowing him, until, in the same manner as he used to\naddress her, he said _Mary_, when in a moment she knew him. So the two\nbrethren walked on the way with Jesus, and attended to his\nconversation, which must have been of considerable length, yet knew\nhim not until he performed an office at table in which no doubt, he\nappeared as he had done many times before, which led them to know him\nat once. But I am called on to tell how they could walk and discourse\nwith him and not know him. Well, sir, do you not understand that your\nquestion is asked on supposition that the miracle of the resurrection\nwas a fact, and on the supposition that Jesus could appear and\ndisappear to persons as he pleased? We are informed that when the two\nbrethren knew him, \"he vanished out of their sight.\" On the\nsupposition then, that Jesus could appear and disappear at pleasure,\nis it at all difficult to allow that he could appear to his\nacquaintance as a stranger, if he pleased?\n\nIt seems to me, sir, a little unaccountable why you should take hold\nof this subject with so much seeming earnestness. Is it possible that\nyou should suppose that the fate of this particular should have any\npower on our general subject? Without the least concern for the\nargument in which I am engaged, I might allow that St. Luke was\nwrongly informed respecting this particular, but that he wrote it just\nas he understood the matter. And what would follow? Would this prove\nany thing false on which christianity rests? I am unable to see how it\naffects the argument one way or the other. I am not the less inclined\nto believe the account, because it does not affect the truth of the\nresurrection; and I should think that as this story does not seem at\nall necessary in proof of that fact, it would be considered an\nevidence that the writer of it was not endeavouring to make a story\nfor such a purpose. If we read the several accounts of the\nresurrection, we shall perceive that the writers probably put down as\nmany particulars as come into their minds at the time of writing,\nwithout thoughts coming into their minds how the truth of the\nresurrection would be proved by the incidents which they wrote. There\nis no design of this sort in what they have written that we can see.\nThey write as if they knew for certainty that Jesus rose from the\ndead, and as if the matter was out of all dispute. They discover no\nconcern for fear the account they were giving would not be believed.\nThere is not one instance of an attempt to guard the story by clearing\nup any difficulty. Would impostors write in this way? It is not\nbelieved that there was ever the instance. Imposture is like a thief\nwho starts at his own shadow, and discovers guilt by endeavouring to\nhide it. But truth having no concern of this sort, discovers\nnone.--And this is in all respects the apparent character of the four\ngospels.\n\n6th. Your criticism on my argument respecting the evidences of the\nresurrection I shall now endeavour to show to be incorrect.\n\nYou criticise as follows; \"The apostles could not have been convinced\nof the fact of the resurrection by any evidence short of the fact\nitself. 2d. If the fact did exist there is no evidence which can\ncounterbalance it. _Ergo_, as the apostles were convinced of the\ntruth, the fact did exist. This is pretty much like saying, if the\nfact were _true_ it could not have been false!\"\n\nThe first member of your criticism supposes that I contend that the\napostles had no evidence of the resurrection but the fact itself. The\nsecond member of your criticism supposes that I contend the fact of\nthe resurrection could not exist without proving itself to the\napostles in such a way that no evidence could counterbalance it. Now\nin both of these you are under a mistake, I never urged the fact of\nthe resurrection as evidence of itself to the apostles. I never\npretended that they saw him rise. We have no account that any body saw\nthis act performed. If the apostles had stood by the sepulchre and had\nseen the body of Jesus rise up and walk out of the house of death,\nthen their evidences of his resurrection would have been the fact\nitself; but this was not the case, nor did I use any intimations of\nthis nature. So the first member of your criticism is an error of\nyours. 2dly. If Jesus had rose from the dead and ascended into heaven,\nand never had given any proofs of this to any one, would the fact of\nhis having risen be any evidence of itself to any person? It surely\nwould not. Nor have I suggested any thing which intimates that the\nresurrection could not have been true without proving itself to be so\nto the apostles. What seems a little remarkable respecting this\nsubject, is, you profess to care for nothing but simple truth, and yet\nyou seem to study how to avoid it, as the above criticism seems to\nevince. I say _seems_ to evince, for I am not prepared to accuse you\nof such a fault--I would charitably believe that you thought your\ncriticism would hit something or another nearly about right, without\nunderstanding what the amount of it is.\n\nAfter having laboured, in a lengthy manner, as you acknowledge, to\nprove that the evidences which proved to the apostles the truth of the\nresurrection could not be counterbalanced, you must reasonably suppose\nthat I feel a little disappointed that you should condescend to pay no\nother attention to my reasoning than the above criticism. If I did not\nmake my argument clear why should you neglect to point out to me\nwherein it was wanting? Why should I not expect to have my errors\ncorrected, as well as to be called on to correct my brother's? Should\nnot these kind offices be reciprocal? If you conduct in this way, I\nshall certainly grow vain, and boast of doing more for you, than you\ndo for me.\n\nHaving noticed in a brief manner, the several particulars which were\nproposed on my first page, I will occupy a few more with some\nobservations on the evidences which we are favoured with, on which to\nbuild our belief in the resurrection of Jesus.\n\nI have in one or two instances referred you to Paley, who has, with\nabilities and learning suited to such a task, brought forward the\nauthorities on which the credibility of the gospels rests. I have set\ndown his eleven propositions respecting the scriptures, and I humbly\nrequest you to examine the proof which he has brought to support them.\nIf he has fairly supported all these propositions, as I humbly\nconceive he has, will you show why the scriptures of the New Testament\nare not worthy to be credited by us?\n\nI am loath to attempt to present the evidences on which I conceive our\nfaith rests, because in the first place they are vastly numerous;\n2ndly, I do not believe that I am capable of doing that justice to the\nsubject which it justly claims; and 3dly, Paley has done it by the\nassistance of Dr. Lardner's works, to so great an extent, that it\nrenders unnecessary any attempt of mine.\n\nHowever, as there seems a particular sort of pleasure in it, I will\nhere make a little addition to what I quoted in my former\ncommunication, and notice that, following the passage from the epistle\nof Barnabas, Paley mentions an epistle written by Clement, bishop of\nRome,[4] another of St. Paul's fellow labourers. \"This epistle is\nspoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and as\nIren\u00e6us well represents its value,\" \"written by CLEMENT, who had seen\nthe blessed apostles and conversed with them, who had the preaching of\nthe apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before\nhis eyes.\" In this epistle of _Clement_, he quotes Mat. v. 7, xviii.\n6. Next to _Clement_, Paley notices _Hermes_ who is mentioned by St.\nPaul, Rom. xvi. 14, in a catalogue of Roman Christians. Hermes wrote a\nwork called the _Shepherd or Pastor of Hermes_.[5] Says our author,\n\"Its antiquity is incontestible from the quotations of it in Iren\u00e6us,\nA.D. 178, Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194, Tertullian, A.D. 200,\nOrigen, A. D. 230.\" In the epistle there are allusions to St.\nMatthew's, St. Luke's, and St. John's gospels.\n\n[Footnote 4: Paley's Evidences, p. 107. Referred to Dr. Lardner's\nCreed, vol. 1, p. 62, et seq.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Paley's Evidences, p. 110. Lardner's Creed, vol. 1, p.\n111.]\n\nNext to Hermes our author mentions IGNATIUS, who became bishop of\nAntioch, about thirty-seven years after the ascension of Christ; and\nwas without doubt personally acquainted with the apostles. Epistles of\nIgnatius are referred to by Polycarp his contemporary. Passages, found\nin the epistles now extant under his name, are quoted by Iren\u00e6us, A.D.\n178, by Origen, A.D. 130. In these epistles there are various\nundoubted allusions to the gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Of\nthese allusions the following are clear specimens: \"Christ was\nbaptised of John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him.\"\n\"_Be ye wise as serpents_ in all things, _and harmless as doves_.\"\n\"Yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it knows whence\nit comes, and whether it goes.\" \"He (Christ) is the door of the\nFather, by which enters in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and the\napostles and the church.\" Ignatius speaks of St Paul in terms of high\nrespect, and quotes his epistles to the Ephesians by name.\n\nNext to Ignatius, our author mentions POLYCARP who had been taught by\nthe apostles; had conversed with many who had seen Christ, was also by\nthe apostles appointed bishop of Smyrna. This testimony concerning\nPolycarp is given by Iren\u00e6us, who in his youth had seen him. \"I can\ntell the place,\" saith Iren\u00e6nus, \"in which the blessed Polycarp sat\nand taught, and his going out and coming in, and the manner of his\nlife, and the form of his person, and the discourses he made to the\npeople, and how he related his conversation with John amid others who\nhad seen the Lord, and how he related their sayings, and what he had\nheard concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his\ndoctrine, as he had received them from the eye witness of the word of\nlife: all which Polycarp related _agreeably_ to the scriptures.\"\n\nIn one short letter of Polycarp's, there are near forty clear\nallusions to books of the New Testament: which is strong evidence of\nthe respect which Christians of that age hear for these books, and\npositive evidence that the gospel had been written before this\nepistle.\n\nPapias, a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Iren\u00e6us\nattests, and of that age, as all agree, expressly ascribes the\nrespective gospels to Matthew and Mark, in a passage quoted by\nEusebius. He informs us that Mark collected his gospel from Peter's\npreaching, and that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. This authority\nfully shows that the gospels bore these names at this early period.\n\nThe authors which are here mentioned, all lived in the days of the\napostles, that is, when the apostles were aged men, these were their\npupils in the gospel, and their epistles which have reference to the\ngospels are very justly used to prove that the gospels were written by\nthe men whose names they bear. From these most early authors, Paley\ngoes on, and brings down, by regular succession, the christian\nauthors, until he comes into the fourth century, when they are vastly\nnumerous.\n\nBy the foregoing authority, together with an innumerable multitude of\ncorroborating circumstances, we are led to entertain no doubts but\nthat the gospels of Matthew and John were written by these eye\nwitnesses of the things which they relate; and that the gospel of Luke\nwas written by a person of this name, who had his information from\nundoubted testimony of the apostles; and that Mark wrote his gospel\nfrom St. Peter's mouth, and that this gospel may be called the gospel\nof Peter.\n\nThose eye witnesses then wrote what they saw, and if they were honest\nmen they wrote the truth.\n\nWe, sir, do certainly know as well as we know any thing which ancient\nhistory records, that the testimony of the miracles and resurrection\nof Jesus was believed in the age to which these things are referred,\nand that this testimony was sealed by the sufferings and death of vast\nmultitudes of believers.\n\nIt should be noticed, that according to all accounts which have come\nto us, there were no worldly motives of any sort by which the\npropagators of the gospel were induced to labour in this cause. But on\nthe contrary, every earthly consideration was direct against them; and\nfurthermore let us remember, that the whole hierarchy of the Jews and\nall the superstition of the Gentiles were in arms against this\nreligion, as I have before observed, nearly 300 years.\n\nHoping, dear brother, that these hasty remarks will be favourably\nreceived, and duly considered. I remain,\n\nYours, &c.\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. IX.\n\n[As the objector here begins to give up his ground, his letters from\nthis place will be given nearly entire. He commences this number as\nfollows, viz.]\n\n\"_Dear sir and brother_--Your reply to my seventh number has been\nreceived, and hereby duly acknowledged. I have just given it a second\nreading, with peculiar care and attention; and I must add, generally\nspeaking, with peculiar satisfaction too; for as it has tended in some\ndegree to revive my almost extinguished faith in divine revelation, so\nit has in the same ratio served to obliterate, in some degree, those\ndoubts which seemed to be rising _mountains high_, in my apprehension,\nand portended ere long to overturn all my former faith.\n\n\"There are some of my objections, however, which seem not yet to have\nbeen fully met on their proper ground, and of course not fully\nremoved; and I must therefore be yet indulged with a few remarks.\n\n\"1st. Notwithstanding all the learning of the Greeks and Romans, in\nthe days of Jesus and his apostles, yet, as you very justly insinuate,\nI am inclined to believe there never was a time in which 'the world of\nhuman kind, both Jews and Gentiles, was more deeply involved in the\ndarkness and stupidity of superstition than when the Messiah (i. e.\nJesus) entered on his public ministry.' And notwithstanding your\nargument drawn from superstition, is admitted as good, and weighty, as\nfar as it goes; yet, as it is conceived, it does not fully come to the\npoint.\n\n\"For, in the grossest ages of superstition it is reasonable to suppose\nthat there are always some who entertain serious doubts and scruples\nin regard to the propriety of many of the superstitious notions of\ntheir leaders. These will be more easily wrought upon. And although\nthey may be directed by various circumstances to fix the mind upon\nsomething much better in point of moral principle, yet how far this\nwould prevent them from connecting many of the superstitious notions\nof the age with those moral principles, only giving them a different\ndress, I am not able to say; neither do I see how the superstition of\nthe Jews and Gentiles, generally, would be likely to prevent a thing\nof that kind.--It is the suspected superstition of the apostles and\nprimitive christians and not the superstition of their opposers, to\nwhich the proposition alludes. Men, I conceive, may be honest, and yet\nsuperstitious; they may also give up one superstition, by being\nconvinced of its error, and yet another will gradually grow in its\nstead. I am sensible, however, that this argument will better apply to\nthose who were converted to christianity after the days of the\napostles, when it is agreed that miracles had ceased, than it will to\nthe apostles themselves.\n\n\"But, from what you have written, together with my further\ninvestigation of this subject, I cannot but perceive that this\nargument, even on its proper ground, does not contain all that force\nwhich, at first view, I thought it might: because, 1st, it must apply\nto the apostles, or else, as it respects the main question, it does\nnot seem to have any real bearing on the subject; and 2dly, the change\nof the appostles appears to have been too sudden, and too\nextraordinary, to be accounted for in this way. That superstitions,\nhowever, have arisen, even in the christian church, you do not\nundertake to deny, but seem rather to admit; and it was on this fact\nthat the first proposition was founded; but I perceive there is a\ndifficulty in carrying this objection back to the apostles; for then\nthe doctrine was new, and without precedent; and (unless the miracles\non which it is said to have been founded were real) without any\ncertain prospect of success. Although therefore the religion of the\ndespised _Galatians_ (for such were the christians called by the\nRomans) was considered by their persecutors, to be nothing more than a\ngross, and even impious superstition, yet no one can expect\nsuccessfully to account 'in a rational way,' for the facts, whether\nreal or supposed, on which that supposed superstition is said to have\nbeen founded. Hence the doubts growing out of my first proposition\nseem to be rendered equally, if not more doubtful than the reality of\nthat truth, the evidence of which this objection was supposed in some\ndegree to counterbalance.\n\n\"2d. The truth of my second proposition, viz. that a part of mankind\nat least have been and still are believing in miracles and revelations\nwhich are spurious, you seem not disposed to deny; but yet, at the\nsame time you think you are 'under no obligation to admit this fact as\nany evidence against christianity.' That a spurious or pretended\nmiracle does not invalidate a real one I admit; yet if a spurious\nmiracle may obtain credit, and be in fact believed, it raises a query\nwhether there have ever been any others but spurious. Your argument\nrespecting 'counterfeit money' is admitted good in relation to that\nsubject, but whether it will apply with equal weight to the subject of\nmiracles may admit of a doubt. I do not see how the pretended miracles\nof the Shakers are at all 'dependent' on the miracles of Jesus for\ntheir 'imposition.'\n\n\"I meant nothing more by the miracles of Mahomet than his pretended\n'correspondence with the angel Gabriel,' which I considered, if true,\n_miraculous_; as I conceive every revelation must be let it be\ncommunicated how it will.\n\n\"I have nothing to object to the picture which you have given of the\nlife and religion of Mahomet; and as to what I have said in regard to\nthe conversion and influence of Constantine, in giving a particular\ntone to the christian religion, you are not disposed to disagree with\nme: and at the same time you are 'by no means certain that a proper\nattention to the pretended miracles of the Shakers might not issue in\nassigning a natural cause for them.' Of all this I have no doubt. But,\nthat these miracles are believed by the Shakers, you do not undertake\nto deny; nor that their religion, their faith in Ann, as being Christ\nin his second coming, and that their present mode of worship are all\npredicated upon them. They do not deny the miracles of Christ and his\napostles any more than Christians in general deny the miracles of\nMoses and the prophets; but appeal to _theirs_ as being equally of\ndivine origin, and thereby clothing their religion with the same\ndivine authority. Now, unless these things can be accounted for 'in a\nrational way,' which you seem to think may be the case, though you do\nnot attempt it, they certainly raise a query in the mind at least\nwhether the miracles recorded in scripture rest upon any better\nfoundation.\n\n\"If a thing is absolutely known or believed to be miraculous, it is\nmiraculous; (at least to those who thus believe) and whether any thing\ncan be justly argued from the inferiority or superiority of a miracle,\nI know not. In the raising of Lazarus, it is true, though the effect\nwas the same, we discover as great a miracle, and perhaps greater,\nthan in the raising of a son of the Shunamite by Elisha the prophet; 2\nKings iv. 34, 35, but the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus can\nhardly be said to have been wrought either by Jesus or by his\napostles, and therefore that was not particularly referred to in the\ncomparison of miracles; neither do I know that the comparison, in any\nsense, has much weight. Whether Lazarus ever died again or not we are\nnot informed: neither do I recollect of ever hearing an opinion on the\nsubject; but, if he died, it seems that his resurrection must have\nbeen very different from the resurrection of Jesus; i.e. to an\nimmortal state, so that he 'dieth no more.'\n\n\"You admit, if I understood you, that the testimony of the apostles,\nconcerning the resurrection of Jesus, had it not been accompanied with\nplain and astonishing miracles in the open day, and before the\nsurrounding multitudes, who had ocular demonstration of their truth,\nwould have been entitled to no more credit than the testimony of Mrs.\nA----, respecting her conversation with her deceased husband. For\nalthough it might have been true, and we could have no good reason to\ndoubt the sincerity or belief of the witnesses, yet after all, its\ntruth would solely rest on their mere _ipse dixit_, which would not be\nsufficient to establish so important a truth in the world. Hence, as\nyou very justly observe, 'the declaration of the apostles of the\nresurrection of Jesus, until it was accompanied with power from on\nhigh, was never even communicated to the public, or ordered to be\ncommunicated.'\n\n\"In this manner I understood your reasoning, and I think I understand\nyou correctly; and all this appears to be very candid; it is\nacknowledging all I would wish you to acknowledge on this subject. But\nhere comes the difficulty. Miracles in process of time cease; and now\npeople must believe, if they believe at all, without the testimony's\nbeing 'accompanied with power from on high.' And how can we believe in\nthe miracles said to have been wrought by the apostles, without the\ntestimony's being accompanied by miracles any more than they could at\nfirst believe in the miracles of the resurrection of Jesus without the\ntestimony's being accompanied by miracles? You have already\nanticipated this objection, and have endeavoured to answer it by\narguing that 'perpetual miracles would, if as powerful as they were at\nfirst, preclude the exercise of our reasoning faculties and the\nnecessity of investigation, which is one of the most rational\nenjoyments of which we are capable.' Although this argument, it is\nconfessed, has considerable weight, yet it does not seem wholly to\nremove the difficulty. I feel very much like those Jews who proposed\nthe question to Jesus; 'how long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou\nbe the Christ tell us plainly.' I am not satisfied that the evidence\nof the truth of the resurrection is as great, at this day, whatever it\nwas then, as it could have been. If Jesus had remained on the earth\ntill this time, or if he had appeared to every generation since, it\nappears to me the evidence would have been much greater; and yet not\nso great as to 'preclude the exercise of our reasoning faculties.'\n\n\"In your statement respecting the controversy between _Unitarians_ and\n_Trinitarians_, it appears to me you have left out some very important\ncircumstances which ought to have been taken into the account to have\nmade it any thing near a parallel. You seem to have forgotten the\ndestruction of the Jews by the Romans about the time the books of the\nNew Testament are said to have been written; during which calamity, as\nthe history of those times inform us, about one million one hundred\nthousand Jews were cut off, and among whom, it is more than probable,\nall their leaders, who were then concerned in the death of Jesus, were\nincluded; and only about ninety-seven thousand, not a tenth part, were\ntaken prisoners. The Jews in the adjacent countries, however, probably\nare not taken into this account, but they were all equally subdued to\nthe Romans. And if the power of the Jews were so limited at the\ncrucifixion of Jesus that they could not lawfully put a man to death\nwithout liberty from the Roman governor, what must we suppose was\ntheir power after the destruction of their city and temple? On a\nreview of the subject, therefore, I think you will perceive that your\ncase, however plausibly stated, falls very far short of being a\nparallel. We may well suppose, I think, that the Jews were so humbled\nby the Romans, that, 1st, they had not the power; and, 2dly, they\nmight not under these circumstances be inclined any longer to\npersecute and put to death the christians. And this was the only way\nit seems, at that day, that either Jews or Gentiles thought of putting\ndown what they considered heresy or superstition. I consider therefore\nthe destruction of the Jews as giving a very favourable opportunity to\nget up a new system of religion, partly or wholly based on theirs, but\na little removed from it, so as to neglect the use of sacrifices,\nwhich, if I mistake not, according to the Jewish traditions, could\nonly be offered at Jerusalem. And the long lapse of time, before the\ndogmas of this new sect was attempted to be refuted by argument gave\nan opportunity to involve the supposed facts on which the christian\nreligion is predicated in such obscurity, that it stands now in no\ndanger of refutation from that source. Some may be made to doubt,\nothers to disbelieve, but nevertheless no one can prove it false.\n\n\"If it be proved true, however, it must be proved from the record\nwhich we have; for I know of nothing which can now add much weight to\nthat testimony, unless it be the fulfilment of some sinking prophecies\nwhich yet remain to be fulfilled, or else the return of miraclous\npowers and a new revelation in further confirmation of what we already\nhave. And if what we have be true, it seems we have a right to expect,\nere long, something of the kind. The ten last chapters of the prophecy\nof Ezekiel, I think no one will pretend has ever been fulfilled, as\nyet; and when fulfilled, the events will prove the divine inspiration\nof that prophecy. But if it should never be fulfilled, or its\nfulfilment be delayed till the Jews every where should give up all\nhope and expectation of any thing of this kind; and should, through\nunbelief, neglect their present customs, as many of them already have\ndone, by intermarrying with other nations, and thereby should become\nboth lost to themselves and to the world, which would be the same as\nthough they were extinct, I apprehend that no confidence would be\nplaced in that part of the prophecy after such a period. In like\nmanner the fulfilment or the non-fulfilment of the following words\nwill have a similar effect. 'This same Jesus, which is taken up from\nyou into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go\ninto heaven.' Some pretend to say that even this prophecy has been\nalready fulfilled; but we have no evidence of it, and I think we may\nsay the prophecy in Ezekiel, above mentioned, has been fulfilled, with\nas much propriety. But this is rather off the point.\n\n\"In regard to the death of Stephen, notwithstanding his trial seems to\nhave been by the council, yet the manner of his death, as stated,\nseems to have been rather turbulent than otherwise. 'When they heard\nthese things they were cut to the heart, and _they_ (whether the\ncouncil, or the spectators I cannot say) gnashed on him with their\nteeth--then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears,\nand ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and\nstoned him.' Such proceedings at this day, as this appears to have\nbeen, we should be inclined to call a _mob_, let it bear what other\nappellation it may.\n\n\"That the first martyrs, however, did, from some circumstance or\nother, believe in the resurrection of Jesus, on which all their hope\nseems to have been predicated, I think cannot admit of a rational\ndoubt. For to suppose otherwise, supposes such madness and folly in\nthose unfortunate men, who suffered every thing which could be\ninflicted upon them rather than to give up their testimony; that it\nseems nothing can be a parallel, unless it be the madness and folly of\nsuch unreasonable doubts.[6] And this seems to be all for which you\ncontend, as it respects the present query; because you seem to think\nthe first believers in this all-important truth could not have\nbelieved by any evidence which could have existed had it not been for\nthe truth of the fact believed in. Now here is the mistake, as I\nconceive, if there be any; i.e. in supposing that the apostles and\nprimitive Christians could not believe short of such indubitable\nevidence. Only suppose the resurrection to have been actually\nbelieved, by any evidence, or any circumstance whatever, no matter\nwhat, for it makes no difference in this argument, and the report\nwould naturally be like all other reports of such an extraordinary\nnature. Both zeal and imagination would be enlisted on the side of its\ntruth. Extraordinary discourses would be put into the mouths of the\nmartyrs, after they were dead, as well as extraordinary deeds into\ntheir hands; and altho' contradicted ever so many times by their\nenemies and persecutors, yet the contradictions would never so out run\nthe report but that many would still believe. When much strength of\ntestimony had been thus added, by verbal reports, during twenty or\nthirty years, let a few men undertake to paint up real histories and\nletters in the name of the first disciples, and let these be kept in\nthe hands of those who are strong in the faith, and let them be read\nfor a long time, only in their own assemblies or churches although\nthey might contain something of which they had not before heard, this\nis only what would be natural for them to expect, and as it contained\nthe main thing which was the object of faith, and those other things,\nif true, went to establish their faith still more, who would be likely\nto call the truth of such writings in question? Not those who believe\nin the main question certainly. They would be a thousand times more\nlikely to pass over in silence things of which they had some scruples,\nfor the sake of the main question, then they would be to endanger the\ntruth of the main question, as they might think they should, by\ncriticising on mere circumstantial things. I am not now speaking of\nthe apostles, whom I have considered _honest_ men; yet I should\nsuppose that even these men might have much good at heart, although\nthey should conduct exactly in the way which I have suggested. And how\nlittle time would it require to put this matter beyond all possible\nrefutation? Not so long, I conceive, as did elapse before that work\nwas attempted by Celsus.\n\n[Footnote 6: I have here expressed myself in strong terms, with a view\nto check my doubts and prevent their running wild.]\n\n\"You will see by this, sir, in what light my argument views the\napostles. It does not suppose 'that the apostles would enforce their\nmoral doctrine with their pretentions to miraculous powers,' although\nthey might with the 'testimony of the resurrection of Jesus,' but it\nsupposes that their successors might contend that the apostles worked\nmiracles, and many of them might believe that they did, just as the\napostles believed in the resurrection, when no such thing as the\nresurrection or the miracles of the apostles ever existed in fact.\nThis is what the argument supposes, and it is wholly predicated on the\npossibility of the apostles' being made to believe, some how or other,\nI do not pretend to say how, that Jesus had risen from the dead when\nno such thing had taken place. But, only believe in the resurrection,\nand there is no difficulty in believing in the miracles of Jesus or\nthe miracles of his apostles. They are equally well attested, and no\nmore improbable. Yea, if they were true, they were not _believed_, but\nabsolutely _known_ to be true by the apostles. They knew it as well as\nthey could know the truth of any object of sight. And the truth of\nwhat they knew being all which they needed in support of what they\ntaught, I do not see, on this supposition, how they could have the\noccasion, or the motive, to state one thing falsely concerning it. No,\nnor could their followers have any occasion to add to their testimony,\nfor nothing which they could add would be of any more weight than that\nwhich we may suppose was already in their possession. The two first\nchapters of Matthew and Luke (or all except the genealogy in Matthew,\nand the preface of Luke) the authenticity of which has been suspected\nby some of the learned, and I believe not without pretty good reasons,\ndo not contain a single word in support of the resurrection; neither\nis the subject of them, as I now recollect, mentioned either by Christ\nor any of the apostles in any other part of the New Testament. And\nalthough the truth of those narratives is no more miraculous than the\nresurrection, yet I presume you would not contend that a belief of\nthese, also, is absolutely necessary to the Christian faith.\n\n\"With these observations, I shall once more, and probably for the last\ntime quit my second proposition, and proceed to take notice of what\nyou have written on my third.\n\n\"And here you must pardon me if I remark, without the least view of\nfinding any fault, that if my words will admit of a bad construction,\nthat construction seems to be the first one which strikes your mind.\nIf you suppose me capable of such an abominable absurdity as to say,\nthat if the man of this town who was born blind should be restored to\nhis sight by some one's anointing his eyes with clay and spittle, and\nthis done in our presence, we could not know it! that we could not\nknow but that the seeing man was a total stranger whom we had never\nbefore seen, and that the blind man had absconded no body knows how or\nwhere! I say, if this was the way in which you understood my third\nproposition, you are perfectly excusable: otherwise, it is difficult\nto account for your remarks. But, having thus found your antagonist,\nyou level your artillery against him, nor desist until you have put to\ndeath without mercy this creature of your own fruitful imagination.\nHaving done, you begin to query whether you had not mistaken my\nmeaning; and after making a wonderful effort, by calling up these\npenetrating powers of research, which are only summoned on\nextraordinary occasions, you dive through the mists of obscurity, in\nwhich my words seem to be too often placed, and behold my proposition\nin its true light!\n\n\"My proposition is no sooner seen than 'granted': which is, that we\nhave no positive knowledge of miracles; or, to use your own words,\n'miracles are not now wrought before our eyes.' But although you grant\nthe truth of my proposition, you do not admit that this is any\nobjection against the truth of divine revelation, for a number of\nreasons which you have given; all of which, no doubt, are satisfactory\nto your own mind.\n\n\"But sir, this is a matter of opinion only, and if I agree with you at\nall, it must be from the consideration that the Governor of the\nuniverse must do right. But, although the time may not be yet,\nnevertheless I am clear in the opinion that the revival of miracles\nwill, in process of time, be absolutely necessary in order to preserve\nthe faith in those which have already been. But, I contend, if the\nscriptures be true, we have a right to expect the revival of miracles;\nand I do not see how they can be fulfilled without. Considering the\nprejudices of the Jews, as a people, I cannot suppose that they will\never believe in Jesus, as their promised Messias, short of being\nconvinced of its truth by a miracle; and should they return to the\nland of Palestine, and there rebuild their temple, at Jerusalem, it\nwould be such a clear fulfilment of the prophecy of Ezekiel, that it\nwould be equal to a miracle, and do as much towards corroborating the\ntruth of all the other prophecies.\n\n\"You finally come once more to the circumstance of the conversion of\nSt. Paul, where you again find some fault (and I must confess, not\nwithout some reason) at my neglect to meet your arguments on this\nsubject; or in other words, to do away the scripture account, and\nreconcile it with my hypothesis; i.e. that of supposing him to be\nconverted without a miracle. To be ingenuous with you, sir, I must\nacknowledge that I have ever supposed this to be the most difficult\ntask I should have to do; and therefore I wished to hear all you had\nto say on the subject of the resurrection before I attempted it.\n\n\"Since I wrote my last I have examined Paley's _Hor\u00e6 Paulin\u00e6_, a work\nof extraordinary merit which had never before fallen into my hands:\nhis _Evidences of Christianity_, I have read several years ago, but\nhave not lately particularly examined that work. In the exposition of\nthe argument, (of the work first mentioned) Paley sets forth, as I\nconceive, the only possible grounds on which either the epistles of\nSt. Paul, or the acts of the apostles, can be supposed to be\nforgeries, in their full force. And then he attempts to prove their\ngenuineness by their internal evidence, which they contain within\nthemselves, entirely aside from those objections; and which would have\nbeen of equal weight even on the supposition that the whole had been\nconcealed from the time they were written till now, and we should now,\nfor the first time, examine them. And although I might not fully agree\nwith him in all points, yet I think he proves, beyond all\ncontradiction or rational doubt, what he mainly attempts to prove; i.\ne. that the epistles were written by some person acquainted with the\ncircumstances mentioned in the history, and that the writer of the\nhistory must have been acquainted with the circumstances alluded to in\nthe epistles, where, at the same time, there is not the least apparent\ndesign in those references or allusions; which, as he very justly\nargues, prove the genuineness of both. I do not pretend to quote his\nwords, as the book is not now by me.\n\n\"This, it must be confessed, is a great acquisition in favour of the\ntruth of christianity; because it evidently carries the writings back\ninto those times when every thing was fresh in the minds of all who\nhad any knowledge of the subject of which those writings treated. Now\ncomes the point. Paul expressly declares that he saw Christ after he\nwas risen from the dead. His declaring that he was seen of Cephas,\nthen of the twelve, could have been only from the report of others;\nbut it agrees pretty well with what has been recorded by the\nevangelists. His declaring that he had been seen 'of above five\nhundred brethren at once,' must have been also by report, which report\nmight have been incorrect, as there is no mention made of it in either\nof the gospels. Yet if incorrect it might have been very easily\nrefuted. But when he comes to say, 'And last of all he was seen of me\nalso, as of one born out of due time,' there remains for him no such\nexcuse. Paul, as it seems, could not believe that he had seen Jesus,\nliterally, and personally, when he had not. And if he knew that he had\nnot, and yet declared that he had, and meant that others should\nbelieve that he had, he was not _honest_, as I before admitted that he\nwas; and now to say that he was not honest, as I clearly see, would\ninvolve me in still greater difficulty, as then I could give no\nrational account for his life and conduct. What shift shall I now\nmake? For having supposed that my doubts were really founded on\nreason, I must have good reason for so doing before I can give them\nup: i.e. I must be fully convinced that they are founded in error.\n\n\"What can we suppose that Paul meant by Christ's being seen _of above\nfive hundred brethren at once_? Is it at all likely that such an\nextraordinary circumstance should have happened without any mention\nbeing made of it in either of the five histories which we have of\nthose times? Might he not mean the same which the author of the Acts\nmeans, speaking of the day of Pentecost? And therefore the whole might\nnot have been designed to be understood literally, but spiritually\ntrue? And notwithstanding the literality of the language, may not all\nthe miracles of Christ and the apostles, and even the account we have\nof the resurrection, be all accounted for and reconciled in the same\nway? But here I involve myself in difficulty again; for, if I mistake\nnot, this was very near the opinion of the Gnostics, whom the apostles\nand fathers every where spake against.--'These,' says Dr. Priestley,\n'taught that it was not _Jesus_ that was properly _the Christ_, or\nthat he had not flesh and blood like other men.' They also 'denied the\ndoctrine of the resurrection.' These therefore, 'Paul, Peter, Jude,\nand John, most strenuously opposed.' Again, says he, 'The apostles\nthey considered as judging only by their senses, which were deceived\nin this case: and though they gave entire credit to them with respect\nto every thing which they had seen, or heard, they considered them as\nplain unlettered men who were ignorant of what was not within the\nsphere of their senses.' To these it is supposed that John alludes in\nhis first Epistle iv. 1--3. If, therefore, the apostles did believe,\nand contend for the literal resurrection, and personal appearing of\nJesus, and if in this they were opposed by the Gnostics, even in their\nday; there is no way now, that I see, any longer for me to maintain my\ndoubts only by believing that the first disciples, as well as Paul,\nthought they saw Jesus when in fact they did not, and that the idea of\nmiracles by which these things were said to have been propagated and\nwhich carried conviction to the multitudes, was nothing more than the\nbold figurative language of the day, designed, in reality, to deceive\nno one; or else mere exaggerations: or, what perhaps is still more\nprobable, partly of both. But enough!\n\n\"I confess I begin to grow dissatisfied with this kind of reasoning.\nWhat does it all amount to? What am I bringing, after all, to oppose\nthe laboured researches of Drs. Lardner, Paley, Priestley, and others,\nas well as the pertinent observations of my worthy friend who has so\nlong borne with me, and obliged me with his friendly and\nchristian-like aid on this subject? Let me pause and consider--I have\nacknowledged that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation;\nhave I proved any of those evidences false?--No! this I have\nacknowledged I could not do. What have I put into the other end of the\nscale, to weigh down those evidences? Ah! what indeed! Nothing! except\nit be my own ignorance, and the errors of other men, in whose errors I\nhave no more faith than those who believe in the truth of that which I\nhave been disputing! I will therefore, instead of pursuing the dispute\nany further, begin to think once more whether the thing for which you\nso ardently contend may not in reality be true.\n\n\"But, here again, I must be cautious, lest I should err as far on the\nother hand. For notwithstanding when I found that I could not help\ndoubting, I tried to reconcile myself to my doubts, and have sincerely\nand honestly tried to make myself believe that I was perfectly\nreconciled either way; yet the moment I begin to think about the\ncertainty of immortality and eternal life, I am all on fire! I hardly\nknow how to contain myself! And were it not for the special\nobligations, which I feel to my family, and to the world, more than\nany thing which I ever expect to receive from the world, I should long\nto 'depart, and be with Christ, which is far better.' Thus my doubts,\nwhatever they are, may be needful for me.\n\n\"Your remarks respecting my claims to the privilege of one who is weak\nin the faith are very pertinent and just. For I must confess in\nproportion as my doubts arose, as to the truth of the resurrection,\nequal doubts would arise as to the propriety of preaching it for a\ntruth. I wish you to understand, however, that my mind has never been\nsettled there, if it has ever vibrated that way, it was only\nmomentary, and rather on mere supposition than any confirmed opinion.\n\n\"In answer to what you say in regard to hope, I will only add: Though\na man should have ever so firm a hope in any thing whatever, and\nshould afterwards find that his hope was founded in error, the hope\nwould be taken away; but if at the same time he should find that the\ntruth is absolutely better than the error hoped for, he would also\nfind that a better thing is given in lieu of his hope: but if a man\nhas hope, though that hope should be founded in error, if the hope\nremain as long as the man exists, it is not taken away from him, as\nboth cease to exist together. Once more, and finally: a hope which is\nfounded in truth, a knowledge of the truth can never take away.\nAlthough a man may hope, and ardently desire to exist eternally, yet I\ndo not see how a man can extend either his hope, or his desires,\nbeyond the possibility of his existence. To my understanding, this is\njust like supposing that a man which does not exist may yet hope and\ndesire; or that a man may hope and desire, after he shall have ceased\nto exist.\n\n\"After returning you my sincere thanks for your kind indulgence and\nlabours of love, I shall close the present number. I cannot take my\nleave of this number, however, without expressing my humble gratitude\nto the Allwise disposer of events, that he has given such abundant\nmanifestations of his unspeakable goodness to his creatures; that he\nhas also, as I may perhaps be permitted to hope with you, given a\ndivine testimony of his infinite love and universal benevolence to\nthat part of his creation whom he hath distinguished with the\nattributes of his own nature, regarding at the same time all other\nbeings and things, and that he had raised up so many faithful\nwitnesses who have set to their seals that this testimony is true.\n\n\"Yours, &c.\n\nA. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER VIII.\n\n_Dear sir, and brother_,--The particulars contained in your ninth\nletter, which I have selected as the subject of this, are the\nfollowing:\n\n1st. You \"do not see how the miracles of the Shakers are at all\ndependant on the miracles of Jesus for their imposition.\"\n\n2d. You think, if Jesus had remained on the earth until now, or had\nappeared to every generation since his resurrection, the evidence\nwould have been much greater; and yet not so great as to preclude the\nexercise of our reasoning faculties.\n\n3d. In the supposed controversy between the Unitarians and\nTrinitarians, you think I have failed of making the case a parallel\nwith my subject, not considering the great change which took place in\nthe state of the Jews in consequence of their destruction by the\nRomans.\n\n4th. The argument which you rest on the supposition, that the apostles\ndid in reality believe in the resurrection of Jesus, when in fact the\nthing was not true.\n\n5th. What you say of the necessity of miracles in some future time, to\nconfirm the belief of those which have been.\n\n6th. The difficulty you suggest concerning St. Paul's saying that\nJesus was seen, after his resurrection, by more than five hundred\nbrethren at once.\n\n1st. As you object to the idea that the miracles of the Shakers depend\nat all on the miracles of Jesus for their imposition, it may be\nconsidered sufficient, on my part, if I show that you have fully\nsupported the proposition which you profess not to see.\n\nI will, however, first presume, that I am not authorised to say that\nthe miracles of the Shakers are imposition, I have not contended that\nthey are; the ground for which I contend is this, viz. if these or any\nother pretended miracles among us are impositions, they depend on the\nmiracles of Jesus for this power, as much as counterfeit money depends\non the true for its imposition. That you have given sufficient support\nto what I have stated, you will see at once by the following passage\nquoted from your arguments on this subject: \"They do not deny the\nmiracles of Christ and his apostles any more than Christians in\ngeneral deny the miracles of Moses and the prophets; but appeal to\n_theirs_ as being equally of divine origin, and thereby clothe their\nreligion with the same divine authority.\" Is it possible that the\nwriter of the foregoing sentence should not see, that he established\nthe very thing which he had just said he could not see? What is that\n_divine authority_ with which the religion of Moses, the prophets and\nof Christ is clothed? Answer, _miracles_. What authority do you\npretend the Shakers make use of to clothe their religion? Answer \"_the\nsame_.\" How does this differ from counterfeit money, on the\nsupposition that these miracles are imposition?\n\nIt is abundantly evident that the Jews expected that the Messiah, when\nhe came, would establish his character by miracles as Moses did his,\nand as some of the prophets were enabled to do. Therefore, do we read\nMatt. xii. 22, 23.--\"Then was brought unto him one possessed with a\ndevil, blind and dumb: and he healed him insomuch, that the blind and\ndumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed and said, is\nnot this the son of David?\"\n\nJesus himself saith, Luke iv. 24, 27. \"Verily I say unto you, no\nprophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth,\nmany widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was\nshut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout\nall the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta,\na city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow; and many lepers were\nin Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was\ncleansed, saveing Naaman the Syrian.\"--See John vii. 31. \"And many of\nthe people believed on him, and said, when Christ cometh, will he do\nmore miracles than these which this man hath done?\"\n\nBy the foregoing quotations, as by many other passages, we learn that\nthe Jews expected the Messiah would establish his character as a\nprophet like unto Moses and others, and also that Jesus did in reality\na multitude of miracles more than the prophets did.\n\nNow is it not evident, that if the miracles of Jesus were supposed to\nbe impositions, they were dependant on those of Moses and the prophets\nfor any power to impose on the people? Just so are all miracles\nwrought or pretended to be wrought since Christ, dependant on his\nmiracles for any imposing power which they possess. If our religion\nhad not been first propagated by the means of those miracles which are\nrecorded in the New Testament, of what use would any pretended\nmiracles be to any sect of Christians?\n\n2d. What you say of the greater evidence of the resurrection which\nwould have been furnished by Christ's continuance on earth until now,\nor by his making his appearance in every generation since his time,\nappears to me to be rather wanting in its merits by which it claims a\nreply.--Why should you neglect to delineate some special reasons for\nyour suppositions, by showing how wide the difference would have been\nfrom the evidence we now have, and how that difference would have\nrecommended your scheme?--You have left me to conjecture the\nparticular features of your argument, and if I mistake them, you will\nreply that I understand you incorrectly. However, this is the way I\nmust proceed.\n\nWe will suppose then that Jesus, in room of ascending into heaven, had\nremained on earth. Would this have done any good, unless he had made\nhimself known to all the people? Well, we will suppose he had made\nhimself known after his resurrection, to the whole house of Israel,\nwould the people not have believed? They would have believed most\nassuredly, or his making himself known to them would have done no\ngood. If they had all believed they would not have persecuted the\nreligion of Christ, all would have embraced it at once being convinced\nby their eyes, that Jesus who was crucified, had actually rose from\nthe dead, and was not subject to death any more. All this would have\nbeen as evident to the Roman government as to the Jewish hierarchy,\nand the whole would have been christianized at once. How long would\nall this remain a wonder? Jesus remains on earth from generation to\ngeneration. How long ago would the conjecture have arisen, that this\nman who has lived through so many ages, had always been here on earth,\nand that the tradition of his once having been mortal like other men,\nwas nothing but a superstition gotten up in some age of antiquity\nbeyond our reach? There would have been no occasion of preserving any\nrecords of the wonderful works of Jesus in the days of his flesh, for\nas the whole would become immediately connected to christianity, there\nwould have been no necessity nor excitement to write and preserve the\naccounts we have in the gospel, or if they had been written, they\ncould have had no support now but ancient tradition. Not one martyr,\nnot one instance of persecution, not a Celsus in the second, a\nPorphyry in the third, nor a Julian in the fourth centuries to oppose\nthe truth, and thereby bear testimony to the antiquity of the\nchristian history.\n\nThis immortal man would be here on earth, and the sun and the moon and\nthe stars would be in the heavens, the mountains and the rivers here\non earth; and the same mind that would conjecture that all these\nvisible things were from everlasting to everlasting, would make no\nexception of this man Christ Jesus. But now you are called on to prove\nyour christian tradition; and what have you to convince the Deist\nwith? Will you say my conjectures are by no means correct? Well, I\nexpected it would turn out so. You mean then that Jesus should not\nonly remain on earth, but that he should continue the evidences of his\nhaving been mortal, of his having died, and of his resurrection as\nclear as they were when they convinced the world in the first\nplace.--Would there, in this case, be any room for any inquiry? any\nfor doubts? Would there be as many denominations of christians as\nthere are now? Should we get at this religion by reasoning? Perhaps\nyou would prefer your second proposal, and have Jesus manifested in\nevery generation. But this would have been a regular return of the\nsame event, and would have been placed among the phenomena of nature,\nand the Deist would say that there never had been any beginning to\nthis regular operation, it has always been so from time beyond date.\n\nThus far, but no more. The evidences of our religion are like the\nreligion itself, infinitely superior to any thing ever contrived by\nhuman wisdom. And it is an opinion in which I am the more confirmed,\nthe more I examine it, that if the wisest set of philosophers which\never lived on earth had been a council to contrive a method by which\nchristianity could have been perpetuated in the world, that scheme\nwhich they would have projected, would of itself defeated the object.\n\nThe wisdom of this great scheme corresponds with the divine power\nwhich has been manifested in it. What set of impostors, either wise or\nsimple, learned or unlearned would ever have thought of such an\nundertaking as that of which we have an account in the four\nevangelists? Would they be likely to find one who would be their\nleader, the one to die, and leave the rest to make the people believe\nthat he arose from the dead? Could a man be found now who would be\nwilling to undertake such a piece of madness and folly? If we pretend\nto reason shall we not keep to human nature, and reason according to\nthose laws by which ourselves and others are governed?\n\nDo you believe, sir, that a man could be found who would undertake to\nlead a party, whose object should be to impose on the people by a\npretended resurrection, and consent himself to be the hero of this\nimposture?\n\nYou answer, no. But then ask; if this wonderful story was not written\nsome considerable time after that period to which the dates of the\nwritings are assigned, and such large additions made that the whole\nappears entirely different from what was really true?\n\nThis brings me to consider the third particular selected for\nconsideration, out of your epistle.\n\n3dly. In allusion to the supposed controversy between the Unitarians\nand Trinitarians, you think I ought to have considered the\ncircumstance of the destruction of the Jews by the Romans, as giving a\nfavourable opportunity for the fabricating the books of the\nevangelists, and of giving them success in the world, as the old\npharisees and rulers of the Jews were principally cut off in that\nawful destruction of their nation and city.\n\nYou will observe that by your suggestion you leave the first section\nof the argument to which you refer, in which no book or books were\nused, and notice only the last section in which you were indulged, for\nsake of the argument, in the supposition that the gospels were not\nwritten until after the destruction of Jerusalem, nor propagated on\nthe miracles on which the gospels have founded it. Here, sir, have I\nnot an occasion of some little complaint? If you really thought that\nthe gospels were, none of them, written in the life time of the\napostles, and considered it safe to predicate an argument on this\nground, why should you withhold the proof of this fact? Why did you\nnot inform me of the authority by which your argument is supported in\nyour own mind? And furthermore, why do you try to get away from the\nargument as stated in its first form, without showing its want of\nforce, or without allowing its merit? By conducting arguments in this\nway, in room of converguing them to some definite point of conclusion,\nthey are diverged indefinitely, and the mind seems bewildered without\nan object.\n\nHowever, I am disposed to follow you, and will now endeavour to shew\nthe probability of the gospel's having been written even before the\ndestruction of Jerusalem.\n\nThe following passages are quoted from Paley's evidences from page 106\nand on--\n\nFrom the epistle of Barnabas, to which I have before alluded; \"Let us,\ntherefore, beware lest it come upon us, as it is written, there are\nmany called, few chosen.\" Our author justly adds: \"From the\nexpression, '_as it is written_,' we infer with certainty, that, at\nthe time when the author of this epistle lived, there was a book\nextant, well known to christians, and of authority among them,\ncontaining these words--'Many are called, few chosen.'\" For the\nauthority of this epistle I refer unto Clement of Alexandria, Origen,\nEusebius, and Jerome, noticed in a former communication. If Clement\nwere liable to mistake the author, it seems hardly probable that he\nwould be deceived concerning the time when this epistle, purporting to\nhave been written by Barnabas, was written; as it is no later than\nA.D. 194 that he quotes this epistle as an ancient work. It may be\nproper to remark, that although authors differ respecting the\ngenuineness of this epistle, both Dr. Priestly and Paley acknowledge\nand maintain its antiquity, and place it very near to the time of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, which gives it all the authority for which\nit is here quoted; for the thing now to be proved is, that it is\nprobable that the gospel of Matthew was written before the destruction\nof the Jewish hierarchy. Now as this epistle of Barnabas was written\nsoon after this destruction, and refers to the gospel of Matthew in\nthe manner above quoted, as refering to what was an acknowledged\nwriting of scripture authority, it seems reasonable to infer that St.\nMatthew's gospel had been written long enough before, to obtain its\nestablishment among Christian churches, which fairly throws its\nantiquity anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Sir, I see nothing\nto forbid this conclusion from being highly probable, and this, I\nexpect to show, is all that is necessary to be made out in this case.\n\n\"Of Polycarp,\" who was appointed bishop of Symrna by the apostles\nthemselves, says our author, \"we have one undoubted epistle remaining.\nAnd this, though a short letter, contains nearly forty clear allusions\nto books of the New Testament; which is strong evidence of the respect\nwhich christians of that age bore for those books.\" It appears from\nthis account, that, as Polycarp was a contemporary of the apostles,\nand referred to the books of the New Testament in his writings, as to\nbooks of established authority, these books must have been written as\nearly as the time in which their reputed authors lived, which places\ntheir date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem; as it is not\npretended that any of the evangelists continued until after the\ndestruction of that city except St. John who is supposed to have lived\nto a very great age.\n\nOne more from our author: \"Papias, a hearer of John, and companion of\nPolycarp, as Iren\u00e6us attests, and of that age, as all agree, in a\npassage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly ascribes\nthe respective gospels to Matthew and Mark, and in a manner which\nproves that those gospels must have publicly borne the names of these\nauthors at that time, and probably long before.\" All this appears\nperfectly consistent with the idea that these gospels were written by\nthe evangelists themselves, and proves together with the following\nconsiderations the probability of its being correct. Further\nconsiderations to be taken into the foregoing account are the\nfollowing. St. Matthew, St. Luke and St. Mark, all speak of the\nprophesy of Jesus respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, but do not\neven hint that this prophesy had been fulfilled. In St. John's gospel\nno mention is made of this prophesy, and it is reasonable enough to\nsuppose that this omission was on account of the prophesy's having\nbeen fulfilled before his gospel was written.\n\nAgain, if the gospels had not been written by these reputed authors,\nnor in the time that the evangelists lived, but some time after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, and these had been fabricated by designing\nmen, they would certainly have been exposed as a fraud by the Gnostics\nwho held many opinions so very contrary to the scriptures of the New\nTestament. So very contrary were some of the early heresies to the\nwritings of the evangelists that they erased many things from them\nthat they might the better maintain their own notions. Now this would\nnever have taken place if these Gnostics could have proved that these\nGospels were frauds, which they certainly could have done, for they\nexisted as early as these writings are supposed to have been written.\nFurthermore, if the gospels had been forged books, written after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, it would have been an easy task for Celsus\nto have exposed the whole fraud. He certainly would never have\nadmitted the truth of the miracles of Jesus if he could have proved\nthat the books in which they were recorded were forgeries. But this\nneither he nor the learned Porphyry attempted to do.\n\nI have suggested, that, if the probability of the gospel's having been\nwritten before the destruction of Jerusalem and by the evangelists\nthemselves be proved it is sufficient for our present argument. And\nso, I think, it will appear to you, when you combine with this\nprobability two more important considerations.\n\n1st. That the internal evidences contained in the books of the New\nTestament, of their genuineness, are sufficient of themselves to\nestablish their character as such; and:\n\n2d. That the above probability of itself is to be relied on even from\nexternal evidence if no external proof can be proved against it, which\nis not pretended.\n\nIt should be kept in mind, that the writings of the evangelists are\nguarded by the early attacks of the enemies of christianity, who ever\ntreated them as being, what they pretended to be, a faithful history\nof the origin of the religion they inculcated; and also by the\nopposition of the early sects who arose from the church, who would\nhave demolished their foundations if they had been spurious.\n\n4th. The argument you rest on the supposition that the apostles did,\nin reality, believe in the resurrection of Jesus, when in fact the\nthing was not true, may now be noticed.--As you would naturally\nexpect, I shall by no means allow either your premises or conclusions.\n\n1st. Why should I allow your premises? You have brought no argument,\nnor attempted to bring any to disprove what I contended for, viz. that\nthe apostles could not have been persuaded to believe the resurrection\nwith any evidence short of that recorded in the evangelists. \"Here,\"\nyou say \"lies the mistake if there be any;\" and to this I agree. Where\nthen is your argument against mine, on which so much depends? You have\nattempted to bring none. But you say: \"only suppose the resurrection\nto have been actually believed, by any evidence, or circumstance\nwhatever, no matter what.\" What argument is there sir, in this \"_only\nsuppose_?\" I contend the thing is not supposable. It was as true in\nthat age of the world, that a fact naturally incredible requires\nindubitable evidence to substantiate it, as it is now. I would allow\nthat it is supposable, that one man might, in a sort of a delirium,\nwhich generally throws the brain into a situation, by which, what only\nexists in the mind, appears a reality to the sense of sight, might\nthink he saw Jesus after his crucifixion, when in fact he did not. But\nI cannot allow it to be a supposable case that the whole eleven\napostles should all become delirious at once and with them a number\nmore, and all be persuaded against the prejudices of their minds, that\nthey saw Jesus, and that at a number of times, and in diverse manners,\nwhen there was no such thing. But:\n\n2d. Even allowing your supposition, your consequences would be very\nunlikely to follow. You surely would not suppose that the apostles\ncould believe they saw Jesus when they did not, if they had the use of\ntheir reason properly. We must suppose them to have been insane\nthen.--What then would have been the consequences? Would the authority\nhave put these mad-men to death? Would they have been persecuted at\nall for their misfortune? But these mad-men preached Jesus and the\nresurrection to the people, and so convinced them of the fact, that\nmultitudes believed them, and on this supposition we are now to\n_suppose_ our religion was first established in the world! If we may\nsuppose such things, there are no absurdities that we may not suppose.\nYou must suppose it to be a very dangerous thing to try a man for his\nlife by a jury of twelve men, for if the man was innocent of the\nmurder for which he was indicted and no evidence was produced to\nconvict him on, these men might all be made to believe, some how, by\nsome circumstance, \"no matter what,\" that they all saw the murder\ncommitted by this very innocent person on trial.\n\n5th. I thought of saying something on your suggestion of the necessity\nof miracles in some future time to convince the Jews that Jesus is the\nMessiah, but being a little more careful, than at first, I find you\nseem to give up this matter. You say: \"considering the prejudices of\nthe Jews, as a people, I cannot suppose that they will ever believe in\nJesus, as their promised Messias short of being convinced of its truth\nby a miracle; and should they return to the land of Palestine, and\nthere rebuild their temple, at Jerusalem, it would be such a clear\nfulfilment of the prophesy of Ezekiel, that it would be equal to a\nmiracle, and do as much towards corroborating the truth of all the\nother prophecies.\" If the return of the Jews, etc. be equal to\nmiracles, then it may preclude their necessity. But as this particular\ndoes not immediately concern our general subject it is dismissed.\n\n6th. As none of the evangelists have been particular respecting the\nmeeting in Galilee, and as this was an appointment even before the\ncrucifixion, as well as afterward, it is fairly within the reach of\nprobable conjecture, that this meeting was sufficiently numerous to\njustify St. Paul's words. He does not speak of this matter as of a\nsubject with which his acquaintance was small, for he says; \"he was\nseen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part\nremain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.\" He no doubt,\nhad seen many of this great number and had been informed of the\ncircumstances of the occasion, and of the time when this multitude was\nfavoured with this sight.\n\nTo conclude; I heartily join with you in grateful acknowledgements, to\nthe Almighty disposer of events, for the manifestations of his\nuniversal benevolence to his creatures, and especially unto man whom\nhe hath seen fit to induce with the attributes of his own nature, and\nconstituted him an heir of life and immortality. In view of this, I\ncan be thankful for any faithfulness discoverable in those who publish\nthe word of life, and endeavour to defend it in the spirit of meekness\nand Christian love.\n\nAnd I will further add, that I feel a peculiar pleasure in finding\nyour mind to be somewhat divested of its incumberances, and that your\ndoubts of the grounds of your precious faith, are dispersing more and\nmore from your mind, while the evidences of divine truth find a\nsincere reception in your understanding.\n\nLet us endeavour to cherish, not only the evidences of truth, but\ntruth itself in our afflictions, and in room of being idlers in the\nmarkets, go early into our Lord's vineyard trusting the words of him\nwho saith; \"whatsoever is right, ye shall receive.\"\n\nYours, &c.\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEXTRACTS No. X.\n\n\"_Dear sir and brother_--In remarking on your reply to my 8th number,\nas in a former case I shall follow the arrangement which you have\nmade; taking up the articles in the same order.\n\n\"1st. I did not suppose but that the method which I proposed to\naccount for the absence of the body of Jesus would be liable to\nserious objections; and these objections are increased by connecting\nwith them, circumstances which, if the resurrection be false, must be\nconsidered equally false. Because, if the resurrection of Jesus was\nnot a truth, whatever was the truth on which that belief was founded,\nmust be now all mere conjecture.\n\n\"There might be persons, however, who thought that Jesus suffered\ndeath very wrongfully although he never pretended literally to perform\nthose miracles. Yea I conceive it possible that when this language was\nfirst adopted, i. e. of his feeding the hungry, opening the eyes of\nthe blind, raising the dead, &c. it was not understood, nor meant to\nbe understood literally. Therefore although the account at first might\nhave been _literally false_, though not so much so as what it grew to\nbe afterward, yet it might have been considered _spiritually true_;\nand therefore not designed absolutely to deceive. The only difficulty,\ni.e. the only irreconcilable difficulty, which I conceive in the case,\nis in supposing that the first disciples could be made to believe in\nthe resurrection, by any evidence which could have existed, and yet\nthe resurrection not to be true. But we must suppose this, I think, in\norder to raise a reasonable doubt of the truth of the resurrection.\nFor, if the disciples did not believe it, they could have had no\ninterest or motive, (or certainly no justifiable motive) in making\nothers believe it; and without this, it is difficult to account even\nfor the existence of such a report. I should not think it so strange,\nhowever, that others, after the report was once in circulation, and\nthat even St. Paul himself should have been made to believe this,\nmerely by some visionary scene.\n\n\"I think therefore the question may be reduced to this point. Which of\nthe two is the most _incredible_, either that the first disciples\nshould absolutely believe in the resurrection, by any evidence which\ndid not grow out of this truth, or that the resurrection should have\nbeen absolutely true?\n\n\"Here is where the two propositions, when reduced to their simplicity\nmust finally come. And I contend that when two propositions are thus\nclearly placed before the mind or understanding, whether the judgment\nbe right or wrong, the mind or understanding must reject, yea it is\nimpossible to avoid rejecting, that which to the mind or\nunderstanding, is the most incredible.\n\n\"But when we admit that the disciples did believe in the resurrection,\nwe are not obliged to admit that they had all or any of the evidences\nof that fact which have come down to us. This we may suppose might\nhave been mostly or altogether fictitious; written by later hands, and\nattributed to the apostles. And here we must not suppose that the\naccount was altogether made up at once, but grew gradually; and not to\ncome out in writing until the persons, who could either attest or deny\nthe literal truth of these facts, were taken off of the stage. Here as\nit respects the records also, the same question again occurs. Which is\nthe most _incredible_ (not to _miraculous_, for one miracle is no more\nmiraculous, that I know of than another; I therefore say which is the\nmost _incredible_) that such histories should have been thus, or in\nsome other way got up, and be believed, altho' the various accounts,\nso far as they relate to miracles, and other circumstances necessary\nto be taken into the account only for the sake of supporting the truth\nof those miracles, should have been altogether fictitious, and such\nparts only true as could be accounted for in a rational way, without\nadmitting the existence of miracles; or that all those miracles, or at\nleast the most essential of them, should have been literally and\nabsolutely true? The answer to these two propositions, i. e. the above\nquestions, will, and must, decide the whole controversy.\n\n\"Now, were it not for the internal evidences which the writings of the\nNew Testament do, and ever will, possess (the external evidences\nfalling so far short of being conclusive in my mind, as I shall show\nmore fully hereafter, when I come to speak of those evidences) I\nshould still be inclined, in my own understanding, to reject the\nlatter proposition in each of the above questions, and adhere to the\nformer.--Much of the external evidence, I am very ready to admit is\nperfectly consistent with the supposed truth of the internal, but\nafter all, in my humble opinion, it does not quite come to the point.\nBut the internal evidence, I confess, I cannot withstand. The more I\ninvestigate the subject, the more I discover its force, its clearness,\nand its irresistibility; and although the truth it unfolds is so\naugust, so momentous, so astonishingly and inexpressibly sublime, that\nit is with the profoundest and most reverential awe I speak, when I\nacknowledge my faith in the divine origin of those testimonies; yet,\nas I cannot resist their force, so I am obliged to acknowledge them\ntrue. The illusion, however, if it be one, I know is happifying to the\nmind; but this is no good reason, that I know of, why we should either\nembrace it ourselves, or propagate it in the world. Although I have\nendeavoured to calm my conscience, while meditating on my doubts, with\nthe consideration that I am not accountable for the truth or the\nfalsity of the scriptures; yet, I must confess, this did not fully\nsatisfy my mind; and therefore I come to a determination to be more\nthoroughly persuaded of their truth, if possible, or else be more\nthoroughly convinced of their fallacy. With this motive I entered on\nthe present controversy; and I feel very happy in its termination,\nhaving been much strengthened in my faith thereby, and humbly pray,\nthat should it ever come before the public, it may be blest to the\nbenefit of others.\n\n\"2d. What you have said on the divine mission, &c. of the apostles is\nsatisfactory. For although it has not fully come to my question, yet\nit has had the same good effect by convincing me that my question went\na little beyond the bounds of reason; for it was too much like asking\na blind man how it is that other men see! It is not reasonable to\nsuppose that the apostles themselves could have informed persons who\nwere uninspired to their understanding, how or by what means, they\nwere inspired. It was sufficient to demonstrate the fact by the works\nwhich they were enabled to perform, (admitting the account true,) in\nthe name of JESUS.\n\n\"3d. My argument respecting a hope of future existence has been\nextended rather beyond my design. Without taking up time to\nrecapitulate, I will only say I admit the truth of your argument on\nthis subject; neither do I see how it stands altogether in opposition\nto mine. What I contend for is this. The idea of non-existence, i.e.\nof existing only in God, without retaining our individual\nconsciousness of being, does not, like the idea of endless misery,\nabsolutely destroy our present comforts. It only cuts short, or else\nprevents, future prospects. If it can be demonstrated, as I believe it\ncan, that God is good to the animal creation, in giving them\nexistence, on the supposition, that they have no future state, I\ncontend that man is equally, if not more abundantly blessed, even on\nthe same supposition.--But I never meant to contend that eternal life\nwould not be still infinitely better, according to our conceptions of\ngood, if true. To state a case, which will illustrate in some degree\nmy ideas of this subject, the following may come something nigh it;\nviz. I should be pleased with the idea of living, say, ten years, in\nreference only to the blessing of this life, although I might know I\nshould die at that time, provided that, during the ten years, I should\nenjoy the common blessings of life. This does not prevent my desiring\nto live longer; neither does a certain knowledge that I shall not\nprevent me from desiring to live, nor from being pleased with the idea\nof living, till that time. But let me know for a certainty, or, which\nwould be the same thing to me, let me absolutely believe that I should\nlive fifty years, and that although the ten first would be attended\nwith all the common blessings of life, as usual, yet that the\nremaining forty years, which would be the remaining whole of my\nnatural life, I should be placed in the most distressed and aggravated\ncircumstances, of which I could possibly conceive; now, in reference\nto the whole fifty years, could I desire to live? No! I say, I rather\nchoose instant death!\n\n\"When I look around on the circumstances and condition of men, I am so\nfully convinced that the aggregate of happiness so far overbalances\nthe aggregate of misery, that I am firmly of opinion, yea, I do not\nentertain the least possible doubt of its truth, and therefore think I\never shall contend, that this life is a blessing, and we have abundant\nreason to be very thankful for it, without the least reference to a\nfuture state. But, nevertheless, I am very ready to admit, that, when\nfuturity and immortality are taken into the account, and are connected\nwith the same view of the character of the Deity, these blessings are\nall extended and magnified to infinity.\n\n\"But on the supposition that truth is any where connected with\n_endless misery_, the scene is wholly changed. On this supposition I\nam not reconciled to truth at all; I can find nothing in my moral\nnature, which I call good, but what stands directly opposed to it;\nHence, the very brightest and most brilliant part of the picture is\ndeformed by the awful idea; it takes away all the pleasure of\ninvestigation, and if this be truth, my only desire and prayer to God,\nis that I might be permitted to remain eternally ignorant of it! It is\nmy confidence therefore in the goodness of the truth, and this only,\nwhich has reconciled my mind to it. You may contend that I have not\nobtained this confidence without the knowledge of divine revelation.\nBe that as it may; on this supposition only I am reconciled, and\nsomething must destroy this confidence before I can become\nunreconciled to truth. I think now I must be fully understood, and\nwill therefore add no more on this subject.\n\n\"4th. What you say under the fourth article is satisfactory. Errors,\nno doubt, may be, and often are committed by applying instructions\n'differently from their primary design.'\n\n\"5th. Your remarks under the sixth article are very judicious. Much\ninjury no doubt is often done to the truth of divine revelation by\ncontending so tenaciously as some do for things, which, if true, are\nnot essential to its support.--It is often the case that, by trying to\nprove too much, we weaken the evidence, in the minds of many,\nrespecting the main thing we wish to establish. Hence, the opposer,\nnot being able, or else not disposed, to make proper distinction,\nconsiders it all of one piece; and not being able to see the propriety\nof many things, which are contended for with equal zeal, sets the\nwhole down as a fallacy.\n\n\"6th. It is true, I thought you strained the argument a little too far\nin supposing that the apostles could not have been convinced of the\ntruth of the resurrection by any evidence which could be\ncounterbalanced. This induced me to state that supposed absurdity in\nstill more glaring colors, with a hope that you would thereby be\ninduced to take a review of your argument, and not without some\nexpectation, that you would be able to see some defects in it. But in\nthis I have been disappointed. You still hold on upon your argument,\nand turn the error wholly on your friend.\n\n\"But, as this is the turning point, I shall not blame you for\nstraining every nerve, and holding on upon every fibre which gives you\nthe least possible support.\n\n\"It would not do for you to give up the idea that the apostles could\nnot have been convinced of the truth of the resurrection by any\nevidence which could have existed short of the fact's being true;\n(which, by the way, was what I meant by the first member of my\ncriticism, though not exactly so expressed;) for the moment this is\nadmitted, doubt and unbelief will soon contend that they were so\nconvinced. Imagination may soon call up such evidence in the mind,\nwithout supposing any thing miraculous, and all the rest of the\naccount may be supposed to be fictitious. I did not mean to insinuate,\nhowever, that you have contended that the apostles must have seen\nJesus rise in order to be convinced of the fact. I suppose their\nseeing him after he was risen was as full a demonstration to them as\nthough they had seen him rise. And if they could not have been\nconvinced of its truth by any thing short of this, then they could not\nbe convinced by any thing short of the fact; i.e. what was the same to\nthem as the fact. The second member of my criticism, viz. 'If the fact\ndid exist there is no evidence which can counterbalance it,' does not,\nas I conceive, suppose that you contend 'that the fact of the\nresurrection could not exist without proving itself to the apostles in\nsuch a way that no evidence could counterbalance it;' but it supposes\nthat if the fact did exist, no evidence could prove that it did not\nexist, as it is always difficult to prove a negative, and utterly\nimpossible when the positive is true.--Hence my conclusion; viz. As\nthe apostles were convinced of the truth of the resurrection, which\nthey could not have been only by evidence which could not have existed\nhad not the fact been true, the fact did exist. How far does this\ncriticism fall short of my other? (for it is exactly what I meant by\nmy other.) Or how far does it go beyond your argument?\n\n\"Finally, I cannot conceive of any evidence that could sufficiently\nsupport the fact that Jesus who was crucified, did actually rise from\nthe dead, if nothing could be brought to counterbalance it, that could\npossibly admit of being counterbalanced; and again: 'Thus we are\nbrought to the suggestion, that any evidence which could be sufficient\nto prove such a fact, if no evidence appeared against it, must be such\nas admits, of no refutation.'\n\n\"Unless it may be reasonably supposed that the apostles were not\nabsolutely so guarded against an error of this kind as this argument\nsuggests, I know of no way to withstand its force. And I am sure I\nfeel no disposition to withstand it, even against probability. It is\nthe improbability of the fact it goes to prove, i. e. in my mind, that\never induced me to oppose it.\n\n\"I shall now take notice of the external evidence in support of the\ntruth of divine revelation, which you have quoted from Paley in his\nview of the evidences of christianity.\n\n\"In your reply to my seventh number, you mentioned a quotation from\nthe epistle of Barnabas, St. Paul's companion, in the following words,\n'Let us therefore, beware lest it come upon us, _as it is written_,\nthere are many called, few chosen.' The object of this quotation is to\nprove that the gospel of Matthew (from which here is a quotation) was\nwritten before this epistle, and here appealed to as to a book of\ndivine authority. And although it is perfectly consistent with such a\nsupposition, yet there is great room to doubt whether such was the\nfact. Or, at least, there is room to conjecture that the gospel of\nMatthew might have been written before this epistle, and yet not\nwritten till after the destruction of Jerusalem.\n\n\"Speaking of the writers of this period, Dr. Priestly observes[7] 'The\noldest work of the age, if it had been genuine, is that which goes by\nthe name of _The epistle of Barnabas_. Whoever was the author of this\nepistle, it was probably written soon after the destruction of\nJerusalem.--It abounds with interpretations of the Old Testament which\ndiscover more of imagination, than judgement.' By this you will\nperceive that the authority of this epistle is doubtful. I should also\nhave gathered the same idea, from what Paley himself says, whose work\nI have examined, on this subject, since I wrote my last number. It\nmight have been written at a much later period than what is supposed\nand palmed upon Barnabas; and therefore does not, as was supposed,\nabsolutely prove that the gospel of Matthew was written prior to the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. It seems that christians of a later period\nwere in the habit of palming works upon their predecessors; or in\nother words, writing in their name. After speaking of the epistle of\nClemens, Priestly observes (p. 301) there is extant another epistle\nascribed to this Clemens, but it is evidently spurious, and was\nprobably written in the middle of the third century. Several other\nwritings were palmed upon him also, especially the _Apostolical\nConstitution_ and the _Clementine homilies_. The epistle of Barnabas,\nit seems, is first quoted by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194. This\ncertainly gives room for my conjecture for aught which appears to the\ncontrary, it might have been written a whole century after the days of\nthe apostles.\n\n[Footnote 7: Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 200.]\n\n\"The next which Paley mentions is an epistle written by Clement,\nbishop of Rome. This is the same which Priestly calls _Clemens_. 'This\nepistle,' he says, 'was held in the highest esteem by all christians,\nand, like the scriptures, was publicly read in many churches.' In this\nepistle of _Clement_, you say, 'he quotes Matt. v. 7. xviii. 6.' But\nhow does he quote those passages? Not as the writing of Matthew, but\nas the words of 'our Lord.' Although this therefore, as I have before\nsuggested, is perfectly consistent with the supposed truth, it falls\nfar short, in my mind, of proving that the gospel of Matthew, was\nwritten before this epistle. Clement or Clemens might have written\nthis by tradition even if he had never seen the gospel of Matthew, or\nany other. It only proves that these words in the gospel and those in\nthe epistle were indebted to the same original source, viz. the words\nof Jesus. I am not disposed to dispute, however, the genuineness of\nthis epistle. 'It is an earnest dissuasive,' says Priestly, 'from the\nspirit of faction, which appeared in the church of Corinth, and which,\nindeed, was sufficiently conspicuous when Paul wrote his epistles.'\n\n\"'Another work of doubtful authority,' says Priestly, 'is _the\nShepherd of Hermes_, by some thought to be that Hermes who is\nmentioned by Paul in his epistle to the Romans; but by others supposed\nto be either spurious, or to have been written by a later Hermes, or\nrather Hermes, brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, about the year 140.\nWhoever was the author of this work (and though it was so much\nesteemed by many christians, as to be publicly read in their churches)\nit is certainly a very poor performance.' If this work therefore be of\nso late a date, as, according to this account, it may be, and, from\nall which appears to the contrary, we may presume it is, as the first\nquotation of it is by Irenaeus, A. D. 178, it falls short of the proof\nwe want.\n\n\"The same observations will apply to the allusions to the gospels in\nthe epistles of _Ignatius_, as was mentioned in regard to the epistle\nof _Clement_. They are not literal quotations, and therefore might\nhave been only traditions. I consider them no certain proof that the\ngospels were written previous to this time, though it is very natural\nto suppose _that_ to have been the fact. The same will apply to the\nepistle of _Polycarp_, as we know not exactly what was meant at that\ntime by the scriptures; neither do allusions to certain passages in\nthe scriptures, especially such as the words of Jesus, prove the\nexistence of those scriptures at that time.\n\n\"In the time of Eusebius there were extant _five books of Papias,\nbishop of_ Hierapolis in Syria, of _the interpretation of the divine\noracles_. 'Papias,' says Priestly, 'was a great collector of the\nsayings of the apostles; and one of the traditions preserved by him\nwas that, after the resurrection, Christ would reign upon earth a\nthousand years, an opinion which, from his authority, was long\nrespected by many.'[8] Papias, it seems, is the first who speaks of\nthe gospels by name, and he mentions only Matthew and Mark. That all\nthe gospels, however, existed in his day, and also bore the names\nwhich they now do, I should not be disposed to dispute; neither is\nthere any thing to contradict the idea of their being written by the\npersons reputed to be the authors of them.\n\n[Footnote 8: Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 203 Euseb. Hist. Lib. iii. Cap. 39\np. 135.]\n\n\"But, supposing a few of these first bishops had taken it into ther\nheads, having succeeded so well, during a little respite from\npersecution, in consequence of those troublesome times at the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, as to get appointed to their respective\noffices, and thinking it would lead greatly to their future success, I\nsay, supposing they had taken it into their heads to write the four\ngospels and the acts of the apostles themselves, embracing all the\ntraditions, which they knew, of the apostles, dressed up in the\nfigurative style in which those things, even from the first, had been\nreported, together with many fictions of their own. And that they did\nwrite these books in the name of the apostles; who would be likely, or\nwould be able, to contradict them? Or supposing, without any previous\nconcert, some one should have written the gospel of Matthew; another,\nafter having seen it, should write one in the name of Mark; a third,\nwho had seen them both, should write that of Luke, and the acts of the\napostles; and a fourth should write that of John.--These, of course,\nwould make their first appearance at different times, and in different\nparts of the country; or, in other words, in different countries. Some\nstory or other might have been got up, in regard to their first\ndiscovery, which should go currently with the common people, and\nwhich, after the works were received as canonical, would of course be\ndone away.\n\n\"As a justification of the above hypothesis (which I am very sensible\nis not without its difficulties) in addition to what have said in\nregard to the writings palmed upon Clemens, I will mention the\nfollowing from Priestly's Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p. 412. It appears to\nhave been a quotation from Sozomen, by Socrates, Lib. vii. chap. 19,\np. 307. '_The revelation of Peter_, which is rejected as a spurious\nbook by the ancients, is read once every year in some churches in\nPalestine on good Friday, which is a religious fast in commemoration\nof our Lord's sufferings. The book that is called the _revelation of\nthe apostle Paul_, which was unknown to the ancients, is greatly\ncommended by many of the monks. Some say that this book was first\nfound in the reign of Theodosius. For they say that in the house of\nPaul at Tarsus, there was a marble chest in a subterraneous place, in\nwhich this book was deposited, and that it was discovered by a\nparticular revelation.'\n\n\"Any work of this kind, got up at so late a period as that of the\nreign of Theodosius, would not be likely to be generally received\namong the churches; yet if it could be received by any, why might not\na similar work, or similar works, which made their appearance so soon\nafter the apostles, as might well be supposed to have been written by\nthem and when too, the churches were few in number, without the least\nsuspicion of fraud, have been received by all? Or if any fraud had\nbeen suspected, yet, believing in the main thing which all these were\ndesigned to support, those frauds whatever they _were_, might have\nbeen considered really _pious_!\n\n\"But, sir, you will perceive that I am not altogether pleased, nor\nfully satisfied, with this argument. I know it has its difficulties;\nbut the question is, whether it has greater than the one which it is\nbrought to oppose? The question is _not_, whether these things look\nprobable? For I acknowledge they do not look probable. But the\nquestion is, which is the most _incredible_; either that the above\nhypothesis, or something like it, should be true; or else that the\nextraordinary miracles, related in the books referred to, should be\ntrue? If there were no better evidence in favor of the miracles than\nthat which I have been examining, I should be obliged to decide\nagainst the latter, let me think what I might respecting the former.\nThe most that we can say of this testimony is, it does not contradict\nthe truth of those histories, but, so far as it goes, it is perfectly\nconsistent with the truth of the main question. The weight of this\ntestimony therefore, whatever it is, seems to be on the side of the\ntruth of christianity.\n\n\"But what carries the most conviction to my mind is _not_ who wrote\nthose books; not the manner in which they have been handed down to us,\nnor in which they can now be traced to the apostles; but the manner in\nwhich the _story itself is_ told. It must be confessed that, excepting\na few things, which may be supposed to have been early interpolations,\nit carries in it all the internal marks of TRUTH. When this is\nadmitted, we must also admit the propriety of bringing in these\nexternal evidences as auxiliaries; and when we find that they also,\ninstead of being contradictory _to_, are perfectly consistent _with_\nthe supposed truth, they add _not a little_ to the weight of\ntestimony. Hence we find that our faith is strengthened by the\nconsideration of circumstances, which would not have been sufficient,\nin themselves alone, to have originated, or produced, that faith. The\nquestion may be still asked, why do you now believe? To which I give\nthis plain and simple answer. It is because, notwithstanding the\n_incredibility_ of the miracles of Christ, and of the apostles, and\nthe resurrection, the truth of which these miracles go to confirm and\nsubstantiate; yet, the idea that this story should ever have been told\nin the manner it is, without having truth for its foundation, in spite\nof all my _incredibility_, is still more _incredible_! And it is my\nhumble opinion that whoever will give themselves the trouble, to pay\nthe same attention to the subject, must be of the same opinion: for, I\nam inclined to think that no one has been more predisposed to\nunbelief. Not that I ever felt any real opposition to the truth of the\nholy scriptures, as I now understand them, but I did not wish to be\ndeceived. I had rather that my hopes and expectations should never be\nraised, than to have them raised upon a fruitless or spurious\nfoundation.\n\n\"But after all, it will be perceived that I make no pretensions to a\n_miraculous_, or _mysterious_, conversion. My conversion, whatever it\nis, is altogether rational. It grows out of the evidence which I\nplainly have before my eyes. And it is my humble opinion that those\nwho pretend to such conversions ought to be able to confirm the same\nby miracles, the same as the truth was first confirmed; and unless\nthey can do it, it ought to be considered as nothing more than mere\n_pretension_.--According to the ideas of some, and of much too of that\nwhich is termed _orthodox_, every conversion is as much a _miracle_ as\nwas the resurrection of Christ. But as this is a fact, which if true,\nis entirely out of sight of the unconverted, and of which they can\nform no conception, nor judge of it in any sense whatever, is it not\nreasonable that they should have a demonstration of its truth, by some\nfact, of the truth of which they can judge, that they may know that\nthe work is of God? And until we have such demonstration, may we not\nconsider all such pretensions to be of men?\n\n\"With these remarks I hasten to a _CONCLUSION_.\n\n\"In taking leave of this subject, considering it probable that these\nletters will, at some future time, come before the public, it is but\njust that I should more fully avow my motives in this controversy. You\nwill have perceived, all along, the ground on which I stood. I have\nendeavoured to personate an honest inquirer after truth; but one who\nwas filled with doubts concerning every thing of which there is not\npositive demonstration. How far I have acted up to such a character,\nyou and the public can best judge.\n\n\"I thought, however, I should be the most likely to do this, by\nbringing those objections, and these only, which, at one time or\nanother, have occupied my own mind. But, that the controversy might\nnot appear as a mere _farce_, or like a man raising objections against\nhimself (in which case he generally takes care to raise none but what\nhe thinks he can answer) and that I might engage all your interest and\nenergy on the subject, I have carried the idea, through the whole,\nboth by my letters and by my private conversation with you during the\ntime (as you very well know) that those objections were now laboring\nin my mind with all their force. I have therefore endeavoured to\ndispute every inch of ground, and give way only as I found myself\nobliged to give way, by the force of your arguments. That I have not\nacted my part better must be imputed to want of ability and not to\nwant of good will. I have endeavoured to throw every block in your way\nwhich I could think of, without deviating from the character which I\nhad assumed; and that I have not made your task more arduous, is\nbecause I did not see how I could do it without betraying a manifest\ndishonesty on my part. The result is such as I anticipated.\n\n\"My real motive must be my only apology for the part I have taken. You\nknow that no work of the kind has ever been really and seriously\nattempted by any one who is avowedly of our order; that our religious\nopponents are continualiy throwing the gauntlet of aspersions at us,\nas being nothing more than mere pretenders to christianity, but in\nreality, _Deists_ in disguise. To repel, therefore, those charges, as\nwell as to let the unbelieving world know our views on this subject, I\nthought a work of this kind was really needed. And it appeared to me\nthat the work, in the first place, would be more likely to be read,\nand, in the end, more sure of success, to have it come forth by the\nway of controversy, than what it would in any other way.\n\n\"It is true, I may not have brought all the objections which some\nwould wish to have brought; but if what I have brought are so far\nremoved as not to remain a serious obstacle in the mind of candid\nreaders (which I conclude will be the case, with others, as it is with\nme) then all objections may be as easily removed.\n\n\"That this work may be an instrument, in the hands of God, of removing\nthe prejudices from the minds of many of our religious opponents, of\nstrengthening the faith of many who are wavering, and, as it were,\nhalting between two opinions, and of calling up the attention of those\nwho, like Gallis, 'care for none of these things,' is the sincere\nprayer of:\n\n\"Yours in the bonds of the gospel.\n\n\"A. KNEELAND.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER IX.\n\n_Dear sir, and brother_,--A careful perusal of your tenth number has\ngiven me much satisfaction, and seems to suggest that my reply may be\ngeneral. You discover the rational ground on which your scruples are\nremoved, and state no difficulty that you do not surmount.\n\nI agree with you, that the gloomy doctrine of eternal misery, when by\nthe imagination it becomes incorporated into the system of divine\nrevelation, \"reverses the whole scene,\" and renders that, which in its\ndivine and native beauty possesses the most powerful attractions, the\nmost deformed picture that ever repelled the human affections. It is\nthis heaven-dishonouring doctrine, so repugnant to and irreconcilable\nwith the known goodness of God manifested to all nations in his divine\nprovidence, that has, more than any thing else, so buffeted all the\nbest feelings of man, as in thousands of instances to drive the heart\nof benevolence to lay aside the scriptures to whose authority this\nunmerciful doctrine has been erroneously ascribed.\n\nBut let the scriptures be once considered as free from the above\nhorrible sentiment as in reality they are, they will then perfectly\ncorrespond with the demonstrations of universal benevolence and grace,\nrendered conspicuous in all the ways of God; they will also compare as\na perfect transcript of that inward light and love which renders man\nan image of his ever adorable Creator.\n\nAs the christian church emerges from the city of mystery Babylon and\nits suburbs, and advances into the light of the wisdom of God, the\ndoctrine above mentioned loses its influence and its votaries; nor\nwill it be in the power of our self-styled orthodox clergy, long to\nchain the public mind to such a forbidding absurdity.\n\nNothing discovers the deplorable state of depravity, to which the\nhuman mind is subject, by force of tradition, more than the unnatural\nand absurd notion of enhancing future bliss, by beholding fellow\ncreatures of the nearest connexion in a state of indescribable misery,\nthere to remain time without end!\n\nIt seems to us astonishing that parents were ever capable of causing\ntheir children to pass through the fire to an idol, but what is this\ncompared with what our pious fathers and mothers have believed\nconcerning their children's sufferings in the eternal world, for the\nglory of that God who is the Father of the spirits of all flesh?\n\nTradition makes the most horrible things acceptable to the mind which\nbecomes blind to their deformity, and even the most detestable things,\ndesirable, by a certain feigned sanctity which it attaches to them.\nBut the charm once broken, the rational mind becomes transformed into\nanother image, totally different, and entirely repugnant to the things\nwhich it before venerated as divine. You very justly remark, that if\ntruth be in any way connected with endless misery, you are not\nreconciled to it; but the time has been when you and I viewed this\ndoctrine as an essential article of the faith of the gospel. What an\nabsurdity! Eternal misery an essential article of the faith of a\nSaviour!\n\nAnd this very moment there are thousands who set their feet on this\nvagary, believing it to be the only rock of safety.\n\nBut we have reason to be thankful for our happy deliverance from such\na pernicious tradition; a tradition which has poisoned the doctrine of\nthe church, and hardened the hearts of Christian professors to such a\ndegree, that cruelty of the worst kind has become habitual.\n\nWill our _pious clergy_ contend against this charge? Let them account\nthen for all the persecutions, the anathemas, the hangings and the\nburnings, which owe their origin to this doctrine of eternal misery.\nLet them account for their own sermons, in our day, which sentence\nage, middle age, and infancy to endless torture, for offences they\nnever heard of, nor will they ever be informed of them until they find\nthemselves in hell for what a man and a woman did thousands of years\nbefore they were born, and of whom they never had heard one word in\nthe land of the living! This they as constantly preach as they contend\nthat man must be sensible of his fall in Adam, of the justice of his\nbeing eternally miserable for that offence, and of pardon through the\natonement of Christ in this life, or be miserable forever hereafter;\nfor thousands in all ages have lived and died who never heard this\nabsurd story while on earth.\n\nSir, we have no reason to wonder that religion is so little set by,\nwhile it is held up in such a character. Let it put on the mild form\nof the meek and humble Jesus, let it appear in the mercy of him who\nsaid \"the son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save\nthem,\" let it be represented by its own similitude, by pouring oil and\nwine into the wounds of an enemy, let it be heard when it declares in\napostolic language, God \"will have all men to be saved, and to come\nunto the knowledge of the truth,\" let its language be strictly\nregarded when it informs us that charity is greater than faith or\nhope, then it will be pure and undefiled before God and the Father; it\nwill engage the best affections of the human heart, and call to its\ndevotion all the energies of man. Who can count the damages which have\nbeen occasioned by the preposterous error of setting up _faith_ as a\ncriterion of _charity_? Creed makers and creed defenders surely must\nhave been averse to St. Paul's sentiment concerning the superiority of\ncharity over faith; for they have sat charity at defiance with\nundefined items in their creeds, which were acknowledged mysterious in\ntheir own minds, and evidently repugnant to reason in the judgment of\nthose who were proscribed as heretics by their authority.\n\nRelative to my quotations from the epistle of Barnabas and others,\nyour argument, as far as it is intended to lessen our belief in the\ngenuineness of these epistles, has no direct bearing on the argument\nwhich I endeavoured to support by them; for it makes no difference\n_who wrote_ those epistles, it is their containing quotations from the\nNew Testament which gives them the consequence for which they were\nquoted.\n\nIn reply to what you say respecting Clement's not quoting Mat. v. 7,\nxviii. 6. as the writing of St Matthew, but as the words of \"our\nLord,\" I here set down Paley's answer.\n\n\"It may be said, that, as Clement hath not used words of quotation, it\nis not certain that he refers to any book whatever. The words of\nChrist, which he has put down, he might himself have heard from the\napostles, or might have received them through the ordinary medium of\noral tradition. This has been said; but that no such inference can be\ndrawn from the absence of words of quotation is proved by the three\nfollowing considerations:--First, that Clement in the very same\nmanner, namely, without any mark of reference, uses a passage now\nfound in the epistle to the Romans;[9] which passage from the\npeculiarity of the words which compose it, and from their order, it is\nmanifest that he must have taken from the book. The same remark may be\nrepeated of some very singular sentiments in the epistle to the\nHebrews. Secondly, that there are many sentences of St. Paul's epistle\nto the Corinthians standing in Clement's epistle without any sign of\nquotation, which yet are certainly quotations; because it appears that\nClement had St. Paul's epistle before him, inasmuch as in one place he\nmentions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt--'Take into\nyour hands the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul.' Thirdly, that\nthis method of adopting words of scripture, without reference or\nacknowledgment, was, as will appear in the sequel, a method in general\nuse among the most ancient christian writers. These analogies not only\nrepel the objection, but cast the presumption on the other side; and\nafford a considerable degree of positive proof that the words in\nquestion have been borrowed from the places of scripture in which we\nnow find them.\"[10]\n\n[Footnote 9: Rom. i. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Paley's Evidences, p. 109, 110.]\n\nI think, if we take into consideration the authority of external\nevidence, especially if we duly consider how easily Celsus couid have\noverthrown the gospels, if they had not been genuine, it must be\nacknowledged sufficient, even of itself, to establish any matter of\nfact however important, allowing no natural improbability were\ninvolved in the fact. And this is as much as we want of external\nevidence, of the sort refered to.\n\nBut as even the internal evidences of scripture would be insufficient\nto support their authority without the concurrence of external\nevidence, so would the external be found wanting without the internal.\nBut these together are abundantly sufficient to establish the\ncredibility of this gospel, which is, like every thing else of the\nwork and wisdom of God, the wonder and admiration of the believing\nsoul.\n\nThe purity of your motives in writing on the subject of our\ndiscussion, will fully justify the exertions you have made to draw\nforth such arguments as your brother has been enabled to adduce in\nsupport of our common faith. I regret that my almost constant employ\non other subjects and other duties, has afforded so little time as I\nhave been able to devote to your queries, which, together with my want\nof abilities to do justice to a subject of this importance is now an\nembarrassment on my mind in regard to giving my consent to the\npublication of this correspondence. And there is still another\ncircumstance which seems to operate as an objection to the publishing\nof these letters, viz. the want of _extension of argument_ in many\ninstances, which would have been attended to, if the work had been\nwritten for the conviction of common readers, which was not thought to\nbe necessary for the benefit of the mover of the queries.\n\nHowever, as all human productions are imperfect and ought so to be\nconsidered, and especially those from your humble servant, I am\nwilling to appear to some disadvantage if any considerable advantage\nmay thereby result to the cause of Jesus Christ our Lord.\n\nI cannot close this valedictory epistle without a solemn\nacknowledgement of heart felt gratitude to the merciful disposer of\nall events, for the ample evidence which his providence and grace have\ngiven of the truth of our religion, especially when consider the\nglorious hope set before us; and am permitted to anticipate the\npromised era when there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor\ncrying; when there shall be no more pain; but when tears shall be\nwiped from all faces, and the rebuke of the nations removed from off\nall the earth, and every creature in heaven, and on the earth, and\nunder the earth, and such as are in the sea shall harmoniously ascribe\nblessing, and glory, and honor unto him who sitteth upon the throne\nand unto the lamb forever and ever, I loose myself in the\ncontemplation of the transporting scene.\n\nTo conclude, as you, my brother, have laboured together with your\nfellow servant, to look into, and examine these things which belong to\nthe kingdom of righteousness, and as we have been favoured with mutual\nsatisfaction in these researches, may it please the Great Head of the\nchurch still to hold us in his hand, still to engage us in his blessed\ncause, and render our mutual labours promotive of his grace among men.\nAnd however distant from each other it may best suit the captain of\nour salvation to place us, may it be his pleasure to continue our\nfellowship in the bonds of the gospel.\n\nYours affectionately,\n\nH. BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA SERIES OF LETTERS, BETWEEN\nTHE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER, D.D.\nTHE REV. JOSEPH WALTON, A.M.\nPASTORS OF CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES IN PORTSMOUTH, N.H.\nAND THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU.\n\n\nA SERIES OF LETTERS\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\nFROM THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, DEC. 28, 1809.\n\n_Dear Sir_,--At the close of the interview which we had at my house,\nsome little time since, you expressed a wish to live in habits of\nfriendship with the ministers of this town, and I think I expressed a\nhope that I should be always disposed to treat you and all men with\nthose fruits of benevolence and friendship which the law of our common\nnature and the spirit and principles of the Christian religion, demand\nof me; with this profession, without its fruits, my conscience is not\nsatisfied. It was neither friendship nor piety that dictated that\nearly question, \"_Am I my brother's keeper_?\"--There is a reciprocal\nresponsibility among mankind, both for the interest of time and\neternity. Were I to see you or any others exposing themselves to\ndanger, or running into situations that I apprehend would be\nprejudicial and destructive, friendship would require me to warn and\nadmonish, and endeavour to restrain; and can I support my pretensions\nto this principle in withholding my warning and admonition, while I am\nverily persuaded that the present tendency and final issue of that\nsystem of sentiments which you have embraced, and which you have come\namong us to advocate and to support, will expose you, and those that\nembrace and build upon it, to danger and distress, with which no\ntemporal calamity or ruin can bear any sort of comparison?\n\nI know not what system of Universalism you have embraced or advocate,\nnor is it of any material consequence in my view; I presume I do not\nmistake or injure you in supposing that you publicly preach and\nadvocate the final salvation of all mankind, their restoration and\nassociation with Jesus Christ in realms of glory. Whatever human\ningenuity or plausible and sophistic reasoning may do with respect to\neither of these systems, they each and all of them are, in my view,\ndestitute of divine authority, and have not a \"thus saith the Lord,\"\nfor their support.\n\nThere may be some little difference in the present tendency and effect\nof these different systems upon the present conduct of men, and so\nupon the interest of society; but in their general influence, and in\ntheir final results, they meet in the same point, and will be attended\nwith the same dreadful consequences. They are neither of them true,\nand so can have no effect in quickening into life or sanctifying the\nsoul, for it is the _spirit_ that _quickeneth_, and the _truth_ that\n_sanctifieth_; they may exhilarate, please, and produce triumph; but\nit will be a triumphing that is short, and a joy that is but for a\nmoment; for God, to my apprehension, has been so far from giving any\ncountenance to either of those systems, that he hath long ago\npronounced them false, and their tendency destructive--these are his\nwords:\"_Because with lies ye have made the hearts of the righteous\nsad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of the\nwicked, that he should not return from his wicked way by promising him\nlife_.\" But it is not my intention to enter into a dispute upon this\nsubject, neither to enlarge upon arguments to support my own\nsentiments, nor to disprove yours; I have no apprehension that any\ngood would result from it; it would be a tax upon time that might be\nbetter employed.\n\nWhen persons have adopted a system and are engaged in its support,\nwhen the pride of peculiarity or the influence of party views are\nenlisted as auxiliaries, there is little ground to hope for a\nconviction of its errors by formal disputation, however temperately\nconducted; nothing will effect a change of views and feelings but\n\"_that still small voice_\" which induced the prophet to wrap his face\nin his mantle. This voice is more likely to attend our calm, retired\nreflections, than the perusal of arguments that tend to disprove what\nwe have been accustomed to advocate and support.\n\nThe object of this letter is not to revile, to censure, nor to\ndispute; but, in friendship and affection, to entreat you to reflect\nand consider the consequences to yourself and others of that system of\nsentiments which you are advocating--anticipate the day of judgment,\nand realize yourself called upon to give an account of your\nstewardship. I am not disposed, my dear sir, to impeach your sincerity\nand honesty. I know how far men may be deluded and deceived. I am\ndisposed to believe that you conscientiously think the sentiments you\nadvocate are true. But remember, dear sir, this does not make them\ntrue, nor secure you from the dreadful consequences in which they may\nissue. With all this moral sincerity and uprightness, if you cease to\nwarn the wicked, that he turn from his wicked way (and how can this be\nmore effectually done than by leading him to expect final, everlasting\nhappiness) his blood will be required at your hands. The apostle Paul\nmost conscientiously persecuted the christians and declared to the\ncouncil before whom he was arraigned, that he had lived in all good\nconscience before God till that day. He verily thought he ought to do\nmany things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, yet his\npersuasion did not acquit him from guilt, nor would it have shielded\nhim from destruction had he not been renewed to repentance and faith\nin Christ, while as yet Christ was in the way with him. Christ said to\nhis disciples, \"The time will come when whosoever killeth you will\nthink he doth God's service;\" and he has added, \"many will say unto\nme, in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and\nin thy name cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful\nworks? then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me\nye that work iniquity.\" What must be your situation in the day of\nretribution if the system you advocate should in final evidence prove\nfalse? of which I have not the least shadow of doubt upon my mind, and\ntherefore have all the forebodings for my erring and deceived fellow\nmortals which may be supposed to be the result of such conviction.--I\ncannot cease to warn and to entreat you to consider, friendship\nforbids, my withholding the voice of warning and adjuration; and both\nduty and respect to my own safety require me to endeavour to save you\nfrom the issue, of which I have such awful forebodings. We must both\nstand before the Son of man, and each one must give an account of\nhimself and of his stewardship to God.--From our connextion here,\nthere will probably be some interest in each other in that day; and I\ncannot bear the thought of your being able to say when the scheme of\nUniversalism shall all vanish like the baseless fabric of a vision,\nand all the hopes built upon it will be like the spider's web and like\nthe giving up of the ghost, that you should be able to say, I never\nwarned you of this issue, nor admonished you of your danger.\n\nI know not with what sentiments you will receive this address, nor\nwhat use you may make of it; my concern is with the sentiments and\nspirit that dictate it. I think they are such as will induce me\ncontinually to pray that you may not pierce yourself through with many\nsorrows, nor be left to mourn at the last.\n\nYour friend and humble servant,\n\nJ. BUCKMINSTER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER II.\n\nFROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, JAN'Y. 1, 1810.\n\n_Rev. Sir_,--The receipt of your affectionate, friendly address,\nbearing date December 28, 1809, is gratefully acknowledged, and\nalthough I have not words fully adequate to express the satisfaction I\nfeel arising from the circumstance and spirit of your epistle, I\ncannot be willing to suppress my feelings so much as not to notice,\nthat it is with uncommon pleasure that I appreciate your favour,\nwhich, I am happy to acknowledge, is a demonstration of that\nfriendship first reciprocated at your house, and secondly\nrecapitulated in your epistle. This friendship founded, as you justly\nobserve, in the _law_ of our _common nature_ and in the _spirit_ and\n_principles_ of the _christian religion_, is such an inexhaustible\ntreasure of moral riches that the aggregate sum of earthly wealth is\npoverty in the comparison.\n\nThis friendship, sir, being founded on such principles, will\nundoubtedly last as long as such principles remain; and if you are my\nreal friend on the principle of the law of our common nature, so long\nas you possess the law of our common nature, you will be my real\nfriend; and if you are my real friend, on the principles and spirit of\nthe christian religion, so long as you possess the principles and\nspirit of the christian religion, you will remain my real friend. And\nif I be, as I trust in God I am, your real friend, on those\nimperishable principles, I shall continue to possess this friendship\nfor you so long as I possess those principles. If these observations\non friendship be correct, as I conceive they are, you will know why I\nso highly prize the treasure, especially when I find it in a man\ncapable of exercising it to so much advantage as your learning,\nability and experience enable you to do. You justly observe that\nneither piety nor friendship dictated the question, \"Am I my brother's\nkeeper?\" How different must have been the spirit which dictated that\nquestion from the spirit of him who saith, I will declare thy name\nunto my brethren, my mother's children were angry with me, they made\nme the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard have I not kept?\n\nYour next observation is highly worthy, not only of general\nconsideration, but of particular notice; and I am the more pleased\nwith it on account of its falling from your pen as I am sure you must\nunderstand the truths which are necessarily connected with the one\nexpressed in the observation; your words are, \"there is a reciprocal\nresponsibility among mankind both for the interest of time and\neternity.\" As it cannot reasonably require any argument to discover\nthe propriety of supposing that the eternal interest of mankind is\nconnected with eternal causes and predicated on eternal principles, so\nwhen it is acknowledged that a reciprocal responsibility exists among\nmankind for their eternal interest, it is evident that this reciprocal\nresponsibility is eternal. Should any conviction of mind render it\nnecessary that we give up the idea of the eternal nature of this\nreciprocal responsibility, that conviction would drive the idea of\neternal interest, predicated on such responsibility from our mind. How\nnoble are your sentiments communicated in this observation! How rich\nmust you and I feel in the enjoyment of such reciprocal principles and\nin the consequent interest arising from them; not only for time, but\nfor eternity!\n\nYou very justly observe again--\"Were I to see you or any others\nexposing themselves to danger or running into situations which I\napprehended would be destructive, friendship would require me to warn\nand admonish, and to endeavour to restrain.\" These expressions, sir,\nillustrate the good fruits of real friendship, and as our Saviour has\ntold us that the tree is known by its fruits, so we are to distinguish\nbetween real and pretended friends by their fruits. Suppose, sir, we\nmove the position a little, and say, notwithstanding you warn me and\nendeavour to restrain me from danger, I persist in my error, and my\ncalamity comes upon me; in this situation you come and tell me that\nyou are heartily glad that I am tormented, and that you are glad to\nthink there is no probability of my misery's being any less; that you\nfeel no pity for me now; could I look back and remember your warning,\nand believe that you warned me out of real friendship? We have just\nseen that friendship predicated on the law of our common nature and on\nthe principles and spirit of the Christian religion must necessarily\nbe as durable as those eternal principles. It is no less the\ncharacteristic of real friendship to endeavour to meliorate than to\npreserve from sufferings.\n\nOn observing your admonitions, and believing you sincere in them, I am\nled to say, that had I such a friend as you are who possessed the\nmeans for making me eternally happy, I might entertain no doubt of\nobtaining the inestimable enjoyment; nor do I view you, sir, less a\nfriend because you do not possess a power which is equal to the\nputting of all your friendly desires into full execution, but will\nacknowledge you my worthy friend, and accept the warnings which you\ngive me against the system of doctrine which, as you say, I have\nembraced and come among this people to advocate, as a token of that\nfriendship which would, if connected with suitable power, place me out\nof all final danger, or which would cause you to rejoice exceedingly,\nhad you the evidence to believe that one who has such power possesses\neven stronger desires for my eternal welfare than you do.\n\nYou inform me that you do not know what system of Universalism I have\nembraced. Permit me, sir, to inform you, though you do not request it,\nthat I have embraced the system of Universalism, which Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob embraced, in believing God, who said, \"In thee shall all the\nfamilies of the earth be blessed; and in thy seed shall all the\nnations of the earth be blessed.\" If this faith of Abraham were\nimputed to him for righteousness, it must be a true faith, and if\ntrue, worthy to be embraced by all nations and families of the earth,\nwithout the exception of an individual. Permit me further to observe\nthat I disclaim all authors as divine guides, except the divine author\nof those scriptures which cannot be broken.\n\nYou rightly apprehend me in supposing that I believe and teach that\nall mankind will be saved, restored and associated with Christ Jesus\nin realms of glory; but I do not believe as you intimate, that human\ningenuity, or plausible and sophistic reasoning are necessary to the\nsupport of this doctrine among men; nor will I attempt to say how\nsorry I am that you should declare the doctrine not true until you had\nproduced a \"_thus saith the Lord_\" to prove it false; or that you\nshould intimate that I am employing human ingenuity or plausible and\nsophistic reasoning to support the universal benevolence of God until\nthe disagreeable circumstance should transpire, in which I might be\njustly thus charged.\n\nAlthough in order to please myself, I might explain your meaning as\ndirected against some others of the advocates of the heavenly gospel\nof universal salvation; I could find but little satisfaction in thus\nendeavoring to avoid any reproach which is directed against the true\ndisciples of my divine Master.\n\nYou inform me that as universal salvation is not true, \"it can have no\neffect in quickening into life or of sanctifying the soul, for it is\nthe spirit that quickeneth, and the truth, which sanctifies.\" If, dear\nsir, you do not believe that the spirit of salvation quickeneth into\nlife, would it not have been proper to inform me what spirit does? And\nI should have highly esteemed an illustration of the evidence which\nyou have, that the truth, _that mankind will remain eternally\nunsanctified_, will sanctify the soul! I fully believe that as far as\nany proposition is capable of being proved from the written word, or\nof being demonstrated by logical reasoning from acknowledged facts,\nthe doctrine of the salvation of all men is capable of being proved\nand substantially maintained. Does it require human ingenuity or\nplausible and sophistic reasoning to make it appear from the\nscriptures that Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for\nevery man; that he gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in\ndue time; that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world;\nthat it is the will of God that all men should be saved and come to\nthe knowledge of the truth; that he worketh all things after the\ncouncil of his own will?--Does it require this ingenuity, &c. to\nsubstantiate from the written word that the promise to Abraham will be\nfulfilled, and that all nations whom God hath made shall come and\nworship before him and glorify his name; that Jesus will in the\nfulness of time, reconcile all things unto himself, whether they be\nthings in heaven or things on earth, or things under the earth; that\nhe will gather together in one all things in Christ both which are in\nheaven and which are on earth, even in him? If it be an acknowledged\nfact that God will bless all the families of the earth in Christ, that\nall nations which God hath made shall come and worship before him and\nglorify his name, that Jesus gave himseif a ransom for all men to be\ntestified in due time, that he did by the grace of God taste death for\nevery man, that he will have all men to be saved and come to the\nknowledge of the truth, that he hath made known the mystery of his\nwill according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself,\nthat in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he would gather\ntogether in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and\nwhich are on earth, and that he worketh all things after the council\nof his own will, then the doctrine of the salvation of all men is as\nfully acknowledged as language can possibly express, or my error lies\nin not understanding the force of words and sentences.\n\nBy what method, sir, would it be proper for me to express my surprise\nat your introducing the words recorded in the 13th chapter of Ezekiel,\nand at the 22d verse, as a testimony against the doctrine of universal\nsalvation? \"Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous\nsad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of the\nwicked that he should not turn from his wicked way by promising him\nlife;\"--Must I suppose, sir, that you believe, that the lies mentioned\nin this quotation were promises of life in the seed of Abraham, in\nwhom all the families of the earth are to be blessed? I cannot believe\nthis of a man of your understanding, and yet cannot conceive why you\nadduce this passage as proof that Christ is not the life of all men.\nIs it not evident that those who were addressed in that text were such\nas promised the people life in the vain traditions which they had\nestablished, by which they made void the law? And what does the Lord\nsay that he would finally do in this case?--See verse 23d, \"Therefore\nye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations; for I will\ndeliver my people out of your hands, and ye shall know that I am the\nLord.\" This is very far from saying that they should be endlessly\nmiserable. Christ is the Lord our righteousness, and his heart was\nmade sad by the traditions of the house of Israel and by the Rabbis\nwho promised the people life in their vain customs which they had\nestablished for religion: and I would acknowledge this passage justly\nurged against the doctrine which I should vindicate, should I set up\nany thing but Christ and him crucified, on which to depend for life\nand salvation; but you leave this quotation as if you had done what\nyou hardly meant to do, by observing that you do not intend to enter\ninto a dispute on this subject, neither to enlarge on arguments to\nsupport your own sentiments nor to disprove mine.\n\nYou think that no good would result from the argument however\ntemperately conducted it might be, assigning the pride of peculiarity,\nand the influence of party views as sufficient barriers to prevent\nsuccess. In this observation may I say without offending, sir, you are\ninexplicit, or wanting in propriety, and premature in application.\nTemperate men are not governed in their religious researches by the\npride of peculiarity nor the influence of party views, and a faithful\ntrial ought to have been made in order to convince of error before the\ncharge of _pride of peculiarity_, or the influence of party views,\ncould with propriety have been made. I am disposed to believe when\npersons are candid and temperate in an investigation, they generally\nobtain light and edification. I will say for myself, notwithstanding I\nhighly prize your solemn warnings, and believe them as proceeding from\nthe most commendable sentiments of friendship, I should have been much\npleased if you had accompanied them with the best and most forcible\narguments of which you are master, against the doctrine which you are\ndisposed to say in so many words \"_it not true_.\" The small still\nvoice to which you recommended my attention has never told me that\nChrist was not the Saviour of all men.\n\nMay we not suppose that this voice is uniform in its testimony? Do\ntell me, sir, if that voice ever told you that it was not the will of\nGod that all men should be saved! Is it not by the influence of the\nspirit of this voice that you pray for the salvation of all men? And\nwould this small still voice tell you that it is not God's will to\nsave all men, and then induce you to pray for all men? If I be not a\nstranger to this heavenly voice which teaches me to wrap myself in my\nmantle, the Lord my righteousness, it influences me to pray in faith,\nnothing doubting, for the salvation of all men.\n\nIn your truly affecting entreaty you direct my mind to the day of\njudgment when I am called to give an account of my stewardship, and\nask what my situation must be, if the system I advocate should in\nfinal evidence, prove false? I have seriously thought on this\nquestion; and this is my conclusion: My judge will know that I am, in\nthis instance, honest and sincere; he will know how hardly I wrestled\nagainst his written word in order to avoid believing that he would\nsave all men, and he will know that my deception was in understanding\nhis word as a simple, honest man would understand a plain testimony\nvoid of scholastic dress. In this case I am willing to throw myself on\nthe mercy of the judge. On the other hand, dear sir, I have made a\ncalculation too. Suppose I adhere to your testimony, that the doctrine\nI believe is not true, and abandon it as a heresy, preach it down to\nthe utmost of my ability, and the doctrine at last, when you and I\nstand before that judge who knows the hearts of all men, should in\nfinal evidence of the law and prophets, prove true, of which I have\nnot the least shadow of doubt in my mind, with what a blush must I\ngive up my account! My judge who has suffered every thing for me, asks\nme, why did you deny me, forsake my cause, and use the abilities which\nI gave you to preach that dishonourable doctrine that I did not redeem\nall men, or that I would not finally reconcile all men to myself, and\ncause them all to love me heartily in bliss and glory? I, abashed\nbeyond description, must answer, a man, who, I conceived was my friend\nand who preached that God my Saviour, never intended to save all men,\ntold me the doctrine I preached was _not true_! O, how would my soul\nthrill with grief when a look, such as was cast on Peter after he\ndenied his Lord, should accompany this question, and who told you in\nthe first place it was true?\n\nI appeal to the searcher of hearts for the sincerity of my soul when I\nsay, my dear sir, I feel an uncommon desire to cultivate friendship\nwith you, and were it possible for me to gratify you in any thing that\nshould be consistent with my duty to my God, I think I should not\nshrink from the service; but should the multitude, whose hearts have\nbeen made joyful in the salvation of all men, become so blinded as to\nrenounce the sentiments, I must remain unshaken, until more than human\ntestimony stands against the doctrine.\n\nI am very sensible of the propriety of the observation, that the\nsincerity of a belief does not prove the thing believed to be true;\nfor though I cannot say so much as you do, viz. \"that I know how far\nmen may be deluded and deceived,\" yet I am sensible that men may be\ndeceived and yet be honest; and it is on this ground, that I have\ncharity for those who believe and preach different from me.\n\nTowards the conclusion of your epistle, you intimate that you wish not\nto have me say at last, when my doctrine issues in my mourning, that\nyou had not warned me. Be assured, sir, if I may be so much at my own\ndisposal at the last day, that I will not say, you did not warn me;\nbut if my doctrine be false at last, and you are asked why you did not\nprove from the written word to my understanding that I was in an\nerror, will you say in answer, that it would have been such a tax upon\ntime, that you could not afford it, that you could not or did not wish\nto? As the passages which you quote on your last page are designed to\nillustrate what I believe to be a fact, I forbear, at this time, an\nillustration of them, in which, the impropriety of the common mode of\nunderstanding them might be made to appear. Should you be disposed to\nattempt to correct my ideas in this epistle, or my doctrine in\ngeneral, by turning to the great touchstone, the law and the\ntestimony, be as ample, sir, as your inclination and opportunity will\nadmit. Every argument shall be duly attended to with prayerful\nsolicitude to obtain conviction, if it can be found; and whatever\nlight I gain I will gratefully acknowledge, and wherein I do not agree\nwith you, I will give you my reasons.\n\nYour most obliged friend and humble servant,\n\nHOSEA BALLOU.\n\nRev. J. BUCKMINSTER.\n\nP.S. If I have been so unfortunate, in the foregoing epistle make\nchoice of any words which indicate too much freedom, please to impute\nit to a frankness which perhaps I sometimes indulge to a fault, and\nnot to any want of due respect. H.B.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER III\nFROM THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, JAN. 10, 1810.\n\n_Dear Sir_,--It was not my intention, in the letter which I sometime\nsince addressed to you, to enter into a discussion of the subject of\nUniversalism, much less, for reasons that were suggested, provoke a\ndispute upon it. I therefore endeavoured so to express myself that no\nreply should be necessary.\n\nMy object was to discharge what I thought a duty of friendship and\naffection, rendered more necessary by my personal declarations to you\nat my house, by stating to you with frankness and decision what I was\npersuaded would be the final result of that sentiment which you have\nembraced, and are advocating among us; and to fulfil a duty which I\nowe to myself, and to Him who has set me here to be a watchman, that I\nmight use every proper precaution to appear before my Judge at last\nwith unstained garments, preclude an occasion for a crimination and\nreproach, and give up my account with joy and not with grief.\n\nI might have a secret hope that the apprehensions so seriously and\ncandidly suggested might excite you to review your sentiments, and\nrenewedly compare them with the only standard, and that this serious,\ncalm and retired exercise might be accompanied with an influence from\nabove, that might alter your views and conclusions upon the subject;\nbut my principal design was to discharge what I thought my duty as\nabove stated. You have thought it your duty to remark upon the\naddress, and intimate an expectation that I should rejoin; your\nprofessions and candor have induced me for a time, to hesitate whether\nI ought not, in this instance, to depart from my general resolutions,\nand this hesitation has had influence in my delay to notice your\nletter. But the result of my hesitations, reflections and prayer, is a\nmore full persuasion, that if the writings of Dr. Edwards, Dr. Strong\nand others who have discussed the subject, and which doubtless you\nhave seen, have produced no hesitation or conviction in your mind, it\nwould be vain and idle to expect it from any efforts of mine; and that\nit would be a misuse of time, which might be employed in more hopeful\nprospects of usefulness. This is a reason which I at present feel\nsatisfied to give to God and my conscience for declining to enter upon\na discussion of this subject, and I trust it will be accepted at the\ntribunal of God. To that tribunal I humbly and cheerfully refer the\ndecision of the question that would be matter of dispute between us,\nfrom which decision there will be no appeal, and to which there will\nbe no liberty to reply. I reciprocate the tender of every office of\nfriendship consistent with what I think my duty to God and my\nconscience, and shall not cease to pray that those who have erred from\nthe truth may be recovered from their errors, and being sanctified by\nthe truth, may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your friend and\nwell wisher.\n\nJ. BUCKMINSTER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER IV.\n\nFROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, JAN. 11, 1810.\n\n_Rev. Sir_,--Your favour of yesterday is acknowledged with that\nrespectful submission which your age and experience, together with the\nspirit and import of your note justly impose, and with gratitude also,\nfor an obligation which I wished to be under in being satisfied of\nyour having received my epistle of the 1st inst. This I learn by the\nfriendly rebuke in your first section in which you speak of my reply\nas unnecessary, and also by your condescending to refer to it again in\nyour fourth section. Had I, sir, viewed your address altogether in the\nlight which you inform me you did, or had you informed me that a reply\nwould not be expected, I should by no means have troubled you contrary\nto your wishes. However, as you are an experienced judge of all such\nmatters, so you will condescend to pardon me if in your judgment my\nepistle is destitute of important subjects. You are so kind as to\nrepeat the design of your address again, certifying me that your\nobject was to discharge the office of friendship, by stating to me\nwith frankness and decision what you are persuaded will be the final\nresult of that sentiment which I have embraced and am advocating. No\nman, sir, will ever be more ready to acknowledge a friendly office\nwith sentiments of gratitude than your humble servant; but I am sure\nit cannot be expected by you, that I should receive the testimony of a\nman, however friendly to me, as a decision against that gospel which I\ndid not receive of man, nor by man, but by the revelation of Jesus\nChrist.\n\nYour precautions in warning me as they regard your final justification\nbefore God, I hope will be superceded by the acceptable atonement of\nthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; though that\nshall not render your faithfulness void of approbation in a\nsubordinate sense. The secret hope which you entertained of exciting\nme, by your serious apprehensions to review my sentiments and\nrenewedly to compare them with the only standard, would perhaps appear\nnot altogether so necessary, did you know that my daily business is to\nstudy the law and the testimony, which increase their light as they\nare more examined, and furnish every hour I study them, new proofs of\nthe unbounded goodness of God to the sinful race of Adam. O my dear\nfriend! Could you but know the inexpressible consolation and peace\nwhich I enjoy in believing that he, who gave himself a ransom for all\nmen, will finally see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied,\nyou could not feel concerned about the final issue of the doctrine\nwhich I believe and advocate!\n\nI feel that my blessed Lord and kind Redeemer deserves every exertion\nof mine to persuade men to the knowledge of that truth which would\nmake them free; nor can I easily forbear to express my desire that\nyour greater experience and better abilities might be employed in\nshewing to poor benighted sinners the divine amplitude of gospel grace\nfor the salvation of all mankind. I believe, dear sir, if it should\nplease God to discover this soul rejoicing truth to you, that the\nangels would rejoice in heaven, and saints on earth would be made\nexceeding glad: yes, your church and parish would follow you with\nrapturous joy to the fountain which is open for Judah and Jerusalem to\nwash in from sin and uncleanness, and to which the fulness of the\nGentiles shall be gathered.\n\nI am not at all disposed to complain of your decision not to enter\ninto an investigation of the doctrine against the truth of which you\nhave opposed your testimony; though I should hardly have believed that\nin your judgment, such a testimony could have been thought proper\nunless preceded or succeeded by some colour of evidence. No man, my\ndear sir, is less calculated to enjoy a dry, unfruitful controversy on\nreligious sentiments than I am--though I wish to hold myself in\nperpetual readiness to give an answer to every man who may ask me a\nreason for the hope that is within me with meekness and fear.\n\nThe arguments of Dr. Edwards and Dr. Strong being disposed to\nrepresent the divine economy of grace less extensive than the plain\nand positive promises of God, the testimony of the prophets, the word\nof life through Christ and the witnessing apostles, have declared it\nto be, stand forever refuted by that cloud of witnesses, as they are\nalso by the spirit of Christ in every humble believing heart. It is\nfar more easy for the rational lover of Christ to believe those\nlearned doctors, deceived by the vain traditions of the schools, than\nto believe that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is less extensive\nthan his word and spirit declare it to be.\n\nIf there never were a true Christian whose desires did not extend to\nthe whole human race, that all might be brought to a saving repentance\nand to holy and happy life in Christ, then Jesus has never left\nhimself without a witness in his disciples, that all the creeds of men\nwhich limit the divine favour are false. With whatsoever panics worms\nof the dust may have struck their fellow worms by challenging them to\na decision of their weak, insignificant notions at a tribunal of an\nomnipotent judge, such solemn appeals can have but little effect on\nthe humble mind who leans not to his own wisdom, and who views every\nthing already decided in the eternal system of that God whose tender\nmercies are over all the works of his hands.\n\nThe mode in which you express the circumstance of final judgment is\nrather indicative of what I hope you do not mean, as it intimates that\ntoo much freedom has been assumed by me in presuming to reply to your\naddress. There is much to excite my gratitude in the assurance you\ngive me of reciprocating offices of friendship, consistent with duty\nto God;--and while you, sir, give me to understand that I have an\ninterest in your prayers, permit me to beg your supplications, that I\nmay be faithful unto death; and to assure you of my humble desire that\nyou may continue to be useful to your fellow pilgrims while you live,\nand find acceptance with God through Christ at last. Your most obliged\nfriend and humble servant in Christ. HOSEA BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA NOTE FROM THE REV. DR. BUCKMINSTER TO THE REV. MR. BALLOU.\n\nFRIDAY, P. M.\n\nIt is a duty which Mr. Buckminster owes to himself to declare that the\nthought of intimating that it was any assumption or presumption in Mr.\nBallou to reply to his address, never once entered his mind; and he is\nsorry if any thing in Mr. Buckminster's communications could give\nground to suspect such foolish vanity; but it confirms the correctness\nof the opinion, that _disputes however temperately conducted are\nrarely productive of any good_. All that he meant was that the\ndecision at the tribunal of God would be final.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA NOTE FROM THE REV. MR. BALLOU TO THE REV. DR. BUCKMINSTER,\nIN REPLY.\n\nSATURDAY, P. M.\n\nMr. Ballou is happy to acknowledge the honour done him by the Doctor's\nnote of Friday, P. M. by which he realizes the hope expressed in his\nepistle of the 11th inst, that what appeared to be intimated by the\nDoctor's letter of the 10th inst. in relation to final judgment was\nnot meant. In the mean time Mr. Ballou thinks it a duty which he owes\nto himself to point out to the Doctor the items in his letter which\nwere misunderstood. The Doctor's expression, \"I therefore endeavoured\nso to express myself that no reply should be necessary,\" was\nunderstood to intimate that the reply was unnecessary; and the\nDoctor's expression, \"there will be no liberty to reply,\" was\nunderstood to intimate that liberty had been assumed unnecessarily. In\nconfirming the opinion, that \"_disputes however temperately conducted,\nare rarely productive of any good_.\" Mr. Ballou thinks his mistake has\nproduced but little consequence, as that opinion was so confirmed\nbefore, that even a reason for an assertion could not with propriety\nbe given.\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\nFROM THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, Nov. 19, 1810.\n\n_Dear Friend_,--I take this method to write to you, with a desire you\nwould receive it as a friendly admonition. You recollect, no doubt,\nthat I have heard you make two speeches at funerals, as they are\ncommonly called, one at the grave and the other at the house of sorrow\nand mourning, upon a very solemn and singular occasion. At the grave\nyou were short, and said, if I mistake not, viewing the grave, \"this\nis the house appointed for all living,\" two or three times, and then\nsaid, \"what reflection shall we make from it? is it done by an enemy?\nhas the Almighty suffered the government to be taken out of his\nhands?\"--and spake as if death was originally designed by the Almighty\nfor the good of mankind, and made it a very desirable thing. My dear\nsir, doth not the bible, which is the word of God, or the scriptures\nof truth say, \"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and\ndeath by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have\nsinned,\" Rom. v. 12, and Rom. vi. 23, \"For the wages of sin is death.\"\nGod who is a gracious and holy sovereign \"made man upright, but he\nsought out many inventions.\" By listening unto that apostate spirit,\nSatan, he transgressed and disobeyed his maker and sovereign, by\neating the forbidden fruit. \"God made man in his own image, in the\nimage of God created he him, male and female created he them. And the\nLord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it\nand to keep it; and the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every\ntree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of\nknowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it, for in the day\nthou eatest thereof, thou shall surely die.\" Gen. ii. 15, 17. Sin is\nthat enemy that introduced or was the cause of death, as we may\nfurther see by considering that portion of scripture, I John. iii. 8,\n\"He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from\nthe beginning.\" For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that\nhe might destroy the works of the devil. Sin is the work of the devil;\n\"the soul that sins shall die.\" If you will read the whole chapter and\nseriously consider it, and pray to God through Jesus Christ to open\nyour understanding, that you may understand the scriptures, you would\nnot misappply and pervert them as I fear you do. In your speaking at\nthe house of mourning, you began and spake very eloquently at first\nupon death; then you brought forward the same ideas, with respect to\ndeath, as you did before at the grave. I do not remember that you, at\neither place, spake one word of the necessity or nature of repentance.\nChrist began his personal and public ministry by preaching repentance,\nsaying, \"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand\"--again, \"but\nexcept ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,\" Luke xiii. 5. And\nafter his resurrection from the dead he appeared to his disciples and\nconfirmed them in the certainty of it, and chose them witnesses of the\ntruth of it, and said \"thus it is written, and thus it behoveth Christ\nto suffer and to rise from the dead the third day. And that repentance\nand remission of sins should be preached in my name among all nations,\nbeginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things,\" Luke\nxxiv. 46, 47, 48. The apostles, after Christ's ascension, practised as\nhe commanded them, as we may see by reading the Acts of the apostles,\nPeter in particular, in the 2d and 3d chapters; and we do not find\nthat they ever gave any encouragement that their hearers could or\nshould be forgiven their sins without faith and repentance. Peter\nsays, \"Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out;\"\nwhich presupposes that if they did not repent and be turned to God by\nconverting grace their sins would not be forgiven. Thus the apostle\nPaul preached, see Acts xxvi. 18, 19, 20, which I entreat you to read\nand seriously to consider. See likewise 20th chap. of the Acts of the\napostles, how he appealed to the elders of the church; in the 17th\nverse it is written, \"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called\nthe elders of the church; and when they were come to him he said unto\nthem, ye know from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I\nhave been with you at all seasons, serving the Lord with all humility\nof mind, and with many tears and temptations which befell me, by the\nlying in wait of the Jews; and how I kept back nothing that was\nprofitable unto you, but have shewed you and have taught you publicly\nand from house to house, testifying both to the Jews and also to the\nGreeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\" The apostles spake of the nature of repentance that they\nshould bring forth fruits meet for repentance, and that Godly sorrow\nworked repentance to salvation, not to be repented of; but the sorrow\nof the world worketh death. For a minister of the New Testament to\nadvance such doctrine as will give hopes to their hearers that all\nwill be happy in a future state, whether they have repented or no, is\nnot preaching as Christ and his apostles preached. If we know not God,\nand obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, what will be the\nconsequence? See 2 Thes. i. 8, 9. Ministers are directed by the\ninspired apostle Paul; see in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. See 2\nTim. 4th chap. from 1st to the end, the 5th verse, which I would\nentreat and beseech you to read and seriously consider. He, in some of\nthose verses referred to, says to Timothy, \"Reprove, rebuke, exhort,\nwith all long suffering and doctrine; for the time will come when men\nwill not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they\nheap to themselves teachers having itching ears. And they shall turn\naway their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But\nwatch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an\nevangelist, make proof of thy ministry.\" Paul was just about to leave\nthe world; the time of his departure was at hand; the above were his\ndying words to his beloved son Timothy (in the faith.) The blessed and\nbeloved apostle had through grace kept the faith, that is, the true\nfaith of the gospel; he had finished his course, he had fought a good\nfight, and henceforth he says, there is laid up for me a crown of\nrighteousness which God the righteous judge shall give me at that day;\nand not only to me, but unto all them also, that love his appearing.\nYou, my friend, once professed the true faith of the gospel--have you\nkept it? I think not. I fear you have fallen from it. You are now\npreaching a doctrine which pleases the world, but it makes against\nyou, according to scripture; the apostle John says, in 1st epistle,\n4th chap, 5th and 6th verses, \"They are of the world; therefore the\nworld heareth them. We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; he\nthat is not of God heareth not us; hereby know we the spirit of truth,\nand the spirit of error.\" I beseech you again, my friend, examine and\nseriously consider the first five verses of that chapter, and pray God\nthrough Jesus Christ that he would open it to your understanding:\nSolomon says, \"My son, lean not to your own understanding.\" I could\nnot but observe with what an _emphasis_ you at the grave mentioned\nthose selected texts of scripture which you supposed would confirm\nyour hearers in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Would Christ or\nthe apostles preach Universal Salvation in one place of scripture, and\nin another contradict it? I believe they would not. I am an _old man_,\nand have studied the scriptures twenty or thirty years; yea, I may say\nmore or less from my youth up; I find it the best way of study, to\ncompare scripture with scripture; to consider the preceding and\nfollowing context; to be self-diffident; and to be much in prayer,\nthat it would please God, by his holy spirit, to lead and guide us\ninto all necessary truth; and I do not think it amiss to use sound\nauthors, for as we are in some measure dependant on one another for\ntemporal, so I think we may, under God, be for spiritual assistance;\nthough by no means to put our trust in an arm of flesh.\n\nWe may observe how earnest David in prayer to God was in the 25th\nPsalm. He was a prophet as well the royal Psalmist, yet he comes in a\nvery humble manner to God in prayer that he would shew him his ways,\nand teach him his paths; and in that Psalm, 8th verse, says, \"good and\nupright is the Lord: therefore will he teach sinners in the way. The\nmeek will he guide in judgment; and the meek he will teach his way.\"\nBut if men will undertake to explain scripture in their own strength\nand wisdom, what must we expect but to have them mangled and made\nhavoc of, or explained in a mere mystical or literal sense? \"The\nnatural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they\nare foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are\nspiritually discerned.\" See I Cor. ii. 14.\n\nAs you did not say any thing about the resurrection of the dead in\neither of your speeches, I began to query in my mind whether you\nbelieved it or no. I think, yea, I know, it was preached by Christ,\nand explained so as to confute the Sadducees. Our Lord says, \"Marvel\nnot at this, for the hour is coming in the which all that are in their\ngraves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done\ngood unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto\nthe resurrection of damnation.\" St. Paul in his defence before the\nRoman governor when accused by an orator, whom the Jews employed, as\nhe was allowed to speak for himself, said, \"they cannot prove the\nthing, whereof they now accuse me; but this I confess after the way\nwhich they call heresy; so worship I the God of my fathers, believing\nall things which are written in the law and the prophets, and have\nhope towards God, which they themselves also allow; that there shall\nbe a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; and herein\ndo I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offence\ntoward God, and toward man.\" We may observe what an influence the\nbelief of a future state of rewards and punishments had on the blessed\napostle to excite him to live a godly and self-denying life. In 2 Cor.\nv. 10, 11, speaking of a day of judgment, \"when every one must give an\naccount for himself as the deeds have been done in the body, that\nevery one may receive the things done in his body according to that he\nhath done whether it be good or bad;\" and says, \"knowing the terror of\nthe Lord, we persuade men.\" My friend, is there the least room for us\nto believe from this scripture and many others, that the wicked who\nhave died impenitent and in a disbelief of the gospel or without the\ntrue knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, whom God hath sent, have\neternal life, in the fruition and enjoyment of God? Heaven consists in\nbeing made like God, and enjoying him: hence it is, that the pious\nthirst for God, the living God, saying, when shall I come and appear\nbefore him? Again, \"Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none\nupon earth I desire besides thee. My flesh and heart fail me, but God\nis the strength of my heart and portion forever.\" These pious\nbreathings are the exercises of the children of God. O may they be\nours.\n\nJOSEPH WALTON.\n\nPORSTMOUTH, Nov. 19, 1810.\n\nP. S. The within, enclosed, my friend, I can assure you was not\nwritten to you in this manner, as God is my judge, from an envious and\nbitter spirit, for I love and esteem your person, as a friend, who\nhas, from my first acquaintance with you, treated me with great\nrespect. I see, on the Lord's days, great numbers of precious souls\ngoing and returning from your meeting; and, as far as I know my own\nheart, I do not envy you for that; but have often prayed that the\ngifts and natural abilities you have might be sanctified and turned\ninto right improvements, which is the glory of God and the saving\nbenefit of your hearers. May it please God to make you an able and\nfaithful minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the\nspirit, for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. From your\nfriend and humble servant, JOSEPH WALTON, _Pastor,\n\nOf the Independent Congregational Church in Portsmouth_.\n\nTO MR. HOSEA BALLOU, PASTOR OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND\nSOCIETY IN PORTSMOUTH.\n\n_Sir_,--You may observe by the date, the letter has been written some\ntime; but by several avocations I have not had time to correct and\ncopy it until the present date, December 7, 1810.\n\nJ.W.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER II.\n\nFROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, DEC. 11, 1810.\n\n_Rev. Sir_,--It is with pleasure that I hasten to acknowledge the\nreceipt of your \"friendly admonition,\" bearing date December 7th,\nwhich came to my hand late last evening, which I assure you is\naccepted as a token of friendship, and a mark of particular attention;\nand merits, as I conceive, a grateful acknowledgement as well as an\nearly answer.\n\nYour admonition begins by taking notice of what you conceive an\negregious error which you have heard me suggest at two several\nfunerals. You say that I \"spake as if death was originally designed,\nby the Almighty, for the good of mankind.\" This statement you consider\nof such a dangerous nature that it renders an admonition necessary.\nBut, dear sir, there are two important ideas contained in the above\nshort sentence, and you have not distinguished between them, nor\ninformed me whether it be both, or only one which is thus\nreprehensible.\n\nThat _God originally designed death_, is one idea; that he _designed_\nit for the _good of mankind_ is another idea. In order to do you\njustice and to attach no other meaning to your communication than such\nas I conceive to be consistent with your real sentiments, I must\nsuppose that you would not wish to fault the first of those ideas, as\nit is an item in your creed, that \"God foreordained whatsoever comes\nto pass;\" of course, you believe that God _originally designed death_.\nBut, that God designed death for the _good of mankind_, I do not know\nit to be an article of your faith, and therefore, may, without doing\nyou any injustice, suppose that you believed that God originally\ndesigned death, but _not_ for _the good of mankind_! Here, sir, I\nacknowledge that my sentiment differs from yours; and as you have\ngiven me no reason why God should not have designed death for the\n_good_ of mankind, I have only to consider the \"friendly admonition,\"\nwith which you oppose my idea. I would query why the idea that God\nshould design death for the good of mankind renders me justly\nadmonishable? Would the idea, should I avow it, that God designed\ndeath for the _damage_ of mankind, render me commendable? So, it\nseems; but at this expense I cannot avoid admonition! I would further\nquery what interest God could have consulted which required him to\ndesign death for a _damage_ to those creatures whom he made subject to\ndeath? And I think it expedient to ask how God can be justified, in\nthe sight of his rational creatures, if the idea be once established\nthat he designed evil against them, even before they existed?\n\nI feel it to be my duty, dear sir, to call on you to support this high\nallegation against the Father of our spirits. I would not pretend that\nyou designed to bring an allegation against our Creator, but I am\nsatisfied that every unprejudiced mind must see the nature of an\nallegation in what you are disposed to maintain. For if we say God,\nour Creator, designed death for the damage of those dependent beings\nwhom he has made, it is giving him a character which, I believe, the\nwisest of men would find it difficult to justify.\n\nAgain, if the notion be true, that God designed death for the damage\nof mankind, is it not from hence evident that he was an enemy to\nmankind when he thus designed? Now, if God be considered an enemy to\nmankind even before he made them, I wish to know what reason can be\ngiven why mankind ought to love God since creation?\n\nIn relation to a number of scriptures which you have quoted, seemingly\nwith a design to illustrate the foregoing subject, I can only say,\nthat if any or all those passages relate at all to the subject, _that\nrelation_ is out of my sight. And I can truly say, that I am glad that\nthere is nothing, in any part of the scripture, so contrary to good\nsense and reason as to support the notion that God is an enemy to the\nworks of his own hands. I believe, sir, if I prove from scripture that\nGod designed death for the good of mankind, it must be considered a\nsubstantial support of what you wish to oppose; and will also be\nconsidered as placing the scripture doctrine on the most reasonable\nprinciple.\n\n1st. I will show that death is not a token of God's enmity towards\nmankind. As a proof of this, see Rom. viii. 38, 39, \"For I am\npersuaded, that neither _death_, nor _life_, nor _angels_, nor\n_principalities_, nor _powers_, nor _things present_, nor _things to\ncome_, nor _height_, nor _depth_, nor _any other creature_ shall be\nable to separate us from the _love_ of God which is _in Christ Jesus\nour Lord_.\" This passage is a full and positive proof that neither\n_death_ nor any thing else, is a token of God's enmity to mankind.\n\n2d. I will now show that _death_ was designed by God for the _good_ of\nmen. Which to do, I must learn of Jesus. He is the truth. Was his\n_death_ designed, by the eternal Father, for the good of mankind, or\nnot? Was his death a token of God's love to the world, or was it a\ntoken of his enmity? See Rom. v. 8, \"But God _commendeth_ his _love_\ntowards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.\" This\nsame apostle, believing in Christ, who, he says, was delivered for our\noffences, and was raised again for our justification, in a short, but\ncomprehensive inventory of the things which are ours, has placed\n_death_ among them. See 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, 23, \"Therefore, let no man\nglory in men: for all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or\nCephas, or the world, or life, or _death_, or things present, or\nthings to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is\nGod's.\" Again, he says, to the Phil. i. 21, \"For me to live is Christ,\nand to _die_ is _gain_.\" Nothing appears more evident than that the\ndeath of Christ was designed for the good of mankind; and as he is the\nhead of every man, so his death is considered, in the scriptures, a\ngracious benefit to every man; as the apostle expresses it, \"That he,\nby the grace of God, should taste _death_ for every man.\" And again,\n\"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive.\" Who\ncan impartially consider those scriptures and suppose that God\ndesigned _death_ for a damage to mankind? I view _death_, sir, as an\nappointment of God, a friendly messenger, sent to dissolve a\ntabernacle of corruption and vanity, at the dissolution of which, \"the\ndust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave\nit.\"\n\nYour admonition in the next place suggests, that \"if\" I \"will read the\nwhole chapter (meaning the 3d chapter of the 1st of John) and\nseriously consider it, and pray to God, through Jesus Christ, to open\"\nmy \"understanding, that\" I \"may understand the scriptures,\" I \"would\nnot _misapply_ and _pervert_ them, as\" you \"fear\" I \"do.\"\n\nRev. Sir, are you sufficiently acquainted with my preaching and\nwriting on the scriptures to warrant the propriety of the suggestion,\nthat I am in the habit of _misapplying_ and _perverting_ the holy\nwritings? Are you sufficiently acquainted with my retired studies and\nreligious exercises to warrant the suggestion that I get along without\nacknowledging the wisdom of God? I humbly request you to reconsider\nthis part of your admonition, and see if it do not wear the appearance\nof _judging another_ who must stand or fall to his own master. In the\nmean time I wish to observe, that a friendly advice to be constant in\nfervent supplication and prayer would be received by me as a mark of\n_christian friendship_ and _fellowship_. But I will ask you the\nquestion, if you would be willing to have me go into your desk with\nyou in presence of your church and congregation, and there read the\nwhole of the above named chapter, then in humble and solemn prayer to\nAlmighty God, through Christ Jesus, implore a just and true\nunderstanding of his word and truth contained in that portion of his\nwritten will, and close my performance with a candid dissertation on\nthe chapter? Grant me liberty to do this in your hearing; after which\nI will not object to your pointing out any _misapplication_ or\n_perversion_ which you may think you discover. By what law is a man\ncondemned without first hearing his defence?\n\nAgain, your admonition suggests, that I did not, at either of the\nfunerals where you heard me perform, speak one word of the necessity\nor nature of repentance. In this particular I believe you made a\nmistake at both places, which mistake, I believe I can rectify to your\nrecollection. In the first place, I wish to observe that I as much\nbelieve in those scriptures which speak of the necessity of repentance\nas I do in any part of the sacred writings. But, after all, you and I\nmay entertain very different ideas respecting the _preaching_ of\nrepentance. The opinion that repentance is preached when a public\nspeaker tells his congregation that their eternal salvation depends on\ntheir repentance, that eternal misery must inevitably be their doom\nunless they repent is an opinion to which I have no reason to\nsubscribe.\n\n_Preaching repentance_, I conceive _is teaching_ men and giving them\nsuch divine instructions as bring their minds to discover more\nglorious things than the sins and carnal vanities of this world; which\n_teaching_ produces a returning of the mind to the things of God and\nhis ever blessed kingdom. The word _repent_ may or may not be used in\nthe giving of such instructions. I conceive a preacher of Jesus\nChrist, warmed with the spirit of eternal love, breathing forth the\ngracious words of truth, may successfully preach repentance as well\nwithout the use of the word _repent_ as with it. At both those places\nof sorrow, dear sir, I endeavoured to lead the mourners' minds to the\nconsideration _of eternal things_; I endeavoured to represent God our\nCreator and Governor, as a friend to his creatures, and strove to the\nutmost of my power to fix the love, regard and confidence of our\nmourning friends on God our Creator. This you will recollect, and I\ncannot suppose that you believe that a person can truly believe in the\ndivine goodness, and love his Creator as the greatest good, and put\nconfidence in him, so as to draw consolation, in the day of adversity,\nfrom such confidence, and still be a stranger to true penitence.\n\nThe many scriptures which you have judiciously quoted to prove the\npropriety of the doctrine of repentance are justly applied, as I\nconceive; and I accord with you in their use and meaning as far as you\nhave explained them. I would wish to be understood that whenever\nrepentance is spoken of as a creature act, originating in creature\nagency, it is represented directly contrary to the scripture sense as\nexpressed in Acts v. 31, \"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to\nbe a _Prince_ and a _Saviour_, for to _give repentance_ to Israel and\nforgiveness of sins.\"\n\nFrom the above passage it is evident that repentance is no more\ndependent on creature agency than the forgiveness of sins; and the\nidea that repentance is a grant of divine favour is plainly expressed\nin Acts xi. 18, \"Then hath God also, to the Gentiles, _granted\nrepentance_ unto life.\" By the above testimonies the idea that\n_repentance_ is a _creature condition_, on which the divine favour is\nbestowed, is proved erroneous.\n\nThe next particular which your \"friendly admonition\" occupies, is the\nsubject of _Universal Salvation_ in the following words: \"I could not\nbut observe with what _emphasis_ you, at the grave, mentioned those\nselected texts of scripture which you supposed would confirm your\nhearers in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Would Christ or the\napostles preach Universal Salvation in one place of scripture, and in\nanother contradict it? I believe they would not.\" In the above\nparticular, sir, I agree with you in all which you express. I do not\nbelieve that Christ or any of his apostles ever contradicted the\nglorious doctrine, in which they all preached of Universal Salvation.\nAnd until this contradiction can be shewn in their preaching, you and\nI have full liberty to believe in God as \"the Saviour of all men.\"\nChrist gave himself a ransom for all men; tasted death for every man;\nis the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He says he will\ndraw all men unto him, and he also says that \"him that cometh after me\nI will in no wise cast out.\" St. Paul says that God will have all men\nto be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. To which\ntestimony we might add an immense number of scriptures from the Old\nand New Testaments; and as you agree that Christ and his apostles\nwould not preach Universal Salvation in one place, and contradict it\nin another, so you must, of necessity subscribe to the _uniformity_ of\nthe scripture doctrine in the Salvation of all men.\n\nYou inform me, that you are an \"_old man_;\" this I was sensible of\nbefore, in consequence of which, I have more particularly endeavoured\nto cultivate an acquaintance with you, since I have been in this town;\nfor I conceive that the aged are not only entitled to the respects and\nattention of the younger, but the younger are also entitled to the\nadvantages of their experience and wisdom.\n\nYou further tell me, that you have studied the scriptures twenty or\nthirty years. On this account, sir, I covet earnestly your assistance;\nfor although I have studied the scriptures almost constantly twenty\nyears out of less than forty, yet I find but a few who are notable to\nassist me in this agreeable employment. The happy method which you\nrecommend, I have for many years endeavoured to observe, for I am sure\nthat most of the vulgar errors, in respect to the scriptures, are for\nthe want of a careful examination of all which is said on the same\nsubjects.\n\nWherein you recommend the pious example of the prophet David, I fully\naccord in it, and would humbly hope and strive to be a partaker of the\nbenefits arising from such an example.\n\nWhat you say of men's explaining scripture in their own Strength and\nwisdom, and of their making _havoc_ of, and _mangling_ them by\nexplaining them in a mystical or literal sense, I find myself rather\nembarrassed about. You begin your epistle under the character of a\n\"friendly admonition,\" but what you mean by accusing me of the folly\nof mangling and making havoc of the scriptures when you do not attempt\nto show wherein I ever explained a passage wrong, I must leave for you\nto explain when it is convenient. Nor is it easy for me to understand\nyou when you represent both the _mystical_ and _literal_ explanation of\nscripture equally erroneous. You immediately conclude those\nobservations with the following quotation: \"The natural man receiveth\nnot the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto\nhim.\" Did you mean that the natural man, supposing the things of the\nspirit of God to be foolishness, would say that the spirit _mangled_\nand made _havoc_ of the scriptures? This could not be your meaning.\n\nYour concluding query is the following; \"My friend, is there the least\nroom for us to believe from this scripture (meaning 2 Cor. v. 10, 11)\nand many others, that the wicked who have lived impenitent and in a\ndisbelief of the gospel, or without the true knowledge of God, and of\nJesus Christ whom God hath sent, have eternal life in the fruition and\nenjoyment of God?\" This query I will endeavour to answer as plainly as\npossible.\n\n1st. Unless we grant that a man has eternal life in Jesus Christ,\ngiven him before the foundation of the world, we cannot justly call\nhim an _unbeliever_ because he does not believe he has this eternal\nlife in Christ. Nor can we say, with the least propriety, that he does\nnot _know_ the _truth_, because he does not know that which is not.\n\n2d. If we allow that a man has eternal life in Christ, we must allow\nhim to be an unbeliever if he do not believe it; and that he does not\nknow the truth as it is in Jesus, if he be ignorant of this gift of\neternal life.\n\n3d. While a man is in a state of unbelief he is not in the _enjoyment_\nof the truth.\n\nI conceive, sir, these observations must appear reasonable to any\nreasonable man; and therefore I suppose they will appear reasonable to\nyou.\n\nThe passage in Corinthians alluded to, fully refutes the notion of\n_endless_ rewards and punishments; for there it is stated, that\n\"_every one_ may receive the things done in his body, according to\nthat he hath done, whether it be good or bad.\" Now as this same\napostle tells us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of\nGod, if he mean that all who have sinned must be endlessly punished,\nhe cannot mean that any of the human race will be eternally blessed\naccording to their own works, nor yet according to the grace of God.\nAnd you, sir, cannot but see if one sinner can be rewarded according\nto his works and yet be saved by grace through faith, and that not of\nhimself, but by the gift of God, all the sinners of Adam's race may be\nthus rewarded according to what they have done either _good_ or _bad_,\nand yet be saved by grace as above.\n\nYour suggestions respecting the resurrection require no other answer\nthan that I profess to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection as\ntaught by the scriptures, though I cannot flatter myself that that\nopinion agrees with the opinion of what you call _sound authors_. For\nmyself, I call the writers of the holy scriptures _sound authors_, and\nthose who differ from them I am willing to call orthodox according to\nour common schools of divinity. I join with you in a humble desire\nthat the holy breathings of the true children of God may be yours and\nmine; and I am sensible if they be we shall not judge one another, nor\ncondemn one another; but strive for the unity of the spirit in the\nbonds of divine peace. Yes, sir, I am confident that the true temper\nand spirit of the gospel, if possessed and practiced by the public\nministers in this town, would lead them to open their doors to each\nother, to meet together and pray, preach, sing and exhort, in love and\nfellowship; but Antichrist's spirit is directly the reverse.\n\nThe assurance you give me in your postscript, that what you wrote to\nme was not written in an envious spirit is duly appreciated; nor do I\nmuch wonder that you do not envy me the numbers who attend my public\nministry, while you suppose that they with innumerable multitudes of\nothers are reprobated to endless sin and misery. Envy, in such a case,\nwould be truly unaccountable! I will not say that I fully comprehend\nyour meaning in calling the \"great numbers\" who attend my meeting,\n\"_precious souls_.\" Why are they precious? To whom are they precious?\nIf you view them the objects of divine love, of course you must\nsuppose them to be precious in God's sight; but if not, why do you\ncall them precious?\n\nYour flattering acknowledgements of civilities received from me and\nthe acceptableness of my person to you, is very gratefully considered,\nfor it is an object with me to deserve the approbation of the pious\nwho have treasured up much valuable knowledge by experience; and I\nwish to give you the fullest assurance possible that I consider my\nacquaintance with yourself highly worthy of further cultivation and\nimprovement, which I shall always endeavour to promote, as opportunity\nmay present, and it shall please you to favour.\n\nHaving noted the most important sections of your \"friendly admonition\"\nin as concise a manner as was convenient, permit me, dear sir, to make\na few observations on the doctrine of Universal Salvation, that being\na subject to which you allude in your epistle, though you did not see\nfit to plant any particular arguments against it. This doctrine I\nopenly profess, and preach as a doctrine which I conceive is plainly\ntaught in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; a doctrine\nwhich all good men in the world desire the truth of; a doctrine the\nmost worthy of God of any ever published; a doctrine the best\ncalculated to fill the soul of the believer with love to God and to\nour fellow creatures; a doctrine which harmonizes the divine\nattributes, the scriptures and every principle of reason and good\nsense, in a surprising and an astonishing manner; a doctrine, more\nthan any other, calculated to destroy the hurtful animosities existing\nin the religious world; and to produce general fellowship and\nbrotherly love; and in a word, I believe it to be the only doctrine\nwhich can be supported by reason or scripture, to a mind not\nimproperly biased by tradition. Though I am sensible of your greater\nexperience, yet I am willing to say to a man of your piety and\nChristian candor, that any arguments which you should see cause to lay\nbefore me, on the above subject, shall, by the blessing of God,\nreceive an early attention and a judicious discussion.\n\nIn the spirit of the New Testament and not in the letter; in the\nspirit of life, and not in the death of the letter, in the spirit of\nsalvation, and not of condemnation, I pray God, I may ever live and\nact according to your friendly desire; and feeling the same fervent\ndesire for my highly esteemed and venerable friend, I acknowledge\nmyself your most obliged and very humble servant, for Christ's sake.\n\nHOSEA BALLOU.\n\nRev. Joseph Walton.\n\nP.S. I have reserved three particulars in your \"friendly admonition\"\nfor the subject of another communication.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER. III.\n\nFrom the Same to the Same.\n\nPortsmouth, Jan. 5, 1811.\n\n_Rev. Sir_,--Having notified you in a postscript of my letter of Dec.\n11th, that I had reserved three particulars in your \"friendly\nadmonition\" for the subject of another communication, I am disposed to\nembrace this opportunity to fulfil my engagement. The three\nparticulars reserved are expressed, in your letter, in the following\nwords:\n\n\"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but\nafter their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having\nitching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and\nshall be turned unto fables. You, my friend, once professed the true\nfaith of the gospel--have you kept it? I think not. I fear you have\nfallen from it. You are now preaching a doctrine which pleases the\nworld, but it makes against you according to scripture. The apostle\nJohn says in his 1st epistle 4th chapter 5th and 6th verses, They are\nof the world; therefore the world heareth them; we are of God; he that\nknoweth God, heareth us, he that is not of God, heareth not us; hereby\nknow we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.\" I would not,\ndear sir, knowingly misapply your words, nor make a use of the above\nquotation contrary to their most plain and evident sense which I\nconceive is as follows:\n\n1st. The doctrine which I believed before I believed as I do now, is\nthe true gospel according to the testimony of the apostle John, in his\n1st epistle, 4th chapter 5th and 6th verses.\n\n2d. That in believing as I now do, I have fallen from that faith, and\nturned unto fables.\n\n3d. My now preaching a doctrine which pleases the world is good proof\nthat my doctrine is not of God, and that those who hear me are justly\ndescribed by the apostle as heaping to themselves teachers having\nitching ears.\n\nIn the first place I shall agree with you in the supposition that when\nI first made a profession of religion, I believed the true gospel.\n\nIn the second place I shall endeavour to show that I have not fallen\nfrom that faith.\n\nIn the third place I will attempt to show that the evidence, which you\nthink makes against me, is by no means sufficient to prove that the\ndoctrine I now believe and preach is consistent with the _lusts_ of\nthe _world_ or contrary to the true faith of the gospel.\n\n1st. The true faith of the gospel as expressed in 1 John, 4th, &c. is\nas follows--see verse 2, 3, \"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus\nChrist is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that\nconfesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.\"\nThe apostle here states in the most simple terms the true Christian\nfaith, and brings it into such a short compass that none can mistake\nhim. The belief that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is the true\nfaith, and a denial of that fact is a false faith.\n\nWhen I first professed religion I professed to believe that \"Jesus\nChrist is come in the flesh;\" and this I am willing to say now is the\ntrue faith of the gospel, and the only article of faith which\nconstituted a Christian believer in the opinion of the apostles;\nrestricting this belief, at the same time, to Jesus of Nazareth, that\nhe was the Christ.\n\n2d. I as much believe now as I ever did that Jesus Christ is come in\nthe flesh. I have as clear evidences now as I ever had that Jesus of\nNazareth is the Christ. These things being facts, the conclusion is\nthat I have not _fallen_ from the true christian faith.\n\n3d. The above faith I preach, believing and testifying that God sent\nhis Son to be the _Saviour_ of the _world_; and I have reason to bless\nGod that such feeble means are at all prospered, and that as you\nobserve, \"Great numbers of precious souls\" adhere to the word, which I\nconceive is no evidence that the faith I preach is not of God, or that\nit is consistent with the lusts of the world. We are informed in the\nword of God, that the _common people heard Christ gladly_. Who did not\nhear him gladly? Answer, the Scribes and Pharisees. Do you think, sir,\nthat the common people's hearing Christ gladly was a justifiable\nevidence to the Pharisees that he was not the true Messiah? When many\nthousands of men, women, and children flocked from their cities into\ndesert places to hear the gracious words which proceeded from the lips\nof him who spake as never man spake, was it a justifiable evidence\nthat he and his doctrine were not of God? To bring this matter, if\npossible, nearer home, should you find your meeting house crowded with\nhearers who expressed in their countenances an approbation of the\ndoctrine which you preach, would it be sufficient evidence to convince\nyou that your doctrine was not of God?\n\nThat the testimony that God sent his Son to be the Saviour of the\n_world_ is not consistent with the _lusts_ of the _world_, is shown by\nSt. Paul to Titus; \"For the grace of God which bringeth salvation to\n_all men_, hath appeared, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and\n_worldly lusts_, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this\npresent world.\"\n\nI have not the least doubt in my mind, that if you and I preached more\nlike our blessed master than we do, people in general, would be more\nengaged to hear us, and our meeting houses would be more thronged than\nthey are now.\n\nShould you hear a shepherd complaining that the increase of his flock\nwas small, or that it rather diminished, you would think _that_\nevidence made against _him_.\n\nI suppose the particular idea which you had in view, which\nconstitutes, in your mind, an _Apostasy_, is, that Jesus Christ, who\nwas manifested in the flesh, will, pursuant to power given to him of\nhis father, save all men from their sins, and reconcile all things\nunto himself. This idea, I acknowledge, I did not see clearly in, when\nI first made a profession of a belief in Christ; but now am fully\npersuaded in it. However, I cannot see why the adopting of this\nparticular idea should be called an _Apostasy_.\n\nI will, sir, mention some similar cases, not wishing however, to be\nconsidered an equal subject to the personage whom I shall introduce.\nThe apostle Peter was a believer in the true faith of the gospel, that\nis, he believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God:\nand Jesus says to him, on that confession, that flesh and blood had\nnot revealed it to him, but his Father. This belief Peter had before\nhe believed that Christ should suffer on the cross and rise from the\ndead. After many trials and dreadful temptations in which this poor,\ndependent brother of ours experienced the fallibility of all human\nstrength, he was privileged with positive evidence of the resurrection\nof Christ from the dead.--Here I ask, was this new acquisition in\nPeter's faith an apostasy? Was it not an advancement? You will agree\nwith me in this.\n\nAgain, this same apostle, even after he was endowed with power from on\nhigh, and preached and healed in the name of Jesus, did not know that\nthe Gentiles were fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers of\nthe promises of God, in Christ, by the gospel. It was not until the\nangel of the Lord appeared unto Cornelius and directed him to send for\nPeter, that God gave to that apostle the knowledge of the fact which\nhe acknowledged to Cornelius, that God had shewed him that he should\ncall _no man common_ or _unclean_. It is very evident that the apostle\nPeter had more extensive knowledge of the gospel of the grace of God\nin consequence of the vision of the sheet by the sea of Joppa than he\nhad before; but would any real Christian, knowing all the\ncircumstances, suppose that Peter had _apostatised_ from the true\nfaith, because he believed that millions would be benefited by Christ\nmore than were comprehended in his former belief? While they who were\nof the circumcision remained ignorant of the revelation given to\nPeter, we find they \"_contended_ with him, saying, thou wentest in to\nmen uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.\" But when Peter had\n\"rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order\nunto them, they held their peace and glorified God, saying, then hath\nGod also to the Gentiles, _granted repentance_ unto life.\" Thus we see\nthat the church in Jerusalem, who were of the circumcision, though\nbelievers in Christ were, until Peter's defence further enlightened\nthem, ignorant of the extension of divine grace to the Gentiles\nthrough the gospel. But surely no real Christian would suppose that\nthis enlargement of their faith in the great salvation was an\n_apostasy_ from the true faith!\n\nWith profound deference, sir, permit me to suggest, that should the\nforegoing observations present yourself, to your own mind, in a\nsimilar situation with those of the circumcision, yet they acknowledge\nyou a believer in Christ, a minister of his word and a candidate for\ngreater manifestation of that grace of God by which Jesus tasted death\nfor every man.\n\nI believe I may venture to say that unless the belief that _God is not\nthe Saviour of all men_ can be maintained by positive scripture as an\nessential article of apostolic faith, I cannot be justly _admonished\nfor falling_ from the true faith. May I not, with great propriety,\ncall on my Rev. friend to show, if he can, that such an article of\nfaith was ever required by Christ or his apostles as a term of\nchristian fellowship and charity?\n\nLet us look into the written word of God and see what is there\nrequired of us to believe. See Rom. x. 9, \"If thou shalt confess with\nthy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God\nhath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.\" Acts viii. 37,\n\"And Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.\nAnd he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of\nGod.\" Matt. x. 32. \"Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men,\nhim will I confess also before my father which is in heaven.\" Luke\nxii. 8, \"Also I say unto you, whosoever shall confess me before men,\nhim shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God.\" Not\nto multiply quotations, permit me to query whether there be in those\npassages, or in any other scripture on the same point any intimations\ngiven that the candidate must believe that this precious Saviour will\nnot, through the peace made by the blood of his cross, reconcile all\nthings to God? Are you fully satisfied, dear sir, that you are\nauthorised to _admonish_ as an _apostate_, one who confesses with his\nmouth the Lord Jesus, and who believes in his heart that God hath\nraised him from the dead? Why did not Philip demand of the Eunuch a\nparticular confession of a belief in _limited grace_ and _salvation_?\nWas there not the same authority to require this article of faith\nthen, as there is now? If Jesus hath promised, in his word, that he\nwill confess before his Father in Heaven, whosoever confesseth him\nbefore men are you satisfied with the authority by which you denounce,\ndisfellowship, and deny those little ones? The thought is truly\nsolemn! I feel a _chill_ in every vein of my body, when I consider the\nvain traditions of a corrupted church, in which it has long been a\nreligious habit to anathematise those who confess Christ before men,\nbecause they _cannot_ believe in certain tenets never required by\nChrist or his apostles!\n\nRev. Sir, I can say in the sincerity of my soul, that I believe that\nJesus of Nazareth is the true Christ, I believe him to be the Son of\nthe living God, who was delivered for our offences and was raised\nagain for our justification. And though I feel myself the most\nunworthy of the subjects of salvation, yet I should be ungrateful not\nto acknowledge the goodness of God my Saviour. Whatever men may think\nor say of me, I know that my soul experiences joys unspeakable in\nsweet meditations on the glories and inexpressible beauties of my\nRedeemer; and the thought that I am owned as his child before the\nangels of God, is infinitely better than to receive the approbation of\nmen who are disposed to judge without knowing the heart.\n\nIf the Christian clergy were once disposed to strip their creeds and\nconfessions of faith till they were reduced to the simplicity that is\nin Christ, and require no other belief than Christ and his apostles\nrequired, there would be an end at once of all the discord and\nanimosity which have wounded the character of Christianity for ages.\nAnd the prayer of the blessed Jesus would be fulfilled in the\n_oneness_ of all who believe in him, which would convince the world\nthat the Father sent him.\n\nAlthough you have not yet found it convenient to favour me with any\nobservations on my former letter, I have not done expecting it. And I\nshall endeavour to hold myself in readiness to pay an early attention\nto any communication which shall come from your hand. In hopes that\nnothing contained in this letter will be considered inconsistent with\nthe true spirit of a humble believer in Christ, I remain, sir, your\nhumble servant, for Christ's sake.\n\nHOSEA BALLOU.\n\nRev. JOSEPH WALTON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER IV.\n\nFROM THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON TO THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, JAN. 11, 1811.\n\n_Sir_,--I have received your answer to my letter sent you, dated Dec.\n7, 1810, and now desire to answer it, in the fear of God, in as\nconcise a manner as I am capable, agreeable to the scriptures of\n_truth_. Sir, I thank you for the civilities you manifest toward me,\nand that you received my letter in a friendly manner as I think I sent\nit, wishing it might be received and improved for your benefit; not\nthat I supposed that I was capable of convincing or confuting you of\nwhat I conceive to be erroneous in your doctrine or principles, but\nrelying on the blessing of God to make it effectual for your\neverlasting good, and those you profess to be over in the Lord.\n\nI shall not take into consideration every argument you make use of,\nbut shall give it a general answer. Since I have received it I have\nhad a great number of scriptures occuring to my mind which I might\nquote if I thought expedient. In the first place you speak or write as\nif I thought death was originally designed by the Almighty for the\ndamage of mankind; I say death was threatened to be the consequence,\nif mankind did transgress the law of their Creator; our first parents\ntransgressed, and the penalty was executed according to the\nthreatening, \"Thou shall surely die;\" they were condemned to die; they\nwere under sentence of death; they became spiritually dead,\nimmediately; they lost the knowledge of their Creator; darkness\ncovered their minds; they endeavoured to hide themselves from God\namong the trees of the garden; they brought misery upon themselves and\nupon their posterity; we feel the woeful effects of their fall and\napostasy until this day; by nature we are spiritually dead; as it is\nwritten, \"you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins.\"\nSir, if there is a law made by our legislature, is there not a penalty\nannexed unto it? If that law is transgressed, is not the person who\ntransgressed punished some way or other?--Yet the law is made for the\ngood of the whole; the legislature is not to be impeached, as if he\nmade it for the damage of his people, whom he governs; the law-breaker\nis punished either in his own person or his surety, though the pain,\nshame and punishment is for the damage of the transgressor, yet the\nlaw is for the good of the whole, and the law maker is not in the\nleast to blame; the transgressor also, if he repents and is reformed,\nis benefited by it, &c.\n\nI think, sir, your giving your hearers encouragement in your preaching\nthat Christ will save them all, whether they repent and believe the\ngospel or no, is of a dangerous nature. Christ has said, \"if ye\nbelieve not that I am he ye shall die in your sins,\" John viii. 24.\nRead, if you please, the proceeding context. The decrees of God, you\nsay, is my creed, and that I believe that God foreordained whatsoever\ncome to pass. I do not think I ever told you so. And so you think God\nforeordained, according to my _creed_, death, for a damage to his\ncreatures. I have said death is punishment for sin, as I wrote, and I\ncan maintain it from scripture; death was introduced by sin; the\nperson that lives a life of sin and dies without regenerating grace,\nwhich all true believers in Christ have, will be miserable, and be\n\"punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord\nand the glory of his power.\" I believe every true believer is a true\npenitent, is regenerated, is in Christ by a vital union is a \"new\ncreature,\" and that those persons will be saved and none else,\naccording to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. I believe that\nGod the Father worketh all things according to the council of his own\nwill; that his redeemed and saved people should be to his glory. You\nsay, in my writing to you, I said, \"do you think Christ or his\napostles would preach universal salvation in one place of scripture\nand contradict it in another? I believe they would not.\"--Here you\ndesignedly, I think mistake; I do not believe that Christ or his\napostles ever did preach universal salvation, that is, that every son\nand daughter of apostate Adam, would be saved. I believe that this\ngospel of the kingdom is to be preached to every creature, and\n\"whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\" Do me justice, sir; do not animadvert\nupon what I have just quoted, as if I think our Saviour is to be\nunderstood as if every individual would have the privilege of hearing\nthe gospel. I conceive that the apostles' commission runs thus: \"Go\ninto all the world and preach the gospel to every human or rational\ncreature.\"--What I meant by saying, do you think Christ would preach\nuniversal salvation in one place, and in another contradict it, is,\nthat those texts which you suppose supports your doctrine, is not to\nbe understood as you apply them; for if they prove universal\nsalvation, as you would have them, then they will contradict many\ntexts which Christ and his apostles improved otherwise; therefore I\nstill assert, that the scriptures ought to be carefully examined,\nconscientiously improved and applied. The faithful minister of Christ\nwill renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in\ncraftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by\nmanifestation of the _truth_, commending themselves to every man's\nconscience in the sight of God. \"For we are not as many which corrupt\nthe word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of\nGod, speak we in Christ.\"--See 2d Corinthians, ii. 17. And I would\ntake it as a favour, if you would read the 15th and 16th verses in the\nsame chapter, and seriously consider them. Those texts of scripture,\nwhich you have quoted from Rom. 8th chapter, are not to be applied as\nyou apply them, neither doth the apostle apply them so. And methinks\nyou know they are not, if you consider the connexion from the 28th\nverse of the chapter to the end. And that passage of scripture quoted\nfrom 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, 23, is only to be applied to real Christians;\nand this, sir, I presume you know; but it would not suit you and your\nscheme of Universal Salvation to apply them so.\n\nI would ask you, if, when I am writing a letter or an epistle to Mr.\nHosea Ballou, it would be proper for me to apply what I write in\nparticular to you, concerning your affairs or circumstances, to the\nwhole world? Ministers of Christ should rightly \"divide the word;\" and\nshould take the precious from the vile; then they would be as God's\nmouth to the people. See Jeremiah xv. 19, see likewise, Ezekiel xiiv.\n23, \"The priests of the Lord are to teach the Lord's people the\ndifference between the holy and the profane,\" and cause them to\ndiscern between the unclean and the clean;\" it is by this _general_\nway of preaching, errors are introduced, not only by your\ndenomination, but by others also. I could multiply quotations from the\nBible, both from the Old and New Testaments, but what would it avail,\nunless you will consider them and endeavour to improve them, and apply\nthem as the Holy Ghost would have us to to? \"For holy men of God spake\nas they were moved by the Holy Ghost,\" see 2 Peter i. 25. You say, you\nwere somewhat embarrassed in understanding what I meant when I wrote\nthat men undertaking to explain the scriptures in their own strength\nand wisdom, and their making havoc of them, &c. by explaining them in\na mystical or literal sense. I will endeavour to explain what I\nmeant--1st. To allegorize the scriptures in a mere moral or mystical\nsense, or altogether in a figurative sense, is a degree of enthusiasm,\n(as to say there is no _devil_ but our carnal nature, &c.) and in a\nmere literal sense is to understand and improve them not in that\nspiritual sense in which they are to be understood, but resting in the\nletter only; as we may observe when Christ said in St. John, 6th\nchapter, \"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his\nblood, ye have no life in you;\" \"Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my\nblood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day;\"\n\"These things said he in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum;\"\n\"Many therefore of his disciples when they heard this, said, this is a\nhard saying, who can hear it? Christ said, doth this offend you?\"--And\ninformed them he did not mean that they should eat his human flesh,\nand drink his blood literally, but he was to be understood in a\nspiritual sense. He informed them \"it is the spirit that quickeneth,\nthe flesh profiteth nothing, the words I speak unto you they are\nspirit and life.\" Some have since misunderstood him, and, to this day,\nmisunderstand this piece of scripture; and have from thence introduced\nthe absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, that after the words of\nconsecration, the bread and wine are the real body and blood of\nChrist. So some adhere only to the letter of the word and expound the\nlaw of God in a mere literal sense. It seems the apostle Paul, before\nhis conversion, understood it so.--Read the 7th chapter of Romans,\nfrom the 6th to the end of the 13th verse. Paul was brought up at the\nfeet of Gamaliel, a doctor of the law; yet, while in his unregenerate\nstate, knew not the spiritual meaning of the law of God, (I mean the\nholy or moral law) and no doubt he spake by experience when he says,\n(as I wrote to you from I Cor. ii. 14) \"But the natural man received\nnot the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto\nhim, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually\ndiscerned.\" By the natural man, I conceive, the apostle meant the\nunregenerate man: yea, with the highest degree of human teaching and\nknowledge without he is taught of God, by his word and spirit, he\ncannot truly understand the things of the spirit of God; and therefore\nthey are, as I say, misapplied, mangled and made havoc of. Faith is,\nby some, only held as a bare assent that Jesus Christ came in the\nflesh. None do truly believe that, but by the Holy Ghost.\n\nYou still will continue to maintain the doctrine of Universal\nSalvation, by those texts, which I said you spake at the grave with\nsuch an _emphasis_; if they are to be understood only in a literal\nsense as they are expressed, I can quote as many or more spoken by\nChrist and his apostles which will contradict them in their literal\nsense: Christ says, \"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved;\nbut he that believeth not shall be damned. Then shall he say unto them\non his left hand, depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire,\nprepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away into\neverlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal. Then said\nJesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me and shall die\nin your sins: whither I go ye cannot come.\" John viii. 21, 24, \"I said\ntherefore unto you that ye shall die in your sins; for if ye believe\nnot that I am he ye shall die in your sins.\" With respect to that text\nyou quote from John xii. 32, \"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth,\nwill draw all men unto me.\" It is, I conceive, explained by Christ\nhimself in John iii. 14, 15, \"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in\nthe wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up; that\nwhosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting\nlife.\" By Christ being lifted on the cross the way of salvation is to\nbe preached to all men; but it is only those that believe who will not\nperish and have eternal life, according to the foregoing scriptures I\nhave quoted from Mark xvi. 16, and Mat. xxv. 41, 46. I could quote\nmany more scriptures spoken by our Lord himself and explained by him;\nand I hope, sir, you will allow our Lord to be the best expositor of\nhis own word. I conceive you think you have got a mighty argument when\nyou mention the apostle Peter, who had a vision which instructed him\nin his duty to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; but remember, Peter\nsays, \"I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every\nnation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted of\nhim.\" Then he began to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his friends;\nhe preached Christ to them; he preached Jesus and the resurrection; he\nshows he is ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead;\nand says, \"To him give all the prophets witness that through his name\nwhosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.\" Did he\nsay that every individual of the human race would be saved? No such\nthing! And though he had further light concerning the Gentiles, he\nnever, as I can find, preached Universal Salvation, but to the\ncontrary. Read his epistles, first and second, particularly 2d\nepistle, 2d chapter from 1st to the end of the 9th verse. \"The Lord\nknoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation; and to reserve the\nunjust to the day of judgment, to be _punished_;\" not to be\n_liberated_! Read 3d chapter, 7th verse, \"But the heavens and the\nearth which are now, by the same word are kept in store reserved unto\nfire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.\" Peter\nwrote these epistles after he had further light with respect to the\nGentiles' having the gospel preached unto them.\n\nAs to what you write about my saying I do not envy you because great\nnumbers go to hear you, I still say it, as far as I know my wicked and\ndeceitful heart, and wish you might preach the pure and simple gospel,\nand that your hearers might desire nothing more than the sincere milk\nof the word, as new-born babes, preached unto them; that they might\ngrow thereby, &c.\n\nThat place I directed you to in 1 John, iv. 5, 6, and wished you to\nconsider, though I have in some measure already considered it, I will\nattempt more particular to consider it. 1st. You say, John says, \"And\nevery spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the\nflesh is not of God, and this is that spirit of Antichrist whereof you\nhave heard it should come and even now already is in the world.\" John\nin the preceding verse said, that every spirit that confesseth Jesus\nChrist is come in the flesh, is of God; do you think, sir, that every\nperson that assents to this truth is a true believer? But few that\nhave been born in a land of gospel light but what assents to this; but\nthe soul that is born of God truly believes it, according to what the\nsame apostle writes, 5th Chapter 1st epistle 1st verse, \"Whosoever\nbelieveth Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and every one that\nloveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him.\" Do\nall men that confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh profess to\nbe born of God? Do they love the children of God that bear his image?\nNo; they, if unregenerate, are of the world; they \"love darkness\nrather than light, because their deeds are evil.\" Who does our Lord\nmean when he says, \"If the world hate you, it hated me before it hated\nyou, if ye were of the world the world would love his own; but because\nye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world,\ntherefore the world hateth you?\" Sir, you know that there has been\nmany antichristian professors of this truth, _that Jesus Christ is\ncome in the flesh_, that have shed much human blood, because they\nhated the dear children of God. Therefore I conceive this is the\nmeaning of the text: we must know for ourselves that Jesus Christ is\nthe Son of God, as Peter did when he confessed him, and Christ said to\nhim, \"Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not\nrevealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven--upon this\nrock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail\nagainst it.\" I believe that true and saving faith is wrought in the\nheart by the spirit of the _living God_; and the soul that believes\ntruly, is, as I have already said, born of God, is in union with\nChrist, is partaker of the divine nature, and has escaped the\ncorruption that is in the world through lust, and is pressing forward\ntowards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ\nJesus. I have wrote more than I intended, having received your other\nepistle and have considered some of it. This remains to be considered:\nwhat you wrote concerning your having great numbers of hearers. It is\ntrue Christ had a great number which followed, and heard him, but few\nwhich followed because they loved his doctrine, and followed him from\nright motives. He said unto them, \"Ye seek me not because ye saw the\nmiracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour\nnot for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat which endureth unto\neverlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you, for him\nhath God the Father sealed,\" John vi. 26, 27. Our Lord says, John\nviii. 47, \"He that is of God heareth God's words; ye therefore hear\nthem not because ye are not of God.\" Hence you may see how our Lord\nand his beloved disciple John agree; it is not the truth as it is in\nJesus, the populace are after; it is to gratify their curiosity, or\nhear something about their salvation in a way that has no cross in it.\nBut Christ says, \"If any man will be my disciple let him deny himself\nand take up his cross, and follow me.\" When Christ preached soul\nsearching doctrine as he did in the 6th of John, \"Many of his\ndisciples went back and followed no more with him.\" And I believe when\nyou preach repentance and faith, and shew what fruits they will\nproduce in the true penitent and true believer, the world will not\nhear you and cordially like your doctrine. But they, as John says, are\nof the world, therefore they speak of the world, and the world heareth\nthem; \"We are of God, we that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not\nof God heareth not us: hereby know we the spirit of truth and the\nspirit of error.\" I have reason to think some popular preachers are\ngood men, but the world do not like them nor their doctrine, because\nthey are so; but because of their popularity their curiosity is fed,\nor gratified--and not their souls with the pure milk of the word. Sir,\nyou answer in some way which is ambiguous to me about your preaching\nrepentance, and say repentance may be preached without speaking the\nword repentance. What makes you shun speaking plainly as Christ did?\nBe explicit in preaching it. You cannot deny, but Christ and his\napostles preached it explicitly. Christ said in plain language,\n\"Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish,\" Luke xiii. 3, 5. In\nyour answer concerning the resurrection of the dead, you do not speak\nof that in a clear and explicit way, and your not mentioning it at\neither of the funerals, makes me doubt whether you believe it in as\nclear and literal a manner as it is expressed in the scriptures by\nChrist and his apostles. Paul says, \"Seeing we have such hope we use\ngreat plainness of speech.\" I hope, sir, you will not be offended with\nme for plain dealing.\n\nAs to your apostasy, I hope I shall have an opportunity to confer with\nyou about it. I am happy to say I feel no rancour or enmity against\nyour person or people, as a neighbour and friend, but should be\nwilling to assist you in, and as far as my ability and power with a\ngood conscience will admit; and hope this will not interrupt our\nmeeting together as usual in visiting the schools. I think we had best\ndrop the controversy, and I think I shall no more write to you, and\nhope you will no more write to me on this subject. You may make what\nuse you please of it; I hope it will be made of good use to you.\n\nI now, dear sir, \"commend you to God and the word of his grace, which\nis able to build yon up in the _truth_ as it is in _Jesus_, and give\nyou an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.\"\n\nFrom your friend, and well wisher in the gospel of our dear Lord Jesus\nChrist.\n\nJOSEPH WALTON.\n\nMr. Hosea Ballou, _Pastor of a Church_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER V.\n\nFROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, JAN. 15, 1811.\n\n_Rev. Sir_,--Yours of the 11th inst. is before me, and according to my\n_promise_ I hasten to pay _an early attention_ to its contents,\nnotwithstanding you express a _hope_ that I should write to you no\nmore on this subject. In your desire, sir, that I should write no more\nI believe you to be _really sincere_, for I believe you to be a man\ndisposed to give your friends as little trouble as possible; but I\nhave several reasons for answering your last, which, when I have\nstated, I presume, will fully satisfy you that my answer is required\nin justice to myself.\n\n1st. I find myself accused of _baseness_, of which, were I guilty, the\nforfeiture would be that of _confidence_.\n\n2d. I find my preaching misrepresented, and that in direct violation\nof my own declaration in the present correspondence.\n\n3d. I find questions proposed for my discussion, which renders it\nreasonable that you should have an answer, as I was in hopes of\nobtaining to the questions which I stated to you.\n\n4th. I find you quite off from the subjects of your admonitions, not\nattempting to support them, nor yet willing to exonerate me from\ncharges.\n\n5th. I find the scriptures of our blessed Lord and Saviour quoted with\na manifest design to limit his grace and salvation.\n\nI might go on and state a number more reasons why I conceive it to be\nmy duty to reply, but the five already given will undoubtedly satisfy\nyour mind; and they furnish subjects sufficiently ample for an\nepistle. To them I shall conform myself, and endeavour to be as\nconcise as is consistent with the importance of the subject.\n\n1st. Your accusation is in the following words:--\n\n\"Here you designedly, I think, mistake.\" \"Those texts of scripture\nwhich you have quoted from Rom. 8th chapt. are not to be applied as\nyou apply them, neither doth the apostle apply them so. And methinks\nyou know they are not, if you consider the connexion from the 28th\nverse of the chapter to the end. And that passage of scripture quoted\nfrom 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, 23, is only to be applied to real christians;\nand this, sir, I presume you know; but it would not suit your and your\nscheme of Universal Salvation to apply them so.\"\n\nHere I am accused, 1st of _designedly mistaking_ you! And, 2d of a\n_wilful misapplication_ of the _sacred word_! To these high charges,\nsir, I beg the privilege of pleading _not guilty_; and, after making\nmy defence, of submitting my cause to impartial judges.\n\nWith regard to the _designed mistake_, my defence is that no mistake\nwas made by me either _designed_ or _not designed_.--I have examined\nand find that I quoted you verbatim. I also find that I fully agreed\nwith you in the sentence quoted as to what was necessarily signified\nby it. I applied the sentence according to my own mind; but did not\npretend nor say that you applied it as I did. Where then is the\n_designed mistake_? Could an action lie against a man for murder if no\n_body_ were found, on which murder had been committed?--Could an\nindictment for theft be supported against a man if no property were\nmissing from the owner? Is it proper to bring an allegation thus,\nwithout pointing out some sort of _mistake_? I will not be so\nuncharitable, sir, as to suppose that you _designed_ to bring _a false\naccusation_ in this instance. No, sir, you are not capable of such\nwickedness; I have ever believed you to be an _honest, sincere\nchristian_; and that opinion is so congenial to my feelings that I\nshall never give it up while I can find a reasonable excuse for\nretaining it.\n\nMy opinion is, that you, finding that I had made such ready use of\nyour sentence apparently to my own advantage, thought I designed to\nmistake you, and feeling a little disagreeably on the occasion, did\nnot _look minutely_ to see if you had rightly apprehended me, or not.\n\nWith regard to the _wilful misapplication of the sacred word_ my\ndefence is to be made from the sacred text itself. In this defence,\nsir, it is sufficient if I give you reasons which induce me to apply\nthe scripture as I do. It is not necessary that I convince you or any\nbody else that my application is right, for we are all liable to err.\nWhat I shall aim at is to show that if my applications are _not\ncorrect_ yet I am not guilty of _wilfully misapplying_ the _sacred\ntext_. 1st. Of the passage in the 8th of Rom. the following are my\nreasons for a general application of that scripture to mankind.\n\n1st. The whole human family, at least, is made the primary subject of\nthe apostle's application as may be seen by looking at the 19th verse\nand onward. \"For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for\nthe manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made\nsubject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected\nthe same in hope; because the creature itself also shall be delivered\nfrom the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the\nchildren of God. For we know that the _whole creation groaneth_ and\n_travaileth_ in _pain together_ until now; and not only they, but\nourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we\nourselves _groan_ within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit,\nthe redemption of our body.\"\n\nI understand by the above quotation that St. Paul meant the same by\nthe \"_whole creation_\" as he did by the \"_creature_\" who was \"made\nsubject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath\nsubjected the same in hope.\" And this creature which he calls the\n\"whole creation\" he says shall be delivered from the bondage of\ncorruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. This is\nthe apostle's primary application of the love and mercy of God. In a\n_minor_ sense he is _particular_ as may be seen in the above\nquotation, \"and not only they,\" that is the whole creation at large,\nbut ourselves also, which have the _first fruits_ of the _spirit_,\neven we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to\nwit, the redemption of our body.\" I know of no way to understand the\napostle here to mean otherwise than that the whole human race _groan_\nand _travail_ for the same deliverance and redemption that those do\nwho are blessed with the first fruits of the spirit. Nor do I find any\nexpression, in relation to this subject, more significant of the\ndeliverance of those who have the first fruits of the spirit, than of\nthe deliverance of the whole creation, or creature made subject to\nvanity. By turning back only to the 5th chap, we find the apostle\nlaboring the subject of grace and salvation in just as extensive a\nmanner. See verse 18th, \"Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment\ncame upon _all men_ unto _condemnation_, even so, by the righteousness\nof one, the free gift came upon _all men_ unto _justification of\nlife_.\" Consistently with this positive and particular declaration of\nthe apostle's belief in the _justification_ of _all men_ through the\n_righteousness_ of _Jesus Christ_, we find his following testimony.\nSee 1 Tim. ii. 4, &c. \"Who will have all men to be saved and come unto\nthe knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator\nbetween God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom\nfor _all_ to be testified in due time.\" Heb. ii. 9. \"But we see Jesus\nwho was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of\ndeath, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God\nshould taste death for every man.\" Rom. iv. 25.--\"who was delivered\nfor our offences and was raised again for our justification.\" v. 8.\n\"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet\nsinners, Christ died for us.\"\n\nIn the above testimony the apostle says, that Christ gave himself a\nransom for _all men_, that he, by the _grace_ of _God_, tasted death\nfor _every man_, that he was delivered for our offences and was raised\nagain for our justification, that his death for sinners is a\ncommendation of God's love to them. Now I am willing to acknowledge to\nyou, sir, and to all the world, that I can make no sense of the above\ntestimony without applying it to all mankind. In the apostle's\nobservations in the close of the 8th of Rom. of nothing being able to\nseparate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, there is a\nperfect analogy with the foregoing testimony. The love of God which is\nin Christ Jesus, was commended to a sinful world in that Christ tasted\ndeath, by the grace of God, for every man. If one of all those for\nwhom Christ died can be separated from that love by which Christ died\nfor him, I know not why the whole may not be, by the same argument.\n\n2d. Of the passage in 1st Cor. 3d, &c. This passage, you say, you\n_presume_ I _know_ ought not to be applied to any _but real\nchristians_! See the text. \"Therefore let _no man_, glory in men; for\nall things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the\nworld, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all\nare yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.\" Are you willing,\nsir, to _presume_ that I _know_ that the apostle Paul did not mean to\ndissuade any but _real christians_ from trusting in men? This you must\n_presume_ in order to _presume_ that I _know_ the text ought to be\napplied to none but real Christians. Is not the sense of \"_no man_\" as\nuniversal in the negative, as the sense of \"_all men_\" is in the\npositive? Why did you not attempt to give some reason for such a\n_presumption_? I hope dear sir, you will not allow yourself to think,\neven for one moment, that I am so uncharitable as to suppose you\n_presumed_ thus, contrary to impressions of your own mind, though you\ncannot think any worse of me than is implied in the presumption. I\ntell you, sir, that I seriously believe that the above text ought to\nbe applied to all men; I believe it is wrong for any man to put his\ntrust in man, according to that scripture; and I believe it to be\nperfectly right to exhort _all men_ to put their trust in God who has\ngiven his son to die for us all, and who will with him freely give us\nall things richly to enjoy.\n\nI do not doubt your sincerity in the above _presumption_, but I doubt\nyour having paid a suitable attention to the subject before you thus\npresumed. Hasty judgments and sudden conclusions frequently make work\nfor repentance; but the true christian will, on cool reflection, be\nwilling to acknowledge his faults and to remove unjust accusations.--\n\"By their fruits ye shall know them.\" On considering the usage with\nwhich I meet in this unsolicited and unexpected correspondence, I\ncannot but call to mind the very different treatment which the\n_devil_ received from an heavenly dignitary, who dared not to bring\nagainst his opponent a _railing accusation_! As a further evidence\nthat the text in Corinthians ought to be applied to all men, or to\nmen in general, see the words of the same apostle to the Ephesians,\nchapter iv. 8, 11, &c. \"Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on\nhigh, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. And he\ngave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and\nsome pastors and teachers.\"--Now look again to the passage in\nCorinthians, \"For all things are yours, whether _Paul_, or Apollos,\nor Cephas,\" &c. These were the gifts given unto men. The question\nnow is, were those gifts which were given unto men, given to any but\nreal christians? See Psalm lxviii. 18, to which the apostle alludes\nin his words quoted from Eph. iv. \"Thou hast ascended on high; thou\nhast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men; yea,\nfor the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.\"\nAre you willing, sir, to _presume_ that I _know_ that the prophet\nDavid and St. Paul meant to apply those scriptures to none but _real\nchristians_? I must acknowledge my suprise at such _presumption_.\nI will now take my leave of those accusations, just remarking that\nI feel no fear in submitting my case to any impartial tribunal.\n\nThe 2d general particular is that of my preaching being\nmisrepresented, and that in direct violation of my own declarations in\nthe present correspondence. This misrepresentation I find in your\nletter in the following words: \"I think, sir, your giving your hearers\nencouragement in your preaching that Christ will save them all whether\nthey repent and believe the gospel or no, is of a dangerous nature.\"\nIn the first place I call my whole congregation to witness against\nthis misrepresentation. In the second place I call my own testimony in\nthis correspondence which you had before you, to witness against this\nmisrepresentation. The following are my own words verbatim:--\"In the\nfirst place I wish to observe that I as much believe in those\nscriptures which speak of the necessity of repentance, as I do in any\npart of the sacred writings. The many scriptures which you have\n_judiciously_ quoted to prove the propriety of the doctrine of\nrepentance are justly applied as I conceive, and I accord with you in\ntheir use and meaning as far as you have explained them. While a man\nis in a state of unbelief he is not in the enjoyment of the truth.\"\nThese quotations, sir, are all in direct opposition to your\nrepresentation of the subject of repentance.\n\nHere again I ought to observe, that I am far from accusing you of an\n_intentional fault_, or a wilful misrepresentation; though in order to\nsuppose you clear from such a fault, I must charitably suppose that\nthe _perturbations_ of your mind were such that you did not give my\nletter a careful examination. I proved by plain and positive scripture\nthat _repentance_ is as much a gift of Christ as the forgiveness of\nsins, which is, with the passage quoted from my letter, sufficient to\nconvince any man, who is not \"improperly biased by tradition,\" that I\ndo not exclude the necessity of repentance.\n\n3d. I find questions proposed for my discussion, which renders it\nnecessary that you should receive an answer, as I was in hope of\nobtaining to the questions which I stated to you.\n\nThese questions are in the following words: \"I would ask you, if, when\nI am writing a letter or an epistle to Mr. Hosea Ballou, it would be\nproper for me to apply what I wrote in particular to you concerning\nyour affairs, or circumstances, to the whole world? Who does our Lord\nmean when he says, 'If the world hate you it hated me before it hated\nyou,' &c.\" To the first of these questions I answer, should you state\nin a letter to me that _no man_ ought to preach the doctrine which I\npreach, I should suppose that your observation would apply to the\nwhole world of mankind as well as to me; or if I should say in a\nletter to the Rev. Joseph Walton, _no man_ ought to _presume_ his\n_friend_ to be guilty of _wilful mistakes_, and _misapplications_ of\nscripture without the _best possible evidence_ I believe you would see\nthe propriety of applying my observation to all men, even if you\nshould feel yourself particularly admonished by it.\n\nThe second question I conceive may be justly answered thus: The\n_world_ which hated Christ was that religious order among the Jews who\naccused him of being a friend to publicans and sinners; who thought\nthemselves so much better than their neighbours, as to say, \"Stand by\nthyself; come not nigh me, for I am holier than thou.\"\n\n_Enmity_ to _Christ_ grows out of a Pharisaical notion of our own\nrighteousness, and it is an invariable mark of a Pharisee to oppose\nthe humiliating doctrine of _equal guilt_ and _equal grace_. No man\never hated Christ who felt the weight of his own sins and the need of\na Saviour. No set of men ever fomented persecutions but such as\nthought themselves the more particular favourites of God than others.\n\nWhen I hear certain characters raising such queries, I am almost\ninduced to use the freedom with them which the prophet Nathan used\nwith his terrible majesty the king, and say. \"Thou art the man!\" But I\ndare not assume the place of judgment; and I know my own fallibility\nso well that I have no need to accuse others.\n\n4thly. I find you quite off from the subjects of your admonition, not\nattempting to support them, nor yet willing to exonerate me from\ncharges. Quite off, I say, from the subjects of admonition; for you\nhave not attempted to distinguish between the two ideas contained in\nwhat you stated as the first subject of admonition, nor have you told\nme whether it be one, or both which you consider thus\nreprehensible.--You labour some time on another subject which concerns\nthe mode by which death was introduced, but you have said nothing\nabout whether God _originally designed death_, or not. Not knowing\nyour real mind from what you expressed on this subject, I queried in\nmy mind how I ought to understand you, and supposing you consistent\nwith yourself, and having sufficient reason to believe that your\n_creed_ contains the belief that God foreordained whatsoever comes to\npass, I explained the sentence accordingly; but you neither\nacknowledge me right in this particular, nor object; but you say that\nyou do not think you ever told me so! Here again, sir, I can easily\nsuppose you speak the truth, though I am under the necessity of\ncharitably supposing that your memory fails, for at the first visit\nwhich I had the happiness of making you, I heard you recommend the\nCatechism to be taught in schools which contains this very article of\nfaith. And now, sir, I must either believe that you would recommend\nthat which you do not believe, or I must still suppose that you\nbelieve that God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass; and of course\nthat he foreordained _death_. And as you _admonish_ me for suggesting\nthat God originally designed death for the good of mankind you cannot\nbe consistent with yourself, as I can see, without believing that God\noriginally designed death for a _damage_ to _mankind_. And as you do\nnot deny believing thus, I cannot but marvel that you should wholly\nneglect to answer my queries on this subject: a subject which\nevidently involves the moral character of God. Do you feel, sir, as if\nyou had honourably acquitted yourself in this particular, by only\nexulting in your forgetfulness concerning having given me to\nunderstand your creed? Does this look altogether like renouncing the\nhidden things of dishonesty? Did you believe your creed in respect to\nthe subject of admonition was hid from me? Why then did you not openly\ndecide either one way or the other? May I not without doing you the\nleast injustice suppose you were straightened by the glaring\ninconsistency of your _admonition_? If you avowed the suggested _item_\nall the abominable absurdity which I posted full in sight must have\nbeen charged to your account. If you disavowed the suggested _item_\nthen away went the _darling Catechism_, in a moment, and with it, more\nof the preposterous inventions of priestcraft than could be easily\nreplaced to the advantage of the cause of superstition and ignorance!\nI would by no means suggest that you did any thing or neglected to do\nany thing from a motive which your own conscience disallowed; but I am\nimpelled, even by charity itself, to attribute your conduct in the\nabove case to an improper prejudice against a doctrine of which you\nknow but very little.\n\nAnother subject of your admonition is that of my having apostatised\nfrom the true faith. On this subject, on which I was particular, you\nmake no defence, nor yet exhonerate me from the charge. You observe\nyou hope for an opportunity to confer with me about this matter. Why\nwere you unwilling to write your defence of this allegation, or be so\nkind as to withdraw it. I must use the plainness, sir, to say, if you\naccuse of _designed mistakes_ in _writing_ where no mistakes exist, if\nI have a verbal conference with you on these matters, I should wish to\nhave it before a ready scribe who could produce the conservation\nafterwards. You are not to suppose by this precaution I mean to\nintimate that you would report the conversation contrary to truth,\ndesignedly; I mean if when my letters are before your eyes, you\nmisunderstand, you might be as likely to misunderstand conversation.\n\nYou admonished me for preaching a doctrine which pleases the world,\nmeaning the populace; and I endeavoured to defend myself in that\nparticular: but you neither attempt to show my reasoning faulty, nor\nyet, acknowledge me correct. This is _admonishing_, I should suppose,\nin the _unaccountable_ manner in which _Popes_ admonish! You say that\nmany followed Christ for the sake of the loaves. Dear sir, I did not\nsay but they all did; and if they did, the question is, does that\nprove his doctrine not of God? Here, sir, you will see, if you look\none moment, that you were off, far off from the subject.\n\n5th. I find the scriptures of our blessed Lord and Saviour quoted with\na manifest design to _limit_ his _grace_ and _salvation_.\n\nYou introduce those quotations as follows: \"You still will continue to\nmaintain the doctrine of Universal Salvation by those texts which I\nsaid you spoke at the grave with such an _emphasis_. If they are to be\nunderstood only in a literal sense as they are expressed, I can quote\nas many, or more spoken by Christ and his apostles, which will\ncontradict them in their literal sense. Christ says, 'He that\nbelieveth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not\nshall be damned. Then shall he say unto them on his left hand depart\nfrom me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his\nangels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the\nrighteous into life eternal.'--'Then said Jesus again unto them, I go\nmy way and ye shall seek me and shall die in your sins; whither I go\nye cannot come. John viii. 21, 24. I said therefore unto you that ye\nshall die in your sins, for if ye believe not I am he ye shall die in\nyour sins.'\"\n\nThese passages you say contradict those which I make use of to prove\nUniversal Salvation, if we understand those which I thus use in a\nliteral sense, as they are expressed. I will state one passage only as\nan example, which I have before quoted. Rom. v. 18, \"Therefore, as by\nthe offence of one, judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, even\nso by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto\njustification of life.\" Nothing can be said on the above text which\ncan tend to make its meaning more plain than it is, if its most\nnatural sense be the true sense. This, sir, I presume, you will allow:\nNow let us look for a contradiction of this text in the passages which\nyou quoted. \"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he\nthat believeth not shall be damned.\" I ask how long the unbeliever\nwill be damned? Answer--As long as he is an unbeliever, and no longer,\naccording to the text. Is there any expression in the text, or context\nthat even intimates that any will remain eternally in unbelief? No.\nWhere is the contradiction then? There is none. The passage which you\nquote from the 25th of Mat. says, \"And these shall _go_ away into\neverlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.\" As the\nword everlasting is very frequently used in the scriptures to signify\nages and dispensations, is there any certainty that it has not such a\nmeaning in this place? Answer: No. Where is the contradiction then?\nThere is none. The very expression \"_punishment_\" shows plainly that\nwhat is inflicted is designed as an emendation of the punished. I have\nshown in a late publication,[11] that it is in direct violation of the\nwords of Christ, to explain the above text to signify a punishment in\nanother state of existence; and yet, if we were under the necessity of\nunderstanding it so, it would fall after all infinitely short of\nproving that, at some period known to a merciful God, all men will not\nbe justified unto life.--Therefore no contradiction can be found. The\npassage which speaks of those who should die in their sins will fall\nequally short of contradicting the testimony of Universal\nJustification. I will ask in the first place, whether a man's being\n_dead_ in _sin_ render it impossible for him to be quickened unto life\nby the spirit of God? See a passage which you quote, \"You hath he\nquickened who were _dead_ in _trespasses_ and _sins_.\" If those who\nare _dead_ in _trespasses_ and _sins_ can be _quickened_ according to\nthis passage, what is the reason that those Jews to whom Christ spake\ncan never be _quickened_? You must see, sir, that the passage which\nyou quote refutes your notion about this contradiction. You will say\nthat Christ told the Jews \"whither I go ye cannot come,\" but you\ncannot but remember that he said the same thing to his own disciples.\n\"As I said unto the Jews so I say unto you, whither I go ye cannot\ncome;\" and afterwards explains himself to mean that they could not\ncome immediately.--Let us now turn this subject round and ask how the\ntext quoted from Romans can be true if your notion of endless misery\nbe granted to be the true meaning of the passages you quote? Will you\nundertake to say that men who are justified unto life by the\nrighteousness of Christ will remain endlessly in a state of death and\ncondemnation? If you do not feel competent to the task of maintaining\nsuch palpable contradiction, why would it not be doing yourself a\nkindness just to examine that _soul chilling_ and _heaven dishonouring\ndoctrine_ of _endless, unmerciful punishment_! One moment's\nexamination of such an idea when brought in sight of the fountain\nwhich is opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of\nJerusalem to wash in from sin and uncleanness would abolish it\nforever. I acknowledge, sir, that my five particulars do not\ncomprehend every particular of your letter; nor have I attended to all\nwhich they do comprehend so extensively as I would if I could suppose\nit necessary; but as you were in hopes of receiving nothing, it is not\nto be expected that you will find fault because there is no more.\n\n[Footnote 11: \"Candid Review,\" or Answer to Robinson.]\n\nI cannot be willing to close this epistle without giving you credit of\nfollowing the apostle's direction in your observation concerning my\nargument in respect to St. Peter. You say \"I conceive you think you\nhave got a _mighty_ argument,\" &c. The apostle exhorts us to be\n_children_ in _malice_, and I am sure St. Paul, nor any body else ever\nheard a more _childish expression_ which communicated the least\npossible disaffection.\n\nWhat you quote from St. Peter with a design to prove endless misery,\nwithout attempting to show that such was his meaning, I forbear\ncommenting upon. If you had shown that Peter could consistently\nbelieve that no man was common or unclean considered in the sheet\nwhich he saw in vision, and at the same time believe that the greatest\npart of mankind would remain in sin and uncleanness eternally you\nwould have done more than you have. I hope, sir, if you are determined\nto take your leave of this correspondence without supporting the\nsubjects of your admonition, and without supporting the heavy charges\nyou have stated against me, and, likewise, without acknowledging the\nimpropriety of your admonition, and the incorrectness of your charges,\nthat you will never attack another of your fellow creatures in the\nsame way. I do not express this because I feel the least\nunfriendliness to you in consequence of the method you have pursued,\nbut because I think it is contrary to the spirit of Christianity; it\nis not doing as we wish to be done by. I do not believe that your soul\nfeels satisfied with it; but you have some remains of pride yet which\nkeeps you from giving up ground which you are sensible you cannot\nmaintain. I hope, sir, you will entertain no apprehensions respecting\nmy cordial friendship to you, or my readiness to join you in any\npossible usefulness to our fellow creatures. And, as you\naffectionately committed me to God and to the word of his grace,\nplease to accept the sincere desires for your present and everlasting\nwelfare, of sir, your humble servant, for Christ's sake.\n\nHOSEA BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLETTER VI.\n\nFROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.\n\nPORTSMOUTH, FEB. 1, 1811.\n\n_Rev. Sir_,--Having taken into serious consideration the whole\ncorrespondence which has passed between us, I have felt very deep\nimpressions on my mind arising from the following coosiderations.\n\n1st. You and I are accountable beings, and must undoubtedly, sooner or\nlater, be called to account for the propriety, or impropriety of our\nlabours with each other.\n\n2d. Our professional character must, without doubt, be a high\nconsideration in our accountability.\n\n3d. The eyes of society are ever watchful, and God has made us\naccountable, not only to himself, but to our fellow creatures, who\nhave a just demand upon us.\n\nWhile these important considerations were revolving in my mind, I felt\na sense of my youth, compared with your age, my inexperience, the\nproneness of the human heart to the vanity of self confidence, the\nblindness of prejudice to which old and young are more or less\nsubject, and also, the friendship which has hitherto happily subsisted\nbetween us since our first acquaintance.\n\nThese circumstances and those considerations, led my mind to the\nconclusion that I ought to lay the whole matter before God, and to ask\nof him suitable wisdom to guide me in relation to so weighty a\nsubject.\n\nThe result of my devotional supplications is a forcible application of\nthe divine direction, given by St. Paul 1 Tim. v. 1, \"Rebuke not an\nelder but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren.\"\n\nHow far your communications to me are consistent, or inconsistent with\nthe apostle's direction, in the above test, I do not conceive it my\nduty to judge, any farther than a discharge of my own duty, pursuant\nto the apostle's direction, may require. On the most deliberate\nrecapitulation of all which I have written, I cannot now say, that I\ncould wish to recall a single idea, argument, application of\nscripture, or sentiment; though I will not even suggest that better\ninformation might not produce a different conclusion. I trust I have\nhitherto treated you, sir, and the subjects of your communications\nwith all the propriety of which my understanding is master; and my\nfervent desire is, that I may complete the labours enjoined on me by\nthe above text, in strict conformity to that most holy spirit which\ninspired such excellent counsel. Therefore, Rev. Sir, I _entreat you_\nas a _father_ to consider,\n\n1st. Whether you entreated your humble servant as a _brother_ when you\nadmonished him for important particulars which you wholly refuse to\nsubstantiate either as facts or wrongs?\n\n2d. Whether you entreated me as a brother in refusing to decide, as to\nyour meaning, in the first subject of your admonition, and in not\ngiving me to understand whether I had rightly apprehended you or not?\n\n3d. Whether you entreated me as a brother in not acknowledging an\nagreement of sentiment on the subject of _repentance_ after I had\ngiven _you_ the fullest assurance possible, that I believed in its\nnecessity and importance?\n\n4th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in admonishing me as an\napostate from the true faith of the gospel, while I profess to believe\nin Christ the Son of God, as the Saviour of the world; and stand in\nsociety, in my various relation by the blessing of God, unimpeached as\nto morality?\n\n5th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in admonishing me against a\ndoctrine which commends the love and mercy of God in the final\nreconciliation and everlasting happiness of all unreconciled beings;\nand in opposing said doctrine with no other argument than saying, in\neffect, that if the scriptures which prove the doctrine are allowed to\nmean as they naturally read, other scriptures contradict them! Thus\nfurnishing the infidel with his darling weapon against the divinity of\nthe scriptures?\n\n6th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in stating those heavy\ncharges against me, in which you _accuse me_ of a _designed mistake_,\nand of _wilful misapplications_ of scriptures where neither _mistake_\nor _misapplications_ of scriptures can be made to appear?\n\n7th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in misrepresenting my\npreaching when you never heard me perform in the particular capacity\nof a preacher?\n\n8th. Whether you entreated me as a brother in taking your leave of\nthis correspondence without supporting one single particular of your\nadmonition, or one single charge against me. And also, without\nacknowledging the incorrectness of your admonition, or the impropriety\nof your charges.\n\nI entreat you, sir, as a father, to consider whether the spirit which\nyou manifested, in bring such _unreasonable_ charges against me, be\nconsistent with the directions given by St. Paul to Timothy, and also\nwith the example and precept of him who loved his enemies and\ncommanded his disciples to do likewise?\n\nI entreat you seriously to consider what the conduct of the Saviour\nwould have been, if he had been disposed to _judge, denounce, reject_\nand _disfellowship_ all those who sincerely believe in him and strove\nto honour him with becoming obedience to his commands, on account of\ntheir not understanding every thing as well as he did?\n\nI entreat you to call in question your treatment of me because I do\nnot believe in every thing as you do; and carefully examine if it\ncorrespond with the conduct of him, who, out of pity to human\nweakness, submitted himself to the scorn and hatred of those who\nconsidered themselves more righteous than others?\n\nIn relation to the doctrine, to which you appear so violently opposed,\nI entreat you, as a father, to take into consideration, 1st. The\npromises of God to Abraham by which the doctrine is supported. 2dly.\nThe corroborating testimonies in the New Testament by which we are to\nunderstand those promises. 3dly. The consistency of the doctrine with\nthe character of _infinite goodness_. And, 4thly. The consistency of\nthe doctrine with every benevolent and godlike desire of the human\nheart.\n\nIf God promised to bless all the families, nations and kindreds of the\nearth in the seed of Abraham, who is Christ, and if St. Paul has\ninformed us that this blessing is _justification through faith_, I\nentreat you to consider by what authority you condemn the doctrine of\n_Universal Justification_.\n\nIf the apostle has also argued that God has made peace through the\nblood of the cross of Jesus, by him to reconcile _all things_ to\nhimself, I entreat you to consider by what authority you condemn the\ndoctrine of _Universal Reconciliation_.\n\nIf in perfect conformity to the promises of God, the prophet has given\nhis testimony that _all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation\nof our God_, I entreat you to consider by what authority you condemn\nthe doctrine of _Universal Salvation_.\n\nIf you make use of scripture to contradict such plain and positive\ndeclarations, by explaining _parables_ and _doubtful sayings_ for that\npurpose, I entreat you candidly to consider whether you can do any\nthing more to the dishonour of the sacred word, or more pleasing to\nthose who wish to bring the scriptures into disrepute.\n\nIf you feel determined to maintain and inculcate the idea of God's\npunishing his rational offspring eternally without mercy, love, or\npity towards them, I entreat you, as a father, to consider whether you\ncan invent any idea which, applied to God, would make his character\nappear more contrary to the spirit of him who loved his enemies and\ndied for them.\n\nI entreat you to examine carefully and see if it be possible to\nreconcile the doctrine of endless misery with the benevolent desires\nof the true spiritual children of God; and consider seriously whether\nit be proper to pray for the salvation of all men, and then condemn\nthe belief of it as a heresy.\n\nI entreat you, as a father, to call into serious consideration the\nreal cause of all the persecutions and abominable cruelties which have\nbeen practiced in Christendom, on account of religion, and see if you\ncan find a foundation for these things except in the blasphemous\nnotion that God is unmerciful towards the impenitent.\n\nEndeavour, sir, to satisfy yourself how the foolish prejudices of\nignorant zealots could ever have succeeded in establishing so many\nmiddle walls of partition, and in making so many pernicious\ndistinctions in the Christian world, if the blasphemous notion of\npartiality in God had not been the rage of an apostatised church.\n\nFind out, if you can, I entreat you, sir, the cause of all the madness\nand folly, which appear in the habitual coldness and bitterness\nexercised by the clergy, of different denominations towards each\nother, if it be not the blasphemous notion that their foolish\nprejudices are sanctioned by God!\n\nAdieu, I write no more. I feel that I have done my duty. I have\nentreated you as a father in love and faithfuness. I leave the effects\nwith God; humbly praying and joyfully believing, that when we are\npurged from our hay, wood and stubble, with the spirit of judgment and\nthe spirit of burning, we shall see eye to eye and be admitted to a\nhumble seat at the feet of our blessed Saviour, for whose sake I\nremain, sir, your most obedient and very humble servant.\n\nHOSEA BALLOU\n\nRev. JOSEPH WALTON.","title":"A Series of Letters, in Defence of Divine Revelation: In Reply to Rev. Abner Kneeland's Serious Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Same. To Which is Added, a Religious Correspondence, Between the Rev. Hosea Ballou, and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Buckminster and Rev. Joseph Walton, Pastors of Congregational Churches in Portsmouth, N. H.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":107103}