_Much esteemed friend_,--In replying to your second number, you will
excuse me if I begin by finding some fault, in which, however, I will
endeavour to be as sparing as the case will admit.
On the subject of the languages, after reading in your first number
the following in its connexion: "If I understand the above
proposition, it seems to be this; the only revelation of God to man,
which was ever recorded on vellum or paper, was written partly in
Greek and partly in Hebrew; hence the revealed will of God cannot be
known only through the medium of these languages. If the truth of all
this could be made to appear," &c. and after replying to your argument
on this subject, I can hardly account for the insinuation in your
second number, by which you suggest, that you had no particular
allusion to a revelation from God when you spoke of translating the
most valuable of ancient writings, &c. The subject of a revelation you
acknowledge to be your main object; if this be the case, you have this
object in view when you speak of the Greek and Hebrew, and also when
you speak of the arts and sciences.
You contend in your second number, that the translation of the
Scriptures out of the original languages is as good evidence of the
existence of the original, as the original could be of the facts they
relate, &c. And this I believe is the only acknowledgement you make in
favour of the original's having been any benefit. You seem not willing
to allow that the retaining of the original language is of any use in
proving to after generations that the translation was correct, which
seems not easy to account for. But I will give you no further trouble
on the subject of this nature; nor will I occupy my time in
investigating the question relative to the necessity of studying those
languages, which you acknowledge is off from your main subject, and
take some notice of your queries respecting a divine revelation.
Although I am unable to trace the connexion of many of your remarks
with which you call your main subject, yet I am not disposed to doubt
that you comprehend such connexion--I think I understand your
statements so as to be able to discern the following particulars, as
subjects of your inquiry.
"1st. Is it reasonable to suppose that God has ever made a special
revelation to man? 2d. Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of being
proved? And, 3d. If so, does it follow that this was designed by
divine wisdom to give us any hope respecting a future state?"
It is not pretended that you have stated these questions just in this
order, but these are the subjects which your second number suggests to
my mind.
I shall take a much nearer road to come to a solution of these
questions, than that which would lead me to follow you through all
your remarks, because you have furnished me with the means to do so.
1st. You acknowledge that a divine revelation "if real," is of "all
truths the most important." Here let the eye of reason examine. Why
should a revelation from God be more important than those discoveries
which our Creator has enabled us to make in the arts and sciences? Why
should such revelation be more important than the use of the mariner's
compass, or the art of printing? Even without contending that a divine
revelation is of any greater importance than the arts and sciences,
your allowing it any importance at all, is, in the eye of reason an
argument in its support. Had you taken the other road, and contended
that there was no necessity of a revelation, and had you been able to
make this appear, you would have proved to the eye of reason, that a
Being of infinite wisdom, who can never act without a just cause, had
never made a revelation. But if reason admits of its importance, as
long as this is the case, it will be looking not only with a fervent
desire, but with expectation till it makes the discovery. You will, no
doubt, allow that a divinely munificient Creator would not omit any
thing which is of importance to his intelligent creatures.
Perhaps you will, (though I do not see why you should) call up a
former query, which was answered in my first, which answer was not
receipted in your second, and ask why this revelation was not made in
every nation, in every language, and in every age? But you will be
sensible that the same questions might be stated respecting the
progress of science and the discovery of the arts useful to a refined
state of society.
You will not think it strange that I am some disappointed that you
took no notice of my remarks on the above query as I really attach
importance to that little piece of reasoning. If reason has no
reluctance in acknowledging that man is multiplied and continued here
by a law which was not able to bring him into existence at first, why
may not a revelation from God, be perpetuated by different means than
those which first made it, and thereby the great object be even better
secured than by a perpetual revelation, which would seem to render
research unnecessary, and leave the reasoning powers without employ?
But it is time for me to inform you that I feel myself under no
obligations to labour to prove what you and I and many thousands of
others have considered sufficiently proved from ancient prophesy with
which our heavenly Father has favoured so many ages and nations and
languages. And furthermore, permit me to tell you, that if you are
disposed to doubt and to disprove what you acknowledge to be of such
vast importance, it is your province to bring forward your strong
reasoning, if such you have, by which the prophesies of the old
testament, those delivered by Christ and his apostles shall be made to
appear either to have no just analogy with the events of which they
speak, or that they were contrived by impostors since the events took
place.
2d. You acknowledge the validity of the evidences in favor of the
resurrection of Jesus. You say; "That the evangelists have stated
nothing more than what is substantially correct, as it respects
matters of fact, will be admitted by all." Again; "I do not consider
the apostles bad men." Now the apostles are the deponents who solemnly
testify the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Why should you wish me
to prove what you allow to be true? Why do you not take the other
hand, and say the apostles were impostors, they were the opponents of
the righteous rulers of the Jews who put their master to death? Why do
you not avail yourself of the story put into the mouths of the guard
who watched the sepulchre, and say that those timid disciples who all
fled and left Jesus when they saw him bound, not only went to the
sepulchre and stole the body of Jesus and hid it where no mortal could
ever find it, but then went to Jerusalem and boldly affirmed he was
alive, who was dead, and then had the boldness and audacity to accuse
the rulers of having "denied the holy one and the just, and desired a
murderer to be delivered unto them; and of having killed the prince of
life, whom God had raised from the dead?" The reason is obvious, you
see the impropriety of such argument.--But:
3d. Allowing the resurrection of Jesus, the truth of divine
revelation, the honesty of the apostles of Jesus, are we to rely on
what they say respecting a future state? Answer, yes, most assuredly.
For here let reason ask, whether a divine revelation founded on the
resurrection of Jesus could have a more reasonable object, than the
bringing to light, life and immortality? Again let reason ask whether
the divine Being would endow Jesus and his apostles with the gift of
miracles, by which the divinity of their missions was proved to the
understanding of all who believed, and then suffer them to teach
things of a moral, a religious, or of an eternal nature which were not
true? By so doing, it would seem that God gave power to heal the sick
and to raise the dead for no other purpose than to gain the attention
of men to what was the mere guess work of men subject to error in the
things which they pretended to teach.
For myself I am perfectly satisfied that infinite goodness would never
do any thing so imperfectly. I am satisfied, being convinced of the
truth of the facts which you acknowledge, that the testimony of Jesus
and his apostles respecting this and the coming world, may be relied
on with the utmost confidence and safety. You intimate that Jesus said
but a little on the subject of a future state. I am entirely of your
opinion. And yet I am persuaded that he and his apostles have said as
much on the subject as is necessary for us to believe. They have given
sufficient proof that the design of our Creator is a design of eternal
goodness to our race of being. Jesus has brought life and immortality
to light through the gospel. The Christian is enabled to hope for
existence with God in an eternal state, and this is as much as our
present welfare requires. I have no doubt that many passages of
scripture have been applied to a future world, by Christian
expositors, which have no allusion to such a case--but this harms not
the glorious truths and divine realities of the religion of the
blessed Saviour.
I have many reasons for not believing in the general sentiment that
supposes the revelation contained in the scriptures was designed to
prepare men in this world for happiness in another, and that a want of
a correct knowledge of this revelation here, would subject the
ignorant to inconveniences in a future state. Such a sentiment is an
impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God. For if this were the
case, why was the gospel not early published to all people? Why were
ages after ages suffered to pass away, and generations after
generations permitted to sink into eternity without a ray of that
light which was indispensable to their everlasting happiness? Was it
not as easy for the eternal to send his son at the dawn of time as
after so many ages had passed away? Was it not as easy for him to
communicate to all nations as to one? But divine wisdom has seen fit
to manifest itself by degrees in the system of the gospel as well as
in the knowledge of science; and we have no more evidence to believe,
that those who go from this state to another ignorant of the gospel of
Christ, will, on that account, be rejected of God from his favour,
than we have to believe that those who have died ignorant of the
sciences, will, on that account be so rejected.
Every communication from God, whether relative to the moral or
physical world is evidently designed for our profit in the state where
such communication is made. This improvement of the moral and
religious state of man was the evident design of the revelation of
God, and to this agree all the prophets. "Instead of the thorn shall
come up the fir-tree, and instead of the briar shall come up the
myrtle-tree."
You seem to be opposed to biblical criticisms. So am I, if the object
be to fix a creed to which all must conform on pain of being
anathematized, but if the object be to get the right understanding of
the sacred text all in humble submission to that CHARITY which is
greater than a FAITH that could remove mountains, no harm can ever
arise from it, but a benefit.
No one can more sincerely wish to have the frivolities of superstition
and the endless multitude of nothings which arrogant creed-makers have
impiously superadded to pure christianity removed from the church than
I do; but wisdom must direct in this great and necessary work. It was
those who had more zeal than discernment who asked if they should
pluck up the tares from among the wheat? They were told that they
would pluck up the wheat with the tares.--Let us be careful, my
brother, and in our zeal to cleanse, take care and not destroy.
If you are troubled with unbelief, if this plague have entered your
heart, permit me to suggest a remedy. Humility is the first step,
sincere piety towards God the second, let these be followed by that
for which the Bereans were commended and the deadly virus of unbelief
will soon be purged. Will you say; "physician heal thyself?" I reply,
I think I have found relief by the use of the prescription, and am so
much in favour of it, that I am determined to continue its application
myself as well as recommend it to others. If you ask why I do not
direct some arguments more cogently to prove divine revelation? I
answer, in the first place, you have granted the validity of the
evidences; and secondly, if I think of the attempt, the brilliant
labours of better abilities argue the impropriety of it.
But if you think it necessary to labour this subject, I will propose
the single instance of the conversion of St. Paul for investigation.
By this means we shall be kept from rambling after different subjects.
If you can give a reasonable account of this conversion without
admitting the truth of christianity, I will acknowledge you have left
me destitute of one evidence on which I now rely. On the other hand,
if you fail in this, you may reasonably suppose that you would fail in
any other case of equal moment in this general controversy.
Yours, &c.