• Main
  • Catatlog
  • For Authors
  • Contacts




    to these two propositions, i. e. the above
    questions, will, and must, decide the whole controversy.

    "Now, were it not for the internal evidences which the writings of the
    New Testament do, and ever will, possess (the external evidences
    falling so far short of being conclusive in my mind, as I shall show
    more fully hereafter, when I come to speak of those evidences) I
    should still be inclined, in my own understanding, to reject the
    latter proposition in each of the above questions, and adhere to the
    former.--Much of the external evidence, I am very ready to admit is
    perfectly consistent with the supposed truth of the internal, but
    after all, in my humble opinion, it does not quite come to the point.
    But the internal evidence, I confess, I cannot withstand. The more I
    investigate the subject, the more I discover its force, its clearness,
    and its irresistibility; and although the truth it unfolds is so
    august, so momentous, so astonishingly and inexpressibly sublime, that
    it is with the profoundest and most reverential awe I speak, when I
    acknowledge my faith in the divine origin of those testimonies; yet,
    as I cannot resist their force, so I am obliged to acknowledge them
    true. The illusion, however, if it be one, I know is happifying to the
    mind; but this is no good reason, that I know of, why we should either
    embrace it ourselves, or propagate it in the world. Although I have
    endeavoured to calm my conscience, while meditating on my doubts, with
    the consideration that I am not accountable for the truth or the
    falsity of the scriptures; yet, I must confess, this did not fully
    satisfy my mind; and therefore I come to a determination to be more
    thoroughly persuaded of their truth, if possible, or else be more
    thoroughly convinced of their fallacy. With this motive I entered on
    the present controversy; and I feel very happy in its termination,
    having been much strengthened in my faith thereby, and humbly pray,
    that should it ever come before the public, it may be blest to the
    benefit of others.

    "2d. What you have said on the divine mission, &c. of the apostles is
    satisfactory. For although it has not fully come to my question, yet
    it has had the same good effect by convincing me that my question went
    a little beyond the bounds of reason; for it was too much like asking
    a blind man how it is that other men see! It is not reasonable to
    suppose that the apostles themselves could have informed persons who
    were uninspired to their understanding, how or by what means, they
    were inspired. It was sufficient to demonstrate the fact by the works
    which they were enabled to perform, (admitting the account true,) in
    the name of JESUS.

    "3d. My argument respecting a hope of future existence has been
    extended rather beyond my design. Without taking up time to
    recapitulate, I will only say I admit the truth of your argument on
    this subject; neither do I see how it stands altogether in opposition
    to mine. What I contend for is this. The idea of non-existence, i.e.
    of existing only in God, without retaining our individual
    consciousness of being, does not, like the idea of endless misery,
    absolutely destroy our present comforts. It only cuts short, or else
    prevents, future prospects. If it can be demonstrated, as I believe it
    can, that God is good to the animal creation, in giving them
    existence, on the supposition, that they have no future state, I
    contend that man is equally, if not more abundantly blessed, even on
    the same supposition.--But I never meant to contend that eternal life
    would not be still infinitely better, according to our conceptions of
    good, if true. To state a case, which will illustrate in some degree
    my ideas of this subject, the following may come something nigh it;
    viz. I should be pleased with the idea of living, say, ten years, in
    reference only to the blessing of this life, although I might know I
    should die at that time, provided that, during the ten years, I should
    enjoy the common blessings of life. This does not prevent my desiring
    to live longer; neither does a certain knowledge that I shall not
    prevent me from desiring to live, nor from being pleased with the idea
    of living, till that time. But let me know for a certainty, or, which
    would be the same thing to me, let me absolutely believe that I should
    live fifty years, and that although the ten first would be attended
    with all the common blessings of life, as usual, yet that the
    remaining forty years, which would be the remaining whole of my
    natural life, I should be placed in the most distressed and aggravated
    circumstances, of which I could possibly conceive; now, in reference
    to the whole fifty years, could I desire to live? No! I say, I rather
    choose instant death!

    "When I look around on the circumstances and condition of men, I am so
    fully convinced that the aggregate of happiness so far overbalances
    the aggregate of misery, that I am firmly of opinion, yea, I do not
    entertain the least possible doubt of its truth, and therefore think I
    ever shall contend, that this life is a blessing, and we have abundant
    reason to be very thankful for it, without the least reference to a
    future state. But, nevertheless, I am very ready to admit, that, when
    futurity and immortality are taken into the account, and are connected
    with the same view of the character of the Deity, these blessings are
    all extended and magnified to infinity.

    "But on the supposition that truth is any where connected with
    _endless misery_, the scene is wholly changed. On this supposition I
    am not reconciled to truth at all; I can find nothing in my moral
    nature, which I call good, but what stands directly opposed to it;
    Hence, the very brightest and most brilliant part of the picture is
    deformed by the awful idea; it takes away all the pleasure of
    investigation, and if this be truth, my only desire and prayer to God,
    is that I might be permitted to remain eternally ignorant of it! It is
    my confidence therefore in the goodness of the truth, and this only,
    which has reconciled my mind to it. You may contend that I have not
    obtained this confidence without the knowledge of divine revelation.
    Be that as it may; on this supposition only I am reconciled, and
    something must destroy this confidence before I can become
    unreconciled to truth. I think now I must be fully understood, and
    will therefore add no more on this subject.

    "4th. What you say under the fourth article is satisfactory. Errors,
    no doubt, may be, and often are committed by applying instructions
    'differently from their primary design.'

    "5th. Your remarks under the sixth article are very judicious. Much
    injury no doubt is often done to the truth of divine revelation by
    contending so tenaciously as some do for things, which, if true, are
    not essential to its support.--It is often the case that, by trying to
    prove too much, we weaken the evidence, in the minds of many,
    respecting the main thing we wish to establish. Hence, the opposer,
    not being able, or else not disposed, to make proper distinction,
    considers it all of one piece; and not being able to see the propriety
    of many things, which are contended for with equal zeal, sets the
    whole down as a fallacy.

    "6th. It is true, I thought you strained the argument a little too far
    in supposing that the apostles could not have been convinced of the
    truth of the resurrection by any evidence which could be
    counterbalanced. This induced me to state that supposed absurdity in
    still more glaring colors, with a hope that you would thereby be
    induced to take a review of your argument, and not without some
    expectation, that you would be able to see some defects in it. But in
    this I have been disappointed. You still hold on upon your argument,
    and turn the error wholly on your friend.

    "But, as this is the turning point, I shall not blame you for
    straining every nerve, and holding on upon every fibre which gives you
    the least possible support.

    "It would not do for you to give up the idea that the apostles could
    not have been convinced of the truth of the resurrection by any
    evidence which could have existed short of the fact's being true;
    (which, by the way, was what I meant by the first member of my
    criticism, though not exactly so expressed;) for the moment this is
    admitted, doubt and unbelief will soon contend that they were so
    convinced. Imagination may soon call up such evidence in the mind,
    without supposing any thing miraculous, and all the rest of the
    account may be supposed to be fictitious. I did not mean to insinuate,
    however, that you have contended that the apostles must have seen
    Jesus rise in order to be convinced of the fact. I suppose their
    seeing him after he was risen was as full a demonstration to them as
    though they had seen him rise. And if they could not have been
    convinced of its truth by any thing short of this, then they could not
    be convinced by any thing short of the fact; i.e. what was the same to
    them as the fact. The second member of my criticism, viz. 'If the fact
    did exist there is no evidence which can counterbalance it,' does not,
    as I conceive, suppose that you contend 'that the fact of the
    resurrection could not exist without proving itself to the apostles in
    such a way that no evidence could counterbalance it;' but it supposes
    that if the fact did exist, no evidence could prove that it did not
    exist, as it is always difficult to prove a negative, and utterly
    impossible when the positive is true.--Hence my conclusion; viz. As
    the apostles were convinced of the truth of the resurrection, which
    they could not have been only by evidence which could not have existed
    had not the fact been true, the fact did exist. How far does this
    criticism fall short of my other? (for it is exactly what I meant by
    my other.) Or how far does it go beyond your argument?

    "Finally, I cannot conceive of any evidence

    [Back][1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][Next]