In one short letter of Polycarp's, there are near forty clear allusions to books of the New Testament: which is strong evidence of the respect which Christians of that age hear for these books, and positive evidence that the gospel had been written before this epistle.
Papias, a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Irenaeus attests, and of that age, as all agree, expressly ascribes the respective gospels to Matthew and Mark, in a passage quoted by Eusebius. He informs us that Mark collected his gospel from Peter's preaching, and that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. This authority fully shows that the gospels bore these names at this early period.
The authors which are here mentioned, all lived in the days of the apostles, that is, when the apostles were aged men, these were their pupils in the gospel, and their epistles which have reference to the gospels are very justly used to prove that the gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. From these most early authors, Paley goes on, and brings down, by regular succession, the christian authors, until he comes into the fourth century, when they are vastly numerous.
By the foregoing authority, together with an innumerable multitude of corroborating circumstances, we are led to entertain no doubts but that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by these eye witnesses of the things which they relate; and that the gospel of Luke was written by a person of this name, who had his information from undoubted testimony of the apostles; and that Mark wrote his gospel from St. Peter's mouth, and that this gospel may be called the gospel of Peter.
Those eye witnesses then wrote what they saw, and if they were honest men they wrote the truth.
We, sir, do certainly know as well as we know any thing which ancient history records, that the testimony of the miracles and resurrection of Jesus was believed in the age to which these things are referred, and that this testimony was sealed by the sufferings and death of vast multitudes of believers.
It should be noticed, that according to all accounts which have come to us, there were no worldly motives of any sort by which the propagators of the gospel were induced to labour in this cause. But on the contrary, every earthly consideration was direct against them; and furthermore let us remember, that the whole hierarchy of the Jews and all the superstition of the Gentiles were in arms against this religion, as I have before observed, nearly 300 years.
Hoping, dear brother, that these hasty remarks will be favourably received, and duly considered. I remain,
Yours, &c.
H. BALLOU.
EXTRACTS No. IX.
[As the objector here begins to give up his ground, his letters from this place will be given nearly entire. He commences this number as follows, viz.]
"_Dear sir and brother_--Your reply to my seventh number has been received, and hereby duly acknowledged. I have just given it a second reading, with peculiar care and attention; and I must add, generally speaking, with peculiar satisfaction too; for as it has tended in some degree to revive my almost extinguished faith in divine revelation, so it has in the same ratio served to obliterate, in some degree, those doubts which seemed to be rising _mountains high_, in my apprehension, and portended ere long to overturn all my former faith.
"There are some of my objections, however, which seem not yet to have been fully met on their proper ground, and of course not fully removed; and I must therefore be yet indulged with a few remarks.
"1st. Notwithstanding all the learning of the Greeks and Romans, in the days of Jesus and his apostles, yet, as you very justly insinuate, I am inclined to believe there never was a time in which 'the world of human kind, both Jews and Gentiles, was more deeply involved in the darkness and stupidity of superstition than when the Messiah (i. e.
Jesus) entered on his public ministry.' And notwithstanding your argument drawn from superstition, is admitted as good, and weighty, as far as it goes; yet, as it is conceived, it does not fully come to the point.
"For, in the grossest ages of superstition it is reasonable to suppose that there are always some who entertain serious doubts and scruples in regard to the propriety of many of the superstitious notions of their leaders. These will be more easily wrought upon. And although they may be directed by various circumstances to fix the mind upon something much better in point of moral principle, yet how far this would prevent them from connecting many of the superstitious notions of the age with those moral principles, only giving them a different dress, I am not able to say; neither do I see how the superstition of the Jews and Gentiles, generally, would be likely to prevent a thing of that kind.--It is the suspected superstition of the apostles and primitive christians and not the superstition of their opposers, to which the proposition alludes. Men, I conceive, may be honest, and yet superstitious; they may also give up one superstition, by being convinced of its error, and yet another will gradually grow in its stead. I am sensible, however, that this argument will better apply to those who were converted to christianity after the days of the apostles, when it is agreed that miracles had ceased, than it will to the apostles themselves.
"But, from what you have written, together with my further investigation of this subject, I cannot but perceive that this argument, even on its proper ground, does not contain all that force which, at first view, I thought it might: because, 1st, it must apply to the apostles, or else, as it respects the main question, it does not seem to have any real bearing on the subject; and 2dly, the change of the appostles appears to have been too sudden, and too extraordinary, to be accounted for in this way. That superstitions, however, have arisen, even in the christian church, you do not undertake to deny, but seem rather to admit; and it was on this fact that the first proposition was founded; but I perceive there is a difficulty in carrying this objection back to the apostles; for then the doctrine was new, and without precedent; and (unless the miracles on which it is said to have been founded were real) without any certain prospect of success. Although therefore the religion of the despised _Galatians_ (for such were the christians called by the Romans) was considered by their persecutors, to be nothing more than a gross, and even impious superstition, yet no one can expect successfully to account 'in a rational way,' for the facts, whether real or supposed, on which that supposed superstition is said to have been founded. Hence the doubts growing out of my first proposition seem to be rendered equally, if not more doubtful than the reality of that truth, the evidence of which this objection was supposed in some degree to counterbalance.
"2d. The truth of my second proposition, viz. that a part of mankind at least have been and still are believing in miracles and revelations which are spurious, you seem not disposed to deny; but yet, at the same time you think you are 'under no obligation to admit this fact as any evidence against christianity.' That a spurious or pretended miracle does not invalidate a real one I admit; yet if a spurious miracle may obtain credit, and be in fact believed, it raises a query whether there have ever been any others but spurious. Your argument respecting 'counterfeit money' is admitted good in relation to that subject, but whether it will apply with equal weight to the subject of miracles may admit of a doubt. I do not see how the pretended miracles of the Shakers are at all 'dependent' on the miracles of Jesus for their 'imposition.'
"I meant nothing more by the miracles of Mahomet than his pretended 'correspondence with the angel Gabriel,' which I considered, if true, _miraculous_; as I conceive every revelation must be let it be communicated how it will.
"I have nothing to object to the picture which you have given of the life and religion of Mahomet; and as to what I have said in regard to the conversion and influence of Constantine, in giving a particular tone to the christian religion, you are not disposed to disagree with me: and at the same time you are 'by no means certain that a proper attention to the pretended miracles of the Shakers might not issue in assigning a natural cause for them.' Of all this I have no doubt. But, that these miracles are believed by the Shakers, you do not undertake to deny; nor that their religion, their faith in Ann, as being Christ in his second coming, and that their present mode of worship are all predicated upon them. They do not deny the miracles of Christ and his apostles any more than Christians in general deny the miracles of Moses and the prophets; but appeal to _theirs_ as being equally of divine origin, and thereby clothing their religion with the same divine authority. Now, unless these things can be accounted for 'in a rational way,' which you seem to think may be the case, though you do not attempt it, they certainly raise a query in the mind at least whether the miracles recorded in scripture rest upon any better foundation.
"If a thing is absolutely known or believed to be miraculous, it is miraculous; (at least to those who thus believe) and whether any thing can be justly argued from the inferiority or superiority of a miracle, I know not. In the raising of Lazarus, it is true, though the effect was the same, we discover as great a miracle, and perhaps greater, than in the raising of a son of the Shunamite by Elisha the prophet; 2 Kings iv. 34, 35, but the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus can hardly be said to have been wrought either by Jesus or by his apostles, and therefore that was not particularly referred to in the comparison of miracles; neither do I know that the comparison, in any sense, has much weight. Whether Lazarus ever died again or not we are not informed: neither do I recollect of ever hearing an opinion on the subject; but, if he died, it seems that his resurrection must have been very different from the resurrection of Jesus; i.e. to an immortal state, so that he 'dieth no more.'
"You admit, if I understood you, that the testimony of the apostles, concerning the resurrection of Jesus, had it not been accompanied with plain and astonishing miracles in the open day, and before the surrounding multitudes, who had ocular demonstration of their truth, would have been entitled to no more credit than the testimony of Mrs.
A----, respecting her conversation with her deceased husband. For although it might have been true, and we could have no good reason to doubt the sincerity or belief of the witnesses, yet after all, its truth would solely rest on their mere _ipse dixit_, which would not be sufficient to establish so important a truth in the world. Hence, as you very justly observe, 'the declaration of the apostles of the resurrection of Jesus, until it was accompanied with power from on high, was never even communicated to the public, or ordered to be communicated.'
"In this manner I understood your reasoning, and I think I understand you correctly; and all this appears to be very candid; it is acknowledging all I would wish you to acknowledge on this subject. But here comes the difficulty. Miracles in process of time cease; and now people must believe, if they believe at all, without the testimony's being 'accompanied with power from on high.' And how can we believe in the miracles said to have been wrought by the apostles, without the testimony's being accompanied by miracles any more than they could at first believe in the miracles of the resurrection of Jesus without the testimony's being accompanied by miracles? You have already anticipated this objection, and have endeavoured to answer it by arguing that 'perpetual miracles would, if as powerful as they were at first, preclude the exercise of our reasoning faculties and the necessity of investigation, which is one of the most rational enjoyments of which we are capable.' Although this argument, it is confessed, has considerable weight, yet it does not seem wholly to remove the difficulty. I feel very much like those Jews who proposed the question to Jesus; 'how long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us plainly.' I am not satisfied that the evidence of the truth of the resurrection is as great, at this day, whatever it was then, as it could have been. If Jesus had remained on the earth till this time, or if he had appeared to every generation since, it appears to me the evidence would have been much greater; and yet not so great as to 'preclude the exercise of our reasoning faculties.'
"In your statement respecting the controversy between _Unitarians_ and _Trinitarians_, it appears to me you have left out some very important circumstances which ought to have been taken into the account to have made it any thing near a parallel. You seem to have forgotten the destruction of the Jews by the Romans about the time the books of the New Testament are said to have been written; during which calamity, as the history of those times inform us, about one million one hundred thousand Jews were cut off, and among whom, it is more than probable, all their leaders, who were then concerned in the death of Jesus, were included; and only about ninety-seven thousand, not a tenth part, were taken prisoners. The Jews in the adjacent countries, however, probably are not taken into this account, but they were all equally subdued to the Romans. And if the power of the Jews were so limited at the crucifixion of Jesus that they could not lawfully put a man to death without liberty from the Roman governor, what must we suppose was their power after the destruction of their city and temple? On a review of the subject, therefore, I think you will perceive that your case, however plausibly stated, falls very far short of being a parallel. We may well suppose, I think, that the Jews were so humbled by the Romans, that, 1st, they had not the power; and, 2dly, they might not under these circumstances be inclined any longer to persecute and put to death the christians. And this was the only way it seems, at that day, that either Jews or Gentiles thought of putting down what they considered heresy or superstition. I consider therefore the destruction of the Jews as giving a very favourable opportunity to get up a new system of religion, partly or wholly based on theirs, but a little removed from it, so as to neglect the use of sacrifices, which, if I mistake not, according to the Jewish traditions, could only be offered at Jerusalem. And the long lapse of time, before the dogmas of this new sect was attempted to be refuted by argument gave an opportunity to involve the supposed facts on which the christian religion is predicated in such obscurity, that it stands now in no danger of refutation from that source. Some may be made to doubt, others to disbelieve, but nevertheless no one can prove it false.
"If it be proved true, however, it must be proved from the record which we have; for I know of nothing which can now add much weight to that testimony, unless it be the fulfilment of some sinking prophecies which yet remain to be fulfilled, or else the return of miraclous powers and a new revelation in further confirmation of what we already have. And if what we have be true, it seems we have a right to expect, ere long, something of the kind. The ten last chapters of the prophecy of Ezekiel, I think no one will pretend has ever been fulfilled, as yet; and when fulfilled, the events will prove the divine inspiration of that prophecy. But if it should never be fulfilled, or its fulfilment be delayed till the Jews every where should give up all hope and expectation of any thing of this kind; and should, through unbelief, neglect their present customs, as many of them already have done, by intermarrying with other nations, and thereby should become both lost to themselves and to the world, which would be the same as though they were extinct, I apprehend that no confidence would be placed in that part of the prophecy after such a period. In like manner the fulfilment or the non-fulfilment of the following words will have a similar effect. 'This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.' Some pretend to say that even this prophecy has been already fulfilled; but we have no evidence of it, and I think we may say the prophecy in Ezekiel, above mentioned, has been fulfilled, with as much propriety. But this is rather off the point.
"In regard to the death of Stephen, notwithstanding his trial seems to have been by the council, yet the manner of his death, as stated, seems to have been rather turbulent than otherwise. 'When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and _they_ (whether the council, or the spectators I cannot say) gnashed on him with their teeth--then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned him.' Such proceedings at this day, as this appears to have been, we should be inclined to call a _mob_, let it bear what other appellation it may.
"That the first martyrs, however, did, from some circumstance or other, believe in the resurrection of Jesus, on which all their hope seems to have been predicated, I think cannot admit of a rational doubt. For to suppose otherwise, supposes such madness and folly in those unfortunate men, who suffered every thing which could be inflicted upon them rather than to give up their testimony; that it seems nothing can be a parallel, unless it be the madness and folly of such unreasonable doubts.[6] And this seems to be all for which you contend, as it respects the present query; because you seem to think the first believers in this all-important truth could not have believed by any evidence which could have existed had it not been for the truth of the fact believed in. Now here is the mistake, as I conceive, if there be any; i.e. in supposing that the apostles and primitive Christians could not believe short of such indubitable evidence. Only suppose the resurrection to have been actually believed, by any evidence, or any circumstance whatever, no matter what, for it makes no difference in this argument, and the report would naturally be like all other reports of such an extraordinary nature. Both zeal and imagination would be enlisted on the side of its truth. Extraordinary discourses would be put into the mouths of the martyrs, after they were dead, as well as extraordinary deeds into their hands; and altho' contradicted ever so many times by their enemies and persecutors, yet the contradictions would never so out run the report but that many would still believe. When much strength of testimony had been thus added, by verbal reports, during twenty or thirty years, let a few men undertake to paint up real histories and letters in the name of the first disciples, and let these be kept in the hands of those who are strong in the faith, and let them be read for a long time, only in their own assemblies or churches although they might contain something of which they had not before heard, this is only what would be natural for them to expect, and as it contained the main thing which was the object of faith, and those other things, if true, went to establish their faith still more, who would be likely to call the truth of such writings in question? Not those who believe in the main question certainly. They would be a thousand times more likely to pass over in silence things of which they had some scruples, for the sake of the main question, then they would be to endanger the truth of the main question, as they might think they should, by criticising on mere circumstantial things. I am not now speaking of the apostles, whom I have considered _honest_ men; yet I should suppose that even these men might have much good at heart, although they should conduct exactly in the way which I have suggested. And how little time would it require to put this matter beyond all possible refutation? Not so long, I conceive, as did elapse before that work was attempted by Celsus.
[Footnote 6: I have here expressed myself in strong terms, with a view to check my doubts and prevent their running wild.]
"You will see by this, sir, in what light my argument views the apostles. It does not suppose 'that the apostles would enforce their moral doctrine with their pretentions to miraculous powers,' although they might with the 'testimony of the resurrection of Jesus,' but it supposes that their successors might contend that the apostles worked miracles, and many of them might believe that they did, just as the apostles believed in the resurrection, when no such thing as the resurrection or the miracles of the apostles ever existed in fact.
This is what the argument supposes, and it is wholly predicated on the possibility of the apostles' being made to believe, some how or other, I do not pretend to say how, that Jesus had risen from the dead when no such thing had taken place. But, only believe in the resurrection, and there is no difficulty in believing in the miracles of Jesus or the miracles of his apostles. They are equally well attested, and no more improbable. Yea, if they were true, they were not _believed_, but absolutely _known_ to be true by the apostles. They knew it as well as they could know the truth of any object of sight. And the truth of what they knew being all which they needed in support of what they taught, I do not see, on this supposition, how they could have the occasion, or the motive, to state one thing falsely concerning it. No, nor could their followers have any occasion to add to their testimony, for nothing which they could add would be of any more weight than that which we may suppose was already in their possession. The two first chapters of Matthew and Luke (or all except the genealogy in Matthew, and the preface of Luke) the authenticity of which has been suspected by some of the learned, and I believe not without pretty good reasons, do not contain a single word in support of the resurrection; neither is the subject of them, as I now recollect, mentioned either by Christ or any of the apostles in any other part of the New Testament. And although the truth of those narratives is no more miraculous than the resurrection, yet I presume you would not contend that a belief of these, also, is absolutely necessary to the Christian faith.
"With these observations, I shall once more, and probably for the last time quit my second proposition, and proceed to take notice of what you have written on my third.
"And here you must pardon me if I remark, without the least view of finding any fault, that if my words will admit of a bad construction, that construction seems to be the first one which strikes your mind.
If you suppose me capable of such an abominable absurdity as to say, that if the man of this town who was born blind should be restored to his sight by some one's anointing his eyes with clay and spittle, and this done in our presence, we could not know it! that we could not know but that the seeing man was a total stranger whom we had never before seen, and that the blind man had absconded no body knows how or where! I say, if this was the way in which you understood my third proposition, you are perfectly excusable: otherwise, it is difficult to account for your remarks. But, having thus found your antagonist, you level your artillery against him, nor desist until you have put to death without mercy this creature of your own fruitful imagination.
Having done, you begin to query whether you had not mistaken my meaning; and after making a wonderful effort, by calling up these penetrating powers of research, which are only summoned on extraordinary occasions, you dive through the mists of obscurity, in which my words seem to be too often placed, and behold my proposition in its true light!
"My proposition is no sooner seen than 'granted': which is, that we have no positive knowledge of miracles; or, to use your own words, 'miracles are not now wrought before our eyes.' But although you grant the truth of my proposition, you do not admit that this is any objection against the truth of divine revelation, for a number of reasons which you have given; all of which, no doubt, are satisfactory to your own mind.
"But sir, this is a matter of opinion only, and if I agree with you at all, it must be from the consideration that the Governor of the universe must do right. But, although the time may not be yet, nevertheless I am clear in the opinion that the revival of miracles will, in process of time, be absolutely necessary in order to preserve the faith in those which have already been. But, I contend, if the scriptures be true, we have a right to expect the revival of miracles; and I do not see how they can be fulfilled without. Considering the prejudices of the Jews, as a people, I cannot suppose that they will ever believe in Jesus, as their promised Messias, short of being convinced of its truth by a miracle; and should they return to the land of Palestine, and there rebuild their temple, at Jerusalem, it would be such a clear fulfilment of the prophecy of Ezekiel, that it would be equal to a miracle, and do as much towards corroborating the truth of all the other prophecies.
"You finally come once more to the circumstance of the conversion of St. Paul, where you again find some fault (and I must confess, not without some reason) at my neglect to meet your arguments on this subject; or in other words, to do away the scripture account, and reconcile it with my hypothesis; i.e. that of supposing him to be converted without a miracle. To be ingenuous with you, sir, I must acknowledge that I have ever supposed this to be the most difficult task I should have to do; and therefore I wished to hear all you had to say on the subject of the resurrection before I attempted it.
"Since I wrote my last I have examined Paley's _Horae Paulinae_, a work of extraordinary merit which had never before fallen into my hands: his _Evidences of Christianity_, I have read several years ago, but have not lately particularly examined that work. In the exposition of the argument, (of the work first mentioned) Paley sets forth, as I conceive, the only possible grounds on which either the epistles of St. Paul, or the acts of the apostles, can be supposed to be forgeries, in their full force. And then he attempts to prove their genuineness by their internal evidence, which they contain within themselves, entirely aside from those objections; and which would have been of equal weight even on the supposition that the whole had been concealed from the time they were written till now, and we should now, for the first time, examine them. And although I might not fully agree with him in all points, yet I think he proves, beyond all contradiction or rational doubt, what he mainly attempts to prove; i.
e. that the epistles were written by some person acquainted with the circumstances mentioned in the history, and that the writer of the history must have been acquainted with the circumstances alluded to in the epistles, where, at the same time, there is not the least apparent design in those references or allusions; which, as he very justly argues, prove the genuineness of both. I do not pretend to quote his words, as the book is not now by me.
"This, it must be confessed, is a great acquisition in favour of the truth of christianity; because it evidently carries the writings back into those times when every thing was fresh in the minds of all who had any knowledge of the subject of which those writings treated. Now comes the point. Paul expressly declares that he saw Christ after he was risen from the dead. His declaring that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, could have been only from the report of others; but it agrees pretty well with what has been recorded by the evangelists. His declaring that he had been seen 'of above five hundred brethren at once,' must have been also by report, which report might have been incorrect, as there is no mention made of it in either of the gospels. Yet if incorrect it might have been very easily refuted. But when he comes to say, 'And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time,' there remains for him no such excuse. Paul, as it seems, could not believe that he had seen Jesus, literally, and personally, when he had not. And if he knew that he had not, and yet declared that he had, and meant that others should believe that he had, he was not _honest_, as I before admitted that he was; and now to say that he was not honest, as I clearly see, would involve me in still greater difficulty, as then I could give no rational account for his life and conduct. What shift shall I now make? For having supposed that my doubts were really founded on reason, I must have good reason for so doing before I can give them up: i.e. I must be fully convinced that they are founded in error.
"What can we suppose that Paul meant by Christ's being seen _of above five hundred brethren at once_? Is it at all likely that such an extraordinary circumstance should have happened without any mention being made of it in either of the five histories which we have of those times? Might he not mean the same which the author of the Acts means, speaking of the day of Pentecost? And therefore the whole might not have been designed to be understood literally, but spiritually true? And notwithstanding the literality of the language, may not all the miracles of Christ and the apostles, and even the account we have of the resurrection, be all accounted for and reconciled in the same way? But here I involve myself in difficulty again; for, if I mistake not, this was very near the opinion of the Gnostics, whom the apostles and fathers every where spake against.--'These,' says Dr. Priestley, 'taught that it was not _Jesus_ that was properly _the Christ_, or that he had not flesh and blood like other men.' They also 'denied the doctrine of the resurrection.' These therefore, 'Paul, Peter, Jude, and John, most strenuously opposed.' Again, says he, 'The apostles they considered as judging only by their senses, which were deceived in this case: and though they gave entire credit to them with respect to every thing which they had seen, or heard, they considered them as plain unlettered men who were ignorant of what was not within the sphere of their senses.' To these it is supposed that John alludes in his first Epistle iv. 1--3. If, therefore, the apostles did believe, and contend for the literal resurrection, and personal appearing of Jesus, and if in this they were opposed by the Gnostics, even in their day; there is no way now, that I see, any longer for me to maintain my doubts only by believing that the first disciples, as well as Paul, thought they saw Jesus when in fact they did not, and that the idea of miracles by which these things were said to have been propagated and which carried conviction to the multitudes, was nothing more than the bold figurative language of the day, designed, in reality, to deceive no one; or else mere exaggerations: or, what perhaps is still more probable, partly of both. But enough!
"I confess I begin to grow dissatisfied with this kind of reasoning.
What does it all amount to? What am I bringing, after all, to oppose the laboured researches of Drs. Lardner, Paley, Priestley, and others, as well as the pertinent observations of my worthy friend who has so long borne with me, and obliged me with his friendly and christian-like aid on this subject? Let me pause and consider--I have acknowledged that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation; have I proved any of those evidences false?--No! this I have acknowledged I could not do. What have I put into the other end of the scale, to weigh down those evidences? Ah! what indeed! Nothing! except it be my own ignorance, and the errors of other men, in whose errors I have no more faith than those who believe in the truth of that which I have been disputing! I will therefore, instead of pursuing the dispute any further, begin to think once more whether the thing for which you so ardently contend may not in reality be true.
"But, here again, I must be cautious, lest I should err as far on the other hand. For notwithstanding when I found that I could not help doubting, I tried to reconcile myself to my doubts, and have sincerely and honestly tried to make myself believe that I was perfectly reconciled either way; yet the moment I begin to think about the certainty of immortality and eternal life, I am all on fire! I hardly know how to contain myself! And were it not for the special obligations, which I feel to my family, and to the world, more than any thing which I ever expect to receive from the world, I should long to 'depart, and be with Christ, which is far better.' Thus my doubts, whatever they are, may be needful for me.
"Your remarks respecting my claims to the privilege of one who is weak in the faith are very pertinent and just. For I must confess in proportion as my doubts arose, as to the truth of the resurrection, equal doubts would arise as to the propriety of preaching it for a truth. I wish you to understand, however, that my mind has never been settled there, if it has ever vibrated that way, it was only momentary, and rather on mere supposition than any confirmed opinion.
"In answer to what you say in regard to hope, I will only add: Though a man should have ever so firm a hope in any thing whatever, and should afterwards find that his hope was founded in error, the hope would be taken away; but if at the same time he should find that the truth is absolutely better than the error hoped for, he would also find that a better thing is given in lieu of his hope: but if a man has hope, though that hope should be founded in error, if the hope remain as long as the man exists, it is not taken away from him, as both cease to exist together. Once more, and finally: a hope which is founded in truth, a knowledge of the truth can never take away.
Although a man may hope, and ardently desire to exist eternally, yet I do not see how a man can extend either his hope, or his desires, beyond the possibility of his existence. To my understanding, this is just like supposing that a man which does not exist may yet hope and desire; or that a man may hope and desire, after he shall have ceased to exist.
"After returning you my sincere thanks for your kind indulgence and labours of love, I shall close the present number. I cannot take my leave of this number, however, without expressing my humble gratitude to the Allwise disposer of events, that he has given such abundant manifestations of his unspeakable goodness to his creatures; that he has also, as I may perhaps be permitted to hope with you, given a divine testimony of his infinite love and universal benevolence to that part of his creation whom he hath distinguished with the attributes of his own nature, regarding at the same time all other beings and things, and that he had raised up so many faithful witnesses who have set to their seals that this testimony is true.
"Yours, &c.
A. KNEELAND."