"The translation acknowledges and affirms itself to be a translation out of the 'original Greek,' together with former translations compared, &c. Now permit me to ask, is not this as good evidence of the existence of the original Greek, as the original Greek is of the facts intended to be proved thereby? I should consider the translation of any work, which was generally known at the time of its translation, better evidence of the existence of such a work, though the original should be entirely lost, than the work itself, even in the original, could be of the existence of facts, which, if they existed at all, were known at first to but very few.
"You have suggested, sir, that if the original of the scriptures were entirely lost, future ages would not know but they had been 'imposed upon.' I think, however, you will not insist on this point, lest you should destroy an argument, which, hereafter, you may very much need. I recall my words. For this seems to imply that we are already engaged in a controversy; whereas, I trust we are both candidly in search of truth. I suspect, however, there is too much truth in your suggestion; but then its truth, instead of relieving, only increases my difficulty.
"Every one must know that when the translation of the scriptures was first made, the original not only existed, but it must have been known to others, beside the translators, who were able to detect the fraud, if there had been any, as to substantial matter of fact. And, in a work of so great importance, this certainly would have been the case. Hence you will at once perceive, that when the copies were few in number, and before the art of printing was discovered, fabrications and interpolations might find their way into the original scriptures with much greater facility, than could any considerable variations by an intentionally erroneous translation; especially after the work become generally known, and so highly valued, as to require a translation of it.
"As you admit that 'reason is the eye by which we are to examine the evidences' which stand in support of the 'resurrection of the man Christ Jesus,' and of course, as I presume, by which we are to examine the evidences in support of all other subjects, I shall say no more upon this part of the subject until I hear your reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus; for this fact, as I conceive, must be considered the main hinge on which the whole Christian system rests, if it can be supported by any fact, on which it will finally turn.
2. "But after all, my greatest difficulty is with my second proposition. To relate facts substantially correct, which persons have either seen or heard, requires no degree of uncommon skill, or uncommon honesty; but to state things which will absolutely take place, which are yet future, requires something more than common skill; and to state things correctly, which will take place in eternity, must, as I conceive, require nothing short of divine wisdom. That the evangelists have stated nothing more than what is substantially correct, as it respects matters of fact, will be admitted by all: for every one knows there is a circumstantial difference in their writings, both as it respects the order of time, and in several instances, as it respects matters of fact.
"If the account given us of Jesus be even substantially correct, I think there can be no reasonable doubt but that he was capable of telling his disciples every thing which it concerns us to know relative to a future state of existence.—But I have been often struck with astonishment, when reflecting on the subject, that Jesus said so little in regard to a future state! Notwithstanding he was long with his disciples, as we are told after his resurrection, and did eat and drink with them; yet, how silent he was upon the subject of eternity, and of a future and spiritual world! At the only time when we should rationally suppose that he could be a competent witness in the case, admitting his death and resurrection true, is the time when he is entirely silent as to the final and eternal state of man! Should we admit therefore that Jesus at this time was capable of declaring eternal truths, yet, as he testified nothing on the subject, nothing relative to the subject can be proved from his testimony.
"It may be said that Christ had plainly taught his disciples respecting this subject, previous to his death, and therefore it was not necessary for him to say any thing more respecting it. But a confirmation of what he had before taught, if it had been repeated after his resurrection, would have added great weight to his former testimony. We need not dwell however, upon these niceties, as the main question is not involved in them. Yet I am inclined to think that if all the words of Christ, which have been handed down to us, should be closely examined, they would be found to be much more silent on the subject of a future state than many have supposed. But the main question is, are we certain that he could not have been mistaken in the things whereof he affirmed? This question may be thought blasphemous: but I cannot see wherein the blasphemy consists; for I cannot help making the inquiry, in my own understanding, and as my object is to gain instruction, I put the inquiry on paper. You may say that Jesus was endowed with divine wisdom, and therefore could not err. That divine wisdom cannot err, I admit, but does divine wisdom secure man at all times, and under all circumstances, from mistake? If the man Christ Jesus was in fact man (and that he was man, even Trinitarians admit) notwithstanding he was endowed with divine wisdom, why might he not without any dishonour to the Deity, be sometimes left to exercise only the wisdom of man? And to say that the wisdom of man cannot err, would be saying contrary to daily experience. I have not contended that Jesus ever erred; but I contend that he must have been liable to error, or else he was not man. And the supposition that he did not err, not even in thought or opinion, ought not to be admitted without the most conclusive testimony.
"But whatever may be the conclusion on this subject, as it respects the 'man Christ Jesus—a man approved of God,' yet what shall we say concerning the apostles? Were they also absolutely secured from error? These men, according to the confession of one of them at least, not only had been, but still were—sinners. Paul, notwithstanding his apostleship, still acknowledges the plague of his own heart 'I am carnal, sold under sin—when I would do good, evil is present with me—O wretched man that I am!' &c. Are such men absolutely proof against even the error of opinion? It appears to me there are too many incidents of imperfection recorded in the lives of the apostles to admit all this. Peter once rebuked his master, at another time denied him. He once objected to the voice of the spirit, and was afterwards accused by his brethren for obeying it. Paul accused Peter to his face, and also disagreed with Barnabas. And other circumstances might be named, proving them to be destitute of intuitive knowledge. Considering, therefore, all these things, how do we know but that in their zeal to do good, (for I do not consider the apostles bad men; neither do I think any the worse of Paul for either acknowledging his own faults, or detecting the dissimulation of Peter,) I say therefore, in their zeal to do good, how do we know but that they stated things relative to another world, which were only inferences, which, as they supposed, were justly drawn from what they had either seen or heard, or else what their own fruitful imagination dictated? If we are at liberty to view the apostles in this light, however highly their opinions are to be valued and respected, yet I see no occasion of investigating their writings with the eye of biblical or grammatical criticism; for after all, they are but the opinions of men like ourselves.
"But if it can be demonstrated that the opinions of the writers of the New Testament can be relied on, as containing eternal truth, without any mixture of error, then it is very important for us to know the meaning of all the words they used, not only as it respects their general import, but also the exact and particular sense in which they used them. This however cannot be done without a thorough acquaintance, not only with the Greek, but also with the Hebrew language, for they used many Hebraisms, which, with a knowledge of the Greek only, we should not be likely fully to comprehend.
"Yours, &c.