without controversy, that we cannot demonstrate by any mathematical or
chemical process that there ever was such an emperor in Rome as
Augustus Caesar, or such a governor in Judea as Pilate, or such a man
as Jesus; but then we are not, on this account, or any other, unable
to find such kind of evidence as the nature of the case admits, and
such as is sufficient to satisfy the candid mind. Should any one now
pretend to deny that Louis XVIth. was beheaded, and allege as proof
that no such thing was to be credited, because it had never been
discovered as the result of a chemical process, would you hesitate to
fault his reasoning?

Should it occur to your mind that you have contended that the evidence
of revelation is as different from the evidence required in natural
discoveries, as the subjects themselves are different, you are
reminded that you have contended for this only with a view to _weaken_
the force of the former, and in a way to disallow its validity. At the
same time you state that you do not undertake to deny a special
revelation from God, but "wish only to take a review of the evidences,
and see if they are such that it is _impossible_ it should be false."
Of these evidences you speak thus; "Although ever so clear at first,
and ever so well supported by facts, concerning which the witnesses
had the clearest evidences, yet the evidences being of such a nature
as to preclude a repetition, like those respecting a vision of the
night or any other phenomenon, are liable to suffer by passing from
one to another," and finally "lose all their strength." Here it seems
you pretend to state the character of the evidences of a divine
revelation, which evidences you wish to review. Permit me to ask, dear
brother, if it would not have appeared more consistent with piety and
candor to have reviewed before you fixed the character of the
evidences?--There is a proper order in which every thing should be