revelation.

"You have suggested that in disproving the religion of Jesus Christ, I
should disprove all religion; as there can be no choice between this
and any other; for if this can be proved false all may be proved false
&c. or words to that effect. In this I hardly know how to understand
you. So far as the religion of Christ consists in 'feeding the hungry,
clothing the naked, and keeping himself unspotted from the world,' I
admit, that 'in disproving the religion of Christ,' I should 'disprove
all religion:' that is to say, in other words, so far as the religion
of Christ is not founded on revelation, but on the relation and
dependence existing between man and man, to disprove it would disprove
all religion: but if the religion of Jesus Christ consists purely and
exclusively in believing in a future state of existence, then
disproving it would not disprove all religion. A man may be what the
poet calls 'the noblest work of God' i.e. 'an honest man,' and attend
to all the duties embraced in that religion which St. James calls
'pure and undefiled before God and the father,' and yet have no
_opinion_, that is, no settled opinion, in regard to a future state.
If a man has religion enough to be a good husband, a good neighbor, a
good citizen, and can rationably enjoy all the blessings which
appertain to this life, of what consequence is it to him, or to any
one else, what he believes in regard to a future state? This is a
question worthy of serious consideration.

"The denial of revelation, much less to doubt its truth, does not
render it necessary that I should do what you have proposed; neither
is it my disposition to destroy if I could the peace even of an
individual. Hence, I have no wish to 'demonstrate that there is no sun
in a cloudy day;' but only to prove that clouds and darkness are as