A Series of Letters In Defence of Divine Revelation

H >> Hosea Ballou >> A Series of Letters In Defence of Divine Revelation

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24

You further inquire the grounds on which we are to believe Jesus and
his apostles respecting a future state. Reply, on the same ground on
which we believe them in other matters, viz. because they have proved
the divinity of their mission or appointment to teach truth by the
power of the God of truth. See 2 Cor. xii. 12, "Truly the signs of an
apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders,
and mighty deeds." You need not be told that an _apostle_ is a
messenger, and that a messenger must have a mission. What then were
the signs of St. Paul's mission? Answer, patience, signs, wonders, and
mighty deeds. Jesus is said to be the great _apostle_, and high priest
of our profession, and he evinced his apostleship by signs, by
wonders, and mighty deeds. Now, sir, as these signs were designed to
prove to us that Jesus and his apostles were divinely inspired, so
they are the ground on which we may safely believe their testimony in
all things.

If your inquiry extends further than the plain statements and facts
go, you will at once see that they go beyond the demands of reason,
for it is an unreasonable thing to require of an uninspired person any
further account concerning the way by which an inspired man knows what
he says to be true, than it has pleased God to enable his messenger to
make known.

When the pharisees asked the man who was born blind, to whom Jesus had
given sight, "What sayest thou of him? that he hath opened thine eyes?
he said, he is a prophet." How comes this man to believe that Jesus
was a prophet? Because the sign of a messenger of God had been given.
If the pharisees had asked him, how he knew that Jesus was a prophet,
would he not answer them by the miracle wrought upon him? If they
should further ask him of particulars, how Jesus could be a prophet,
how he knew things which others did not know, would they have
discovered any wisdom in their questions? or would he have discovered
any in attempting to answer them?

If I may further remark on the mission of Jesus and his apostles, it
seems reasonable to say that it comprehends the whole doctrine of the
gospel, that is to say, they were appointed to preach the gospel which
comprehends the whole ministry of reconciliation, or a manifestation
of reconciling truth. There is, therefore, no truth in the gospel
which is not calculated in its nature to reconcile man to God, when
such truth is understood.

If our heavenly Father had from all eternity predestinated far the
greatest part of mankind to a state of endless un-reconciliation, the
revelation of this to them who were thus destined, could have no
effect in reconciling them to God. What had Jesus or his apostles to
do with such doctrine as this? Nothing. They make no mention of any
such thing. If according to the vain traditions received from the
wisdom of this world that cometh to nought, our tender babes were
doomed to everlasting wrath for the sin of the first man who lived on
earth, the manifestation of such a truth could reconcile none of those
victims to this God of unmerciful vengeance. But what had Jesus to do
with such blasphemous doctrine? See him as the representative of God,
as the great apostle of heaven to man, notice what he does and what he
says. He takes young children in his arms and blesses them, he says
suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of
such is the kingdom of heaven. If our Creator was full of wrath and
vindictive vengeance towards sinners, the manifestation of such a
truth would by no means reconcile sinners to God; but when God
commendeth his love towards the sinner through the mission, ministry,
or dispensation of Jesus Christ, such truth when revealed, naturally
reconciles the sinner to God. God is eternally the same, his love is
the same, his will to do his creatures good is always the same, and
his means to carry his good will into effect are always at his
command.

Jesus taught sinners, enemies to God, that God to whom they were
enemies, loved them. This he demonstrated by the rain and sun shine
which was communicated to the evil and the good, and this impartial
love of God, he urged as the perfect pattern for our imitation, and
set it up as the mark where lies the prize to be won by our Christian
vocation. I say unto you love your enemies, pray for them that use you
spitefully and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your
Father which is in heaven; that is, that you may imitate him in your
conduct and moral character. Now, sir, what has all this to do about
reconciling God to man? What has it to do about appeasing divine
wrath? If Jesus taught the doctrine of God's love to sinners, and our
doctrine taught by our Christian doctors of God's wrath and hatred
towards sinners be true, the matter is settled at once. These doctors
being ministers of divine truth, Jesus may be any thing else, but he
cannot be an apostle and high priest of God.

But I need not extend this article, you are as well persuaded of the
erroneousness of these doctrines of men as I am; but it belongs to
this subject, to take a general view of the ministry of Jesus and his
apostles. It is so especially, because this view shows at once the
necessity as well as the nature of this divine ministry. If you view
the nature of truth as you have heretofore expressed it, and as I am
confident you do, you cannot reasonably doubt the necessity of having
it manifested to the world.

It was necessary then for God to endue one with this ministry of
truth, it is reasonable that others, being taught by him should be
appointed to the same ministry; but you will see at once that truth
could not be preached to the Jews without moving the superstitious
scribes, pharisees, and doctors of the law against it, this opposition
hid its natural tendency, and terminated in the death of the divine
teacher; and if the disciples had gone on and preached the same
doctrine, reason would suppose that they would all have been put to
death immediately, and the work of reformation would have stopped.
Now, sir, if I am able to reason at all, it was necessary for God to
make a display of divine power in vindicating truth, which would place
it on ground too high for all the superstition of the world to remove.
You contend that the voice of reason should be heard. What does it
say? It says that God produced man in the first place on this earth,
in a different way from that by which man is now multiplied. Reason
says, there was a necessity for this; but it does not say that the
means of procreation now do not answer even a better purpose than to
have man multiplied by the same means by which he came first to exist.
The same reason will contend that in the establishment of the gospel
ministry in the world, different means were necessary from those which
are successfully employed in perpetuating it.

3d. You contend that the Christian hope of a future happy existence,
is not necessary to our present happiness; and that there is nothing
more disagreeable in the thought of an eternal cessation of existence,
than there is in the thought of reposing ourselves in quiet sleep.
Notwithstanding what you say about non existence, all your play on
words makes no difference about the thing talked of. Nor do I see that
reason in your observations on this subject, for which you contend.
You very well know that to cease to possess an identity of being and
of intellect is what we mean by non-existence, and this is just the
thing for which you argue. Now when we contemplate taking refreshment
in sleep, it is in hope of awaking again in a better condition for
enjoying ourselves and others, and for the performance of our duty.
But the contemplation of passing out of existence, never to have
another thought is certainly very widely different as to the nature of
the subject, from the former. Now, sir, why should not these different
subjects produce different sensations in the mind? And wherein one is
entirely repugnant to the other, why is it not reasonable that the
contemplation of them should be attended with effects in the mind as
repugnant to each other as are the subjects? If it be a pleasure to a
parent to contemplate, when he retires to rest with his family, the
expectation of seeing them again in the morning, all refreshed and
invigorated anew is it not reasonable to suppose that a contemplation
exactly reverse from this would produce mental pain? I can conceive,
without any violation of my reason or senses, how a fond mother can
take satisfaction in nursing her babe to sleep, knowing that the
tender being needs this repose; but I cannot conceive how the same
affectionate mother could be equally pleased with the thought that her
child would never wake again in time or in eternity. I feel grateful
to the giver of every good and perfect gift, that he has given that
blessed hope which is as an anchor to the soul, whereby the Christian
in his dying hour is enabled to take a short farewell of his friends,
expressing his hope of meeting them soon in a better world. And I
think it unreasonable, even in the extreme, to suppose that a rational
person could, in a similar situation, feel as well satisfied with an
expectation of an extinction of being.

You fault the address to truth, which you say I put into the mouth of
your argument, but this you do without the least occasion, nor is it
in your power, sir, to show that your argument does not afford all I
have made it say. You might, or rather you have varied the language a
little, but the sentiment is preserved entire. The address to truth
would, as before, extoll her existence, express the most ardent and
constant love for her divinity and finish the climax by _soaring down_
to non-existence, which you can contemplate with as much satisfaction
as you could an eternal existence in the enjoyment of the object of
your love!

But you contend that truth is lovely, and if your doubts are
consistent with truth you shall be happy to be confirmed in them; &c.
This hypothesis, sir, is too large to suit your own views; for you
have before decided a choice between the doctrine of eternal misery
and that of, I will call it, annihilation for this is its true
meaning. You have revolted at the thought of eternal misery, but your
hypothesis allows you no such liberty. Truth is lovely, and if the
doctrine of eternal punishment, with all the fire and brimstone that
has ever been preached by the most zealous advocates of torment be
truth, your hypothesis compels you to embrace the goddess, and
contemplate eternal misery with the same pleasure that you do
non-existence, or with the same you would everlasting felicity did you
believe in it!

If we would reason well, we must reason from what we know. We know
that man is capable of being miserable, he is capable of great
sufferings; likewise he is capable of being happy, he is capable of
great enjoyments. Now to pretend that he has no choice, that it is as
well for him to be miserable as to be happy, as well for him not to
exist as to exist, is the reverse of reason.

4th. As Jesus, in the instructions which he gave to his disciples,
respecting their conduct towards their enemies, had no design reaching
to the laws of a body politic, but only to the conduct by which the
ministry of the gospel would best succeed in its early beginning,
while it was _necessary_ for it to be persecuted, by which we are now
favoured with its evidences, we may now err in applying those
instructions differently from their primary design. St. Paul, as much
as any of the disciples of Jesus, submitted himself to the directions
of non-resistance, yet he insists on submission to the higher powers,
because they were the ministers of God, even revengers to execute
wrath upon them that do evil.

5th. With a confidence rather unusual, you challenge me to account for
Jesus' not being known by the two disciples while he walked with them
on their way to Emmaus; you bring a comparison, and urge the subject
in a way to signify that you have found something in the scripture
account that "_refutes itself_." You might have considered Mary's case
too as a similar one. She saw Jesus with whom she had had a familiar
acquaintance, but she thought it had been the gardner, and talked with
him without knowing him, until, in the same manner as he used to
address her, he said _Mary_, when in a moment she knew him. So the two
brethren walked on the way with Jesus, and attended to his
conversation, which must have been of considerable length, yet knew
him not until he performed an office at table in which no doubt, he
appeared as he had done many times before, which led them to know him
at once. But I am called on to tell how they could walk and discourse
with him and not know him. Well, sir, do you not understand that your
question is asked on supposition that the miracle of the resurrection
was a fact, and on the supposition that Jesus could appear and
disappear to persons as he pleased? We are informed that when the two
brethren knew him, "he vanished out of their sight." On the
supposition then, that Jesus could appear and disappear at pleasure,
is it at all difficult to allow that he could appear to his
acquaintance as a stranger, if he pleased?

It seems to me, sir, a little unaccountable why you should take hold
of this subject with so much seeming earnestness. Is it possible that
you should suppose that the fate of this particular should have any
power on our general subject? Without the least concern for the
argument in which I am engaged, I might allow that St. Luke was
wrongly informed respecting this particular, but that he wrote it just
as he understood the matter. And what would follow? Would this prove
any thing false on which christianity rests? I am unable to see how it
affects the argument one way or the other. I am not the less inclined
to believe the account, because it does not affect the truth of the
resurrection; and I should think that as this story does not seem at
all necessary in proof of that fact, it would be considered an
evidence that the writer of it was not endeavouring to make a story
for such a purpose. If we read the several accounts of the
resurrection, we shall perceive that the writers probably put down as
many particulars as come into their minds at the time of writing,
without thoughts coming into their minds how the truth of the
resurrection would be proved by the incidents which they wrote. There
is no design of this sort in what they have written that we can see.
They write as if they knew for certainty that Jesus rose from the
dead, and as if the matter was out of all dispute. They discover no
concern for fear the account they were giving would not be believed.
There is not one instance of an attempt to guard the story by clearing
up any difficulty. Would impostors write in this way? It is not
believed that there was ever the instance. Imposture is like a thief
who starts at his own shadow, and discovers guilt by endeavouring to
hide it. But truth having no concern of this sort, discovers
none.--And this is in all respects the apparent character of the four
gospels.

6th. Your criticism on my argument respecting the evidences of the
resurrection I shall now endeavour to show to be incorrect.

You criticise as follows; "The apostles could not have been convinced
of the fact of the resurrection by any evidence short of the fact
itself. 2d. If the fact did exist there is no evidence which can
counterbalance it. _Ergo_, as the apostles were convinced of the
truth, the fact did exist. This is pretty much like saying, if the
fact were _true_ it could not have been false!"

The first member of your criticism supposes that I contend that the
apostles had no evidence of the resurrection but the fact itself. The
second member of your criticism supposes that I contend the fact of
the resurrection could not exist without proving itself to the
apostles in such a way that no evidence could counterbalance it. Now
in both of these you are under a mistake, I never urged the fact of
the resurrection as evidence of itself to the apostles. I never
pretended that they saw him rise. We have no account that any body saw
this act performed. If the apostles had stood by the sepulchre and had
seen the body of Jesus rise up and walk out of the house of death,
then their evidences of his resurrection would have been the fact
itself; but this was not the case, nor did I use any intimations of
this nature. So the first member of your criticism is an error of
yours. 2dly. If Jesus had rose from the dead and ascended into heaven,
and never had given any proofs of this to any one, would the fact of
his having risen be any evidence of itself to any person? It surely
would not. Nor have I suggested any thing which intimates that the
resurrection could not have been true without proving itself to be so
to the apostles. What seems a little remarkable respecting this
subject, is, you profess to care for nothing but simple truth, and yet
you seem to study how to avoid it, as the above criticism seems to
evince. I say _seems_ to evince, for I am not prepared to accuse you
of such a fault--I would charitably believe that you thought your
criticism would hit something or another nearly about right, without
understanding what the amount of it is.

After having laboured, in a lengthy manner, as you acknowledge, to
prove that the evidences which proved to the apostles the truth of the
resurrection could not be counterbalanced, you must reasonably suppose
that I feel a little disappointed that you should condescend to pay no
other attention to my reasoning than the above criticism. If I did not
make my argument clear why should you neglect to point out to me
wherein it was wanting? Why should I not expect to have my errors
corrected, as well as to be called on to correct my brother's? Should
not these kind offices be reciprocal? If you conduct in this way, I
shall certainly grow vain, and boast of doing more for you, than you
do for me.

Having noticed in a brief manner, the several particulars which were
proposed on my first page, I will occupy a few more with some
observations on the evidences which we are favoured with, on which to
build our belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

I have in one or two instances referred you to Paley, who has, with
abilities and learning suited to such a task, brought forward the
authorities on which the credibility of the gospels rests. I have set
down his eleven propositions respecting the scriptures, and I humbly
request you to examine the proof which he has brought to support them.
If he has fairly supported all these propositions, as I humbly
conceive he has, will you show why the scriptures of the New Testament
are not worthy to be credited by us?

I am loath to attempt to present the evidences on which I conceive our
faith rests, because in the first place they are vastly numerous;
2ndly, I do not believe that I am capable of doing that justice to the
subject which it justly claims; and 3dly, Paley has done it by the
assistance of Dr. Lardner's works, to so great an extent, that it
renders unnecessary any attempt of mine.

However, as there seems a particular sort of pleasure in it, I will
here make a little addition to what I quoted in my former
communication, and notice that, following the passage from the epistle
of Barnabas, Paley mentions an epistle written by Clement, bishop of
Rome,[4] another of St. Paul's fellow labourers. "This epistle is
spoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and as
Irenaeus well represents its value," "written by CLEMENT, who had seen
the blessed apostles and conversed with them, who had the preaching of
the apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before
his eyes." In this epistle of _Clement_, he quotes Mat. v. 7, xviii.
6. Next to _Clement_, Paley notices _Hermes_ who is mentioned by St.
Paul, Rom. xvi. 14, in a catalogue of Roman Christians. Hermes wrote a
work called the _Shepherd or Pastor of Hermes_.[5] Says our author,
"Its antiquity is incontestible from the quotations of it in Irenaeus,
A.D. 178, Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194, Tertullian, A.D. 200,
Origen, A. D. 230." In the epistle there are allusions to St.
Matthew's, St. Luke's, and St. John's gospels.

[Footnote 4: Paley's Evidences, p. 107. Referred to Dr. Lardner's
Creed, vol. 1, p. 62, et seq.]

[Footnote 5: Paley's Evidences, p. 110. Lardner's Creed, vol. 1, p.
111.]

Next to Hermes our author mentions IGNATIUS, who became bishop of
Antioch, about thirty-seven years after the ascension of Christ; and
was without doubt personally acquainted with the apostles. Epistles of
Ignatius are referred to by Polycarp his contemporary. Passages, found
in the epistles now extant under his name, are quoted by Irenaeus, A.D.
178, by Origen, A.D. 130. In these epistles there are various
undoubted allusions to the gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Of
these allusions the following are clear specimens: "Christ was
baptised of John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him."
"_Be ye wise as serpents_ in all things, _and harmless as doves_."
"Yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it knows whence
it comes, and whether it goes." "He (Christ) is the door of the
Father, by which enters in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and the
apostles and the church." Ignatius speaks of St Paul in terms of high
respect, and quotes his epistles to the Ephesians by name.

Next to Ignatius, our author mentions POLYCARP who had been taught by
the apostles; had conversed with many who had seen Christ, was also by
the apostles appointed bishop of Smyrna. This testimony concerning
Polycarp is given by Irenaeus, who in his youth had seen him. "I can
tell the place," saith Irenaenus, "in which the blessed Polycarp sat
and taught, and his going out and coming in, and the manner of his
life, and the form of his person, and the discourses he made to the
people, and how he related his conversation with John amid others who
had seen the Lord, and how he related their sayings, and what he had
heard concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his
doctrine, as he had received them from the eye witness of the word of
life: all which Polycarp related _agreeably_ to the scriptures."

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.]

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24