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

"_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.

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