If you mean by the above proposition, simply that miracles are not wrought before our eyes, it is granted; but have you shown that a _continuance_ of miracles would more rationally vindicate the gospel, than the divine economy has done by preserving the _variety of evidence_ which is now at our command? If this cannot be done, then the discontinuance of miracles is no reason why we should doubt the truth of this revelation. How then is your third proposition, even in any sense in which it can be true, to be understood unfavourable to divine revelation?
It may not be improper to notice some reasons why the continuance of the miracles, on which the gospel was first propagated, would not comport with the divine economy.
1st. As has been before suggested, it would, if combined with the force it first had, preclude the exercise of the mental powers of investigation.
2d. This power of working miracles must have been distributed to various sects and heresies, or by being confined to one order, prevent the existence of any other, which would be another preventive of immense reasoning, and tend to circumscribe the sphere in which the human mind is capacitated to move.
3d. The continuance of those miracles must have changed the order of nature, and continued men on earth forever, or from generation to generation; for if this power had been exercised on some and not to the advantage of others, it would look like the partial systems of men, and in room of commending the impartial goodness of God, would have refuted it.
But, the manifestation of this divine power, in those miracles on which our religion is founded, while it is attended with none of the evils which a continuance would evidently produce, besides forming an immoveable rock on which so glorious a superstructure is safely founded, furnishes an immense subject for the power of ratiocination.
You will excuse me for not noticing particularly all you say about modern pretensions to revelations and miracles, as I think it would occupy time that may be better employed. But I will observe on your opinion, that it is remarkable, that Saul when he was converted, did not go to Jerusalem to inquire more fully into the circumstances of the resurrection, that if he had done this, you would not have hesitated to make use of it against his declaration recorded in Gal.
i. 11, 12. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Why do you mention that we have not a particular account of St. Paul's conversion written by his own hand? Do you think that what a man writes of himself is more to be depended on, than what his biographer writes of him? Your suggestions on this subject seem to indicate, at least, some scruples respecting this conversion, but not in a way to show where the ground of scruples lies. What is there for me to answer? Why do you treat this subject with such neglect? In a former communication, I requested your attention to it in a special manner, with a view to confine our reasoning to our subject, and to avoid rambling from one thing to another without making ourselves acquainted with any thing. In your reply you never attempted to give any account why Saul should embrace the religion he had persecuted; you made no attempt to give any reason why he preached Jesus and the resurrection; nor did you assign any reason why he should be willing to suffer the loss of all earthly enjoyments and endure persecutions for Christ's sake; nor did you attempt to prove that there never was such a man and such a conversion. The subject you considered still before you, and in this seventh number you have spoken of it again, but have paid no particular attention to it.
What you say on the subject of prophecy, does not appear to me, either to reflect any light on it, or to call up any question of importance.
Your query whether the books of the New Testament were not written after the destruction of Jerusalem, which would suppose that the prophecy of the destruction of that city was written after the events took place of which the prophecy speaks, is an old suggestion in which I am unable to see any thing very reasonable. And I will remark here, that men who seem to lay an uncommon claim to reason, ought to make use of it when arguing on such momentous subjects. What difference would it make whether St. Matthew wrote his gospel before, or after the destruction of Jerusalem, as it respects the prophecy which Jesus delivered concerning it? You allow St. Matthew to be an honest man.
You do not doubt then but Jesus did deliver such a prophecy before his death, which was certainly before the destruction of the city. Then surely it makes no difference whether the prophecy was committed to paper before, or after the fulfilment of it. Besides, you seem to urge the _silence_ of St. John on the subject as unfavourable to the account, because he wrote his gospel after Jerusalem was destroyed. As to interpolations which you think might have found their way into the gospels, it appears to me, sir, that a candid consideration of this subject would issue in this conclusion; if any important interpolations had been admitted, they would have produced such a disagreement as to effectually destroy the validity of the books; for if one heresy could be indulged, it is reasonable to suppose that another would be, and so on, which in room of allowing us the scriptures in their present consistent form, would either have destroyed their existence altogether, or have varied so as to confound their ideas.
For a candid, learned, and impartial view of the scriptures of the New Testament, I refer you to Paley's evidences, and in particular to his eleven propositions, which he has proved in a manner satisfactory, as I conceive to the candid inquirer.
These propositions begin on page 103, and are the following.
1. "That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the four gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present.
2. "That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or alluded to with peculiar respect, as books _sui geneus_, as possessing an authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions and controversies among christians.
3. "That they were in very early times collected into a distinct volume.
4. "That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles of respect.
5. "That they were publicly read and expounded in the religious assemblies of the Christians.
6. "That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out of them, different copies carefully collected, and versions of them made into different languages.
7. "That they were received by Christians of different sects, by many heretics as well as catholics, and usually appealed to by both sides in the controversies which arose in those days.
8. "That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of St. Paul, the first epistle of John, and the first of Peter, were received without doubt, by those who doubted concerning the other books which are inclosed in our present canon.
9. "That the gospels were attacked by the early adversaries of Christianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded.
10. "That formal catalogues of authentic scriptures were published, in all which our present sacred histories were recorded.
11. "That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books, claiming to be books of scripture; by which I mean those books which are commonly called Apochryphal."
The first evidence adduced by this celebrated author to prove his first proposition, proves that the gospel of St. Matthew, which contains a very particular account of the prophecy of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, was written before the event took place.
This evidence is a quotation from the epistle of Barnabas, St. Paul's companion, in the following words: "Let us therefore, beware lest it come upon us, _as it is written_, there are many called, few chosen."
St. Matthew's gospel is the only book in which these words are found; and you will perceive by the expression, "as it is written," that Barnabas quoted the passage from an author of authority. Barnabas wrote his epistle during the troubles which ended in the destruction of the Jews and their city. This epistle of Barnabas is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194: by Origen, A.D. 230. It is mentioned by Eusebius, A. D. 315, and by Jerome, A. D. 392. (Paley's evidences, p. 106.)
Your insinuations that the origin of the christian scriptures is involved in fable and mystery, should have been accompanied with a clear refutation of the arguments used by Lardner, Paley, and others, who have with much learning and labour traced the stream to its fountain.
I must say something on the subject which you introduce concerning man, as a species of being, or you may think me inexcusable for the neglect. There seem to be two main questions suggested on this subject; the first inquires what man was farther back than history reaches; and the other directs the mind to a "line of demarcation"
between the human and the brute.
We have no account that I know of when the use of fire was not known.
We read Gen. iv. 22, that Tubal-cain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron, and if reason has any thing to do in this case, we may suppose that the use of fire was known to these mechanics. The date to which this reading belongs, is 3875 years before Christ; but there can be no reasonable doubt but that the use of fire was known long before, and that it was used in the offerings which were made by Cain and Abel.
That the discovery of arts and the progress of science have changed man from what he originally was, is no more reasonable, than to suppose that the education which a child acquires by degrees, by the same degrees changes him in respect to his nature. That the arts and sciences serve to improve and extend the human intellects is reasonable enough, but that they add any thing to the natural principles or faculties of man is not conceivable.
In fixing the "line of demarcation" between the human nature and the brutal, I will suggest two characteristics which you have noticed by which the distinction may be ascertained.
The first is the power or faculty of improving from generation to generation his condition by means of art, and knowing how to advance from one degree of science to another. This I will suppose belongs to man and is peculiar to our race of being. We know of no other animal on earth that has ever improved his condition by the discovery of the arts or an increase of science.
The other characteristic is one of your propositions, on which you build your system of doubting, viz. _Superstition_. This is found in no creature but such as is susceptible of religion. Man is the only religious animal, if I may be allowed this form of expression, found on the earth.
The progress which man has made in arts and sciences, and the progress he has made in divine or religious knowledge distinguish him from the brutal creation. As in the former he has run into thousands of errors, so in the latter he has wandered in darkness, with now and then a blessed ray of light which improved his mind. When the knowledge of the arts became generally defused by means of the extension of the Roman government, it pleased our blessed Creator to cause the sun of divine light to rise on the Jew and Gentile world. And gave him a covenant of the people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.
Your opinion that men are seldom made unhappy in consequence of doubting a future existence, may be true in a comparative sense, for I believe there are few in comparison with the whole, who do doubt on this subject. Generally speaking, it is the few, who like the philosopher that rendered himself blind by endeavouring to find out what the sun was composed of, thought there was no sun nor any light, that so far give up a hope of futurity as to be miserable in their belief.
That the idea of endless torment, such as our clergy have represented, and with which they have most horribly terrified thousands and driven them into black despair, is more horrible than no existence at all will be allowed by every candid mind. But in contemplating an infinite source of divine benevolence, and his means of giving and perpetuating existence, and of rendering existence a blessing, the mind is not driven to the necessity of selecting between these two evils. No, sir, the mind thus employed has sweeter themes and brighter prospects--in belief of that invaluable treasure, that divine testimony of the inspired apostle: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;" which sentence you nor I ever heard a preacher of endless punishment recite in a sermon in our lives, the soul rises by faith into sublime regions of future peace and everlasting enjoyment, when death shall be swallowed up of life.
I need not tell you, my brother, that it has been through many trials, afflictions, doubts, and temptations, that your feeble humble servant has found the way to this rock; you cannot be altogether ignorant of this travail of mind. Permit me then to call to remembrance the bondage we have escaped, the sea through which we have passed, the sweet songs of deliverance and salvation which we have chanted to our Redeemer in the faith of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. And here permit me to request your assistance in giving me support, and in strengthening my hands in the work of the Lord.
Yours, &c.
H. BALLOU.
EXTRACTS No. VIII.
"In regard to the story reported among the Jews, respecting the body of Jesus, I admit there is a greater probability of there being such a report, especially if the body could not be found, and the apostles affirmed that he was risen from the dead, than there is that the resurrection, should be actually true: hence, perhaps, I was not so much on my guard in the expression as I ought to have been. What I particularly had in my mind was, that I might find it difficult to prove even the existence of such a story, i. e. in the days of the apostles; and still more difficult to prove, even on the ground that there was no resurrection, that this story was true; and therefore there could be no use in urging the truth of this story in order to invalidate the truth of the resurrection. I do not conceive, however, that because I doubt the _fact_, I am under obligations to account for the _fallacy_. It always belongs to the advocates of the truth of any story, to bring forward sufficient evidence to prove the same. I can think of a solution, however, that would appear to my understanding much more probable, than to suppose, as mentioned in your seventh article, the 'account written long since the apostles' day;' yet it may, perhaps, be attended with equal or greater difficulties, viz.
that the body was not stolen by the apostles, but was taken away by other persons, who were willing that Jesus should be _deified_, according to the then common acceptation of that word among the Greeks, and who studied this stratagem with an express design to deceive the Jews, as a punishment to them for so cruelly putting him to death, and also to deceive his disciples, in order to inhance the honour of the name of Jesus.
"This might have been done, as I conceive, by persons who never became his open followers, so far as to suffer death on his account, but were contented in having gained their object; to do which, it was only necessary in the first instance to frighten the soldiers. It may be difficult after all, as I have observed concerning the human species, to say where the truth of the account ends, or where the fallacy begins; but that some such thing should have taken place is more probable to my understanding than that the literal resurrection of Jesus should have been true. But I perceive that my expression, concerning the report among the Jews, was a little too strong; and carried rather more in it than what I was aware. For even on my hypothesis, as well as on every other which admits the absence of the body, such a report would appear very probable.
"It must be granted, as you have suggested, that there was such a report among the Jews at the time when that record was made, or else that record would not appear at all to 'advantage' in support of the truth of christianity.
"That 'reason is candid,' I also admit; and if I am blundering in making mistakes, I believe you will have the goodness to acknowledge that I am candid in retracting them again when they are so pointed out to me that I can see them.
"Respecting divine revelation, it is true, I understood you to mean something more than barely what is predicated on the resurrection of Jesus; yet in the second proposition of the three which you made, viz.
'Is the resurrection of Jesus capable of being proved,' I understand you to state one single fact, on which you are willing to rest the final issue of the argument. This being the most important fact, relative to the truth of christianity, and which, probably, is as difficult of proof as any, I do not perceive any disingenuousness in confining you _now_ to this proposition till it is either proved or admitted. Neither do I perceive how this can embarrass your argument, as you have proposed to consider them 'true, disjunctively,' as well as conjunctively. When therefore you have proved the three propositions _disjunctively_; particularly the second, above named, then I shall be willing you should avail yourself of their _union_.--You may say, perhaps, I have proposed to admit the truth of your three propositions; but you will also perceive, it was only for the sake of introducing a fourth proposition, which it will not be necessary for you to consider until the three first are proved true.
"I conceive that reason has no more to do in this case than to judge of the evidences of facts; and then, if the facts are supported, reason can judge of their relation one to the other; but to assume, in the first place, the truth of revelation, and then infer from _that_ the probability of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, appears to me to be unreasonable. Therefore, if you attempt to prove the truth of revelation, I conceive you must in the first place prove, 'disjunctively,' the truth of the resurrection. If, therefore, you have considered yourself excused from proving the facts on which the truth of revelation seems to rest, because I have granted them for the sake of the argument, you have misapprehended my meaning. I grant _nothing_, respecting the main question, until it is _proved_.
"Notwithstanding what you have said about 'the known facts,' and 'facts which you grant, for the sake of the argument,' &c. you will perceive by my seventh number, that I do not consider the 'miracles of Jesus, his resurrection, and the miracles wrought by the apostles,'
either granted or proved, i. e. in relation to the main question; and hence, whatever weight your argument may have, when you have succeeded in that (if you should succeed at all) at present they seem to be hardly conclusive. I know it would save you much time, if you could draw from me an acknowledgement of the truth of the facts on which you rely; and you seem to argue, if I understand you, as though that was already the case; but whatever you may have understood, I must distinctly disavow any such acknowledgement; and I shall still expect (unless it is done in answer to my seventh number) when you come to reply to this, that you will state distinctly, and together, the evidences and arguments on which you mostly rely.