 |
|
|
Reply
| |
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.
|
|
 First
Previous
2 of 2
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
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?
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
