_Much esteemed friend_,--The desire you express of attempting those
researches which seem necessary to promote the further attainment of
moral truth, is appreciated as truly laudable; and did I feel myself
adequate to your wishes, I should enjoy a peculiar felicity in
complying with your request. But so far from this I am very sensible
that the magnitude of the general subject which you have introduced,
requires to be investigated by abilities far superior to those
possessed by me, and demands a tribute from resources not within my
possession. However, as you have imposed an obligation on me by the
communication which is here acknowledged, I will make a feeble attempt
to suggest a few reflections relative to the main subjects of your
epistle, which if they do nothing more, will return merited
acknowledgements and plead the necessity of calling to your assistance
abilities more promising.
While I view the advances which are making in the knowledge of the
arts and sciences, with the pleasure of which you speak, I am
apprehensive that the propensity "to chain down the human mind to its
present attainments, and thereby prevent all further improvements,"
relative to moral truth, may have its rise in a principle, which, so
far from being inimical to man, is, in its general tendency,
incalculably beneficial. No desire is entertained to justify all the
zeal and all the means which are employed to prevent the free exercise
of the human mind, in its researches after divine knowledge, and to
retard the influx of that light which would prove unfavourable to
doctrines which have little more than prescription for their support;
but it seems reasonable to make a proper distinction between what may
be called a salutary principle in the human mind, and a wrong
application or an erroneous indulgence of it. The principle referred
to, inclines us not only to hold in the highest veneration any
improvements which we have made, but also to retain such acquisitions
in their purity. Now it is believed that what you complain of, has its
rise from the foregoing causes, and is nothing more than a wrong or an
erroneous indulgence of a natural desire which in its general tendency
is advantageous. Nothing is more incident to man, than to misapply his
desires, and to overate his reasonable duty. But it is at the same
time believed that a remedy of such defects which should consist in
the destruction of those principles which are improperly acted on,
would be worse than the disorder. And now the thought strikes me, that
the way by which we account for the improprieties which have just been
traced up to their causes, will as charitably account for what seems
to incite you to aim a fatal stroke at a fabric which has its
foundation in the immovable principles of our moral nature, and which,
though through the wanderings of the human mind, may have not a little
hay, wood and stubble, yet possess too much gold, silver and precious
stones, to be forsaken as a pile of rubbish.
It gives you "pain to see what time and money, what labour and toil
have been expended and are still expending in plodding over as it were
an old dead letter; to learn languages which exist _no where_ only on
paper, barely for the sake of reading the opinions of other men who
lived in other times," &c. But you allow that all this would be
necessary if "the only revelation of God to man, which was ever
recorded on vellum or paper was written partly in Greek and partly in
Hebrew," and that "the will of God cannot be known only through the
medium of those languages." In this last particular, you express what
appears very reasonable, and I presume you would be willing to consent
to all this expense and toil, even if the proposition were to lose
part of its importance, and it were only contended that God had
actually made a revelation to man, which was written originally partly
in Greek and partly in the Hebrew, without saying that he has never
caused a revelation to be written originally in any other language.
A revelation from God, if it were written only in the Hebrew or Greek,
would be considered of sufficient value to recompence the labour of
learning the language. But you contend that this revelation, if real,
can be translated into English, but, you must allow that to translate
it, the original must be learned first. Will you say, that after the
translation is once made, the original is of no more use? How then are
future ages to determine whether they have not been imposed on?
Suppose no person of the present age understood the languages in which
the scriptures were first written, surely in this case, those
languages would be lost beyond recovery. Suppose then it should be
doubted whether our bible was not a fabrication, written originally
not in Hebrew nor in Greek, but in some more modern language, how
could the suggestion be refuted?
You appear to be perplexed with the disagreement of authors, as
commentators, and I presume, critics on the original text; you speak
on this subject, as if it were too much for patience to endure. Now,
dear brother, I confess I feel very differently on this subject. I
feel a devout, a religious gratitude to him whose wisdom is
foolishness in the sight of too many of my fellow creatures. I view
the very thing of which you complain, as that fire and crucible which
have preserved the written testimony from any considerable
corruptions. This is a subject on which volumes might be written to
the instruction and edification of the disciples of Jesus.
The queries which you state concerning a revelation's being made in
one age and not in another, in one nation and not in another, in one
language, and not in another, if a special revelation were necessary,
&c. are not considered as very weighty objections to the doctrine of
the scriptures. I believe you will allow that our species of being
commenced on this earth in a different way than that by which it has
been continued. But why should the Creator, create a man and a woman
at one time, and not at all times when he sees fit to multiply his
rational creatures? It is not only evident that God saw that the laws
of procreation were sufficient to perpetuate man, and to multiply his
rational offspring, but it is likewise apparent that the connexions,
relations, and harmonies of society are principally built on this law.
So I humbly conceive, that the continuance and propagation of a divine
revelation are even as well secured by the means which have been
employed for that purpose, as if the Almighty had in every age, and in
every country made such a revelation, and moreover, it is likewise
apparent, that the mental labours necessary in obtaining a knowledge
of these divine things greatly contribute to their enjoyment, and
render the christian fellowship, faith and hope peculiarly interesting
and edifying. Here again I can only suggest a subject on which
voluminous writings might be profitable.
You seem to entertain an idea that the historical part of the bible
can be of no importance to you, as it has no connexion with your
present or future happiness. You instance the particulars of Daniel's
being cast into the den of lions, and Jonah's being swallowed by the
fish, &c. As these are circumstances in the history of that nation
which continues a comment on, and an evidence of prophesy, they are
too interesting to be dispensed with. If you could produce the decree
of a powerful monarch, sent into all parts of his dominions, which was
occasioned by "Remus and Romulus' being nursed by a she wolf," the
case would bear some marks of a parallel. Profane authors advert to
such events as sufficient support of any fact which they endeavor to
maintain.
I come now to your main object. Speaking in regard to the credibility
of what is written by profane authors, and of that which is recorded
in the scriptures, you ask--"Must not our own reason finally determine
for ourselves whether or not either be true?" To this I reply in the
affirmative; but then reason must have its means and its evidences.
For instance, I read of the death and resurrection of the man Christ
Jesus, I consider this vastly important event as it stands in
connexion with the evidences which support it, and reason is the _eye_
with which I examine these evidences, and when reason is constrained
to say all these circumstances could never have existed unless the
fact were true, it is then I am a believer in Jesus. But if I must
consider the resurrection disconnected from the evidence, reason has
nothing to do with it. Please to accept these hasty remarks, not as an
answer, but as suggestions which may lead to one, and as a testimony
of my respect and esteem.
Yours, &c. H. BALLOU.
* * * * *
EXTRACTS No. II.
"A revelation from God, let it be made in any language whatever, I am
very ready to admit, must be considered of sufficient importance, not
only to justify all reasonable pains to preserve it, but also to hand
it down in its original purity to posterity. We owe it, not only in
gratitude to the _giver_, but we owe it in justice to _future
generations_, who would have just occasion to reproach us, if they
could know that so valuable a treasure was put into our hands, which
might have been handed down to them, and that we suffered it to perish
through what must be termed by them, a _criminal neglect_.
"You will perceive, therefore, that I had no particular allusion to a
revelation from God, when I spoke of translating the most valuable of
ancient writings into English. No one will pretend that such
translations could not be made sufficiently accurate to answer all the
purposes, either of history or of the useful arts. It is admitted that
the case is quite different, if there be a mystery in these writings,
the truth of which depends on literary criticism, or grammatical
exactness; but if these writings are nothing more than the bare
opinions and discoveries of _men_, and of men too, as liable to error
as ourselves, and if no one was to view them in a different light, I
apprehend there would be all the confidence placed in a translation,
that could with propriety be placed in the original itself. For, after
all, we should try the facts by other corroborating testimony; and as
to the opinions, we should judge of them only by the reasonableness
and fitness of things. Although I have heard it objected to the
translation of _Seneca's Morals_, that much of the beauty of the style
is lost in the translation, yet I never heard it pretended but that
the ideas are sufficiently clear; but the case would have been quite
different if mankind had ever been taught to believe that their final
and eternal salvation depended in the least degree on an exact
observance of those moral principles. And I very much question whether
there ever has been a translation of the bible, or even of any other
work, in which the most important facts were not sufficiently
apparent. If the fact can be supposed otherwise, it must be admitted
that, comparatively speaking, but very few people at the present day
are benefited by a revelation from God. For the great mass of mankind
have to receive the bible altogether on the credit of others. And who
are their guides in this case? Answer, Translators and Commentators!
And as these men made no pretentions to inspiration, unless the
translation is _substantially_ correct, as to matters of fact, how are
the common people benefited by a revelation from God!"
[Having adverted to the previous studies in the dead languages, which
are required before an admittance can be obtained in our common
colleges, the objector proceeds.]
"But I am off from my main subject. I will now endeavour to call up
all my mental faculties, seriously to attend to a revelation from God.
The idea suggested in these words is beyond all expression awfully
sublime. Yea, not even the bursting of _Vesuvius_, not the
_aurora-borealis_, not the forked _lightning_, not the tremendous
_earthquake_, no, nor yet the greatest _phenomenon in nature_, of
which the human mind can conceive, can afford such ideas of the truly
sublime, as the _truth_, if it could be realized, of the above
proposition. Let me not hastily reject without serious reflection,
that, which of all truths, must be the most important. O help me, my
dear friend, help me also, O thou who art the only source of truth,
thoroughly to investigate this momentous subject! But let me not be
deceived. Let me not receive for truth, that which cannot be made
sufficiently clear to my understanding. There can be no more harm in
_doubting_, than in _believing_, where the evidence is not clear. All
that which appertains to eternal truth will remain, whether I now see
it or not; and that which does not appertain to it will never be
realized, although I may now be made to believe it. There can be no
harm, therefore, in investigating this subject in the same way and on
the same principles, as I would investigate all subjects. Although I
cannot expect to offer any thing very new, yet I am disposed to
examine the subject for myself, and that too, in my own way. I shall
quote no authors, for I have not read but few on this subject which
meet my approbation, and even them are not now by me. My own
understanding is the only author to which I shall appeal. If that can
be cleared of the difficulties which have fallen in its way, I am
willing, yea I wish, still to believe in divine revelation.
"Here let me close my preamble, which is already made too lengthy, and
come immediately to discourse 'ON DIVINE REVELATION.'
"In order to know the truth or falsity of any proposition, we must in
the first place understand the terms by which the proposition is made;
for without such previous knowledge, we cannot know what is meant
either to be affirmed or denied. By _divine revelation_, I understand
'a communication of sacred truth,' made directly from God to man. In
order for any man to know that a revelation has been made to him from
God, it must be made in such a way, that neither his perception, nor
his judgment or understanding, can possibly be mistaken. For, as man
by his reason alone, never could have foreseen that a revelation would
be made, therefore, unless it should have been made in such a way that
he could not have been deceived, a rational man would be more likely
to conclude that he was deceived, than that, which to him would seem
more unlikely, should be true. It seems, therefore, that a revelation
from God to all our conceptions of the fact, must be considered, if
existing at all, as something supernatural; otherwise it could be
nothing more than discovery, or a fortuitous event. Hence a revelation
from God, however true, and however clear, to the person or persons to
whom it was first communicated, must lose its evidence, in some
degree, when it comes to be communicated by him or them to others;
for, being communicated to others, although it is still revelation,
yet not being received immediately from God, it cannot be accompanied
with the same evidence which it was in the first place; therefore, to
say the most of it, it is nothing more than the _history_ of a
revelation. It is made no less true than it was before; but its truth
now rests upon very different testimony.
"The principles in nature all existed, before they were discovered by
man. Their being discovered, neither changed their nature, nor made
them any more true. What consternation a total eclipse of the sun, or
of the moon must have produced, before their cause was known? They are
now viewed, especially that of the latter, among the common
occurrences of nature. Yea, many of the operations of nature, which
are now perfectly understood by chemists, could they be viewed by the
common people, who know not their causes, they would be inclined to
believe they were supernatural. At least, it would not be difficult to
make them believe so, especially when this knowledge was confined to a
few, and those few were so disposed. These remarks are not designed to
do away the force of any arguments which may be founded on miracles;
for this is no proof that miracles may not exist; but then, how is a
miracle a revelation of any thing more than what is contained in the
miracle itself? This is what I cannot see, but I shall have occasion
to say more on this subject hereafter. It will be needless for me to
object to the inferences drawn from miracles until a miracle is
proven.
"If a man absolutely knows something of which I am ignorant, and
informs me of it, it makes no difference to me how he come by his
knowledge--it is revelation to me. It may not be divine revelation;
but supposing it is, or is not, in either case, how am I to believe?
Is it any thing that will admit of mathematical demonstration? If so,
I shall take up with nothing short of being convinced in this way. Is
it any thing which he has discovered? If so, he must give me evidence
of such a discovery. Is it something to which he was an eye witness?
Then the truth to me, depends for the present, entirely on his
credibility. I must be convinced in the first place that he was not
deceived himself, and secondly, that he has no motive in deceiving me.
And evidence equally conclusive must accompany the truth of divine
revelation, or it ought not, nay more, it cannot, rationally be
believed. But supposing that I am convinced of the truth, and
therefore believe; and I relate the same to a third person; is it
equally revelation to him as it was to me? Yes, it may be so
considered, in one sense, at least, for it informs him of something of
which he was before ignorant, as much so as it did me, but then the
truth of the fact does not rest with him on equal testimony, and
therefore he is more excusable if he does not believe. If, however, he
can believe all that I believe, and in addition to that, believe also
in _me_, then, and not till then, he will become a believer in the
same truth. But if he even suspects my veracity, it weakens in his
mind, all the other testimony; and though he may still believe in the
main proposition, yet he believes with less strength of evidence.
"Here a very important question arises in my mind. Is divine
revelation something that rests entirely on matters of _fact_; or is
the most essential part, which concerns us to know, a mere matter of
_opinion_? On a few moments of reflection, however, it appears that
this can hardly admit of a question. For all that relates to a future,
and an eternal state, must be a mere matter of opinion only; and the
facts recorded in the scriptures are supposed to corroborate and
substantiate those opinions. Now, as they respect matters of fact, I
believe the scriptures are substantially the same in all versions, and
in all languages into which they have been translated. And if so,
there is no need of learning the original languages in order to become
acquainted with the matters of fact recorded in the bible. We never
should have seen, nor even heard, of so much controversy and biblical
criticism, if the disputes had been wholly relative to matters of
fact. No, all the various readings, different translations, and
interpolations, have little or nothing to do with a dispute of this
kind. But if the facts can he disputed, they must be disputed upon
other grounds than that of biblical criticism.
"Take, for instance, the 'death and resurrection of the man Christ
Jesus,' which you have mentioned; can any one suppose that there ever
was, or ever will be, a translation which makes any thing more or less
in favour of this fact? This is not pretended. And if not, how does a
knowledge of the Greek language help me to believe this fact?
"This brings me again to my main subject; and now two very important
questions arise in my mind.
"1. In relation to the facts, as stated, respecting the life, death,
and resurrection of the 'man Christ Jesus;' are they positively and
absolutely true?
"2. Admitting the truth of the facts, does it necessarily follow, or
is there any thing which renders it certain, that, in regard to other
things, neither he, nor the apostles, so called, could be mistaken?
And that, in all their writings, they have stated nothing which is
incorrect? That is, what certain evidence have we that the writers of
the books, which being compiled, are called the New Testament, were
all honest men? That they could not have been mistaken relative to the
things which they have written? And that in every instance, they have
written the truth?
"Respecting the first proposition, I have already observed that the
truth of it does not, neither can it, depend on biblical criticism.
They are either facts, which are substantially correct, or they are
fabrications. The circumstantial differences between the original
copies themselves, as recorded by the four Evangelists, are much
greater than what can be found in all the different versions,
translations, &c. that have been collated. Hence no argument can be
brought against the truth of those facts from either a real or
supposed difference between the translation, and their respective
originals. For even if not only the original copies, but the language
also in which they were originally written, should be entirely lost,
it would not militate, as I can see, against the truth of the facts
therein recorded.
"The translation acknowledges and affirms itself to be a _translation_
out of the 'original Greek,' together with former translations
compared, &c. Now permit me to ask, is not this as good evidence of
the existence of the _original Greek_, as the original Greek is of the
_facts_ intended to be proved thereby? I should consider the
translation of any work, which was generally known at the time of its
translation, better evidence of the existence of such a work, though
the original should be entirely lost, than the work itself, even in
the original, could be of the existence of facts, which, if they
existed at all, were known at first to but very few.
"You have suggested, sir, that if the original of the scriptures were
entirely lost, future ages would not know but they had been 'imposed
upon.' I think, however, you will not insist on this point, lest you
should destroy an argument, which, hereafter, you may very much need.
I recall my words. For this seems to imply that we are already engaged
in a controversy; whereas, I trust we are both candidly in search of
truth. I suspect, however, there is too much truth in your suggestion;
but then its truth, instead of relieving, only increases my
difficulty.
"Every one must know that when the translation of the scriptures was
first made, the original not only existed, but it must have been known
to others, beside the translators, who were able to detect the
_fraud_, if there had been any, as to substantial matter of fact. And,
in a work of so great importance, this certainly would have been the
case. Hence you will at once perceive, that when the copies were few
in number, and before the art of printing was discovered, fabrications
and interpolations might find their way into the original scriptures
with much greater facility, than could any considerable variations by
an intentionally erroneous translation; especially after the work
become generally known, and so highly valued, as to require a
translation of it.
"As you admit that 'reason is the _eye_ by which we are to examine the
evidences' which stand in support of the 'resurrection of the man
Christ Jesus,' and of course, as I presume, by which we are to examine
the evidences in support of all other subjects, I shall say no more
upon this part of the subject until I hear your reasons for believing
in the resurrection of Jesus; for this fact, as I conceive, must be
considered the main hinge on which the whole Christian system rests,
if it can be supported by any fact, on which it will finally turn.
2. "But after all, my greatest difficulty is with my second
proposition. To relate facts substantially correct, which persons have
either seen or heard, requires no degree of uncommon skill, or
uncommon honesty; but to state things which will absolutely take
place, which are yet future, requires something more than common
skill; and to state things correctly, which will take place in
eternity, must, as I conceive, require nothing short of _divine
wisdom_. That the evangelists have stated nothing more than what is
_substantially_ correct, as it respects matters of fact, will be
admitted by all: for every one knows there is a _circumstantial_
difference in their writings, both as it respects the order of time,
and in several instances, as it respects matters of fact.
"If the account given us of Jesus be even substantially correct, I
think there can be no reasonable doubt but that he was capable of
telling his disciples every thing which it concerns us to know
relative to a future state of existence.--But I have been often struck
with astonishment, when reflecting on the subject, that Jesus said so
little in regard to a future state! Notwithstanding he was long with
his disciples, as we are told after his resurrection, and did eat and
drink with them; yet, how silent he was upon the subject of eternity,
and of a future and spiritual world! At the only time when we should
rationally suppose that he could be a competent witness in the case,
admitting his death and resurrection true, is the time when he is
entirely silent as to the final and eternal state of man! Should we
admit therefore that Jesus at this time was capable of declaring
eternal truths, yet, as he testified nothing on the subject, nothing
relative to the subject can be proved from his testimony.
"It may be said that Christ had plainly taught his disciples
respecting this subject, previous to his death, and therefore it was
not necessary for him to say any thing more respecting it. But a
confirmation of what he had before taught, if it had been repeated
after his resurrection, would have added great weight to his former
testimony. We need not dwell however, upon these niceties, as the main
question is not involved in them. Yet I am inclined to think that if
all the words of Christ, which have been handed down to us, should be
closely examined, they would be found to be much more silent on the
subject of a future state than many have supposed. But the main
question is, are we certain that he could not have been mistaken in
the things whereof he affirmed? This question may be thought
_blasphemous_: but I cannot see wherein the blasphemy consists; for I
cannot help making the inquiry, in my own understanding, and as my
object is to gain instruction, I put the inquiry on paper. You may say
that Jesus was endowed with _divine wisdom_, and therefore could not
err. That divine wisdom cannot err, I admit, but does divine wisdom
secure man at all times, and under all circumstances, from mistake? If
the man Christ Jesus was in fact _man_ (and that he was man, even
Trinitarians admit) notwithstanding he was endowed with divine wisdom,
why might he not without any dishonour to the Deity, be sometimes left
to exercise only the wisdom of _man_? And to say that the wisdom of
man cannot err, would be saying contrary to daily experience. I have
not contended that Jesus ever erred; but I contend that he must have
been liable to error, or else he was not man. And the supposition that
he did not err, not even in thought or opinion, ought not to be
admitted without the most conclusive testimony.
"But whatever may be the conclusion on this subject, as it respects
the 'man Christ Jesus--a man approved of God,' yet what shall we say
concerning the apostles? Were they also absolutely secured from error?
These men, according to the confession of one of them at least, not
only had been, but still were--_sinners_. Paul, notwithstanding his
apostleship, still acknowledges the plague of his own heart 'I am
carnal, sold under sin--when I would do good, evil is present with
me--O wretched man that I am!' &c. Are such men absolutely proof
against even the error of opinion? It appears to me there are too many
incidents of imperfection recorded in the lives of the apostles to
admit all this. Peter once rebuked his master, at another time denied
him. He once objected to the voice of the spirit, and was afterwards
accused by his brethren for obeying it. Paul accused Peter to his
face, and also disagreed with Barnabas. And other circumstances might
be named, proving them to be destitute of intuitive knowledge.
Considering, therefore, all these things, how do we know but that in
their zeal to do good, (for I do not consider the apostles bad men;
neither do I think any the worse of Paul for either acknowledging his
own faults, or detecting the dissimulation of Peter,) I say therefore,
in their zeal to do good, how do we know but that they stated things
relative to another world, which were only inferences, which, as they
supposed, were justly drawn from what they had either seen or heard,
or else what their own fruitful imagination dictated? If we are at
liberty to view the apostles in this light, however highly their
opinions are to be valued and respected, yet I see no occasion of
investigating their writings with the eye of biblical or grammatical
criticism; for after all, they are but the opinions of men like
ourselves.
"But if it can be demonstrated that the opinions of the writers of the
New Testament can be relied on, as containing eternal truth, without
any mixture of error, then it is very important for us to know the
meaning of all the words they used, not only as it respects their
general import, but also the exact and particular sense in which they
used them. This however cannot be done without a thorough
acquaintance, not only with the Greek, but also with the Hebrew
language, for they used many Hebraisms, which, with a knowledge of the
Greek only, we should not be likely fully to comprehend.
"Yours, &c.