_Dear sir, and brother_--Desiring to bring our present correspondence
to a close as soon as the merits of its subject will admit, I propose
in replying to your 8th number, to remark only on the most essential
particulars, taking no particular notice of two classes contained in
your communication, viz. that which seems to grow out of a
misconstruction of my arguments and that in which you appear to agree
with them. Indulging in this liberty, the subjects to which I will
endeavour to confirm myself are the following.
1st. Your method of accounting for the absence of the crucified Jesus,
from the sepulchre where it was laid and guarded by the Roman
soldiers.
2d. What you suggest respecting the divine mission of Christ and his
apostles, the miracles which were wrought by them in attestation of
the Messiah, and the credibility of their testimony regarding a future
state.
3d. What you contend for respecting the _utility_, or _inutility_ of
the christian hope of future felicity.
4th. Something on the instructions of Jesus to his disciples
respecting their conduct toward their enemies.
5th. What you suggest respecting Jesus' not being known to the two
disciples, &c.
6th. Your criticism on my argument respecting the evidences of the
resurrection, &c.
1st. You propose to account for the absence of the body of Jesus, by
supposing, that some persons by frightening the guards were enabled
thereby to convey the body away, which they did being willing that
Jesus should be thought to have risen from the dead, whereby he would
be deified, according to the notions of the Greeks respecting deifying
men after they were dead, &c. Those who thus stole the body were not
the disciples of Jesus, but some persons who were desirous thereby to
punish the Jews for so cruelly putting Jesus to death.
Here you have proposed two subjects as forming the cause, in the mind
of those who stole the body, of their undertaking so hazarduous an
enterprise, neither of which appears to me to wear the necessary marks
of probability.--1st. If they wished to have Jesus deified according
to the notions of the Greeks, there was no need of establishing the
belief of his having rose from the dead. This was not the case with
those who among the Greeks were deified after their death. The tombs
of their heroes whom they placed among the gods, remained among the
people.
2d. Who that then lived in Jerusalem or its vicinity could look on the
crucifixion of Jesus as an act of cruelty? Others than Jews would not
feel very much interested in this affair, as Jesus had confined his
ministry to the Jews, and directed his disciples not to enter into any
of the cities of the Gentiles, this matter was a case which seemed to
concern the Jews only. Now look at the case. The Jews expected a
Messiah, a deliverer, one who should become their prince, and deliver
them from the bondage of the Romans. Jesus pretended to be sent of God
as their Messiah of whom the ancient prophets had spoken; he pretended
to work miracles in confirmation of his divine mission; but in room of
delivering the Jews from the Roman yoke, he prophecied of their
destruction by the Romans. Now, sir, if Jesus made all these
pretensions without divine authority for so doing, if he caused to be
reported that he wrought miracles when he never wrought one in his
life, if he kept the people in a continual uproar driving about the
country from one extreme of Palestine to another all by his frauds and
fascinating deceptions; and in order to quiet the people, and have
things go on in a regular order, those who were charged with the
public concerns brought about the crucifixion of this impostor, who
knowing all these things, being a Jew would think of accusing these
godly pharisees and rulers of cruelty for so doing? If Jesus did not
do the works which he pretended to do, he certainly was an impostor,
and it is in vain to attempt to save him from such a charge. And if he
were such a _blasphemous_ impostor as to pretend to work miracles by
the power of God, when he knew he had no such power, it appears very
plain that he deserved to die according to Jewish customs. If the
miracles of Jesus had been of a different description, there might
have been some deception. That is, if such miracles had been pretended
as you state of the Shakers; in such a case nobody would trouble their
heads about the matter. Some would say, the good woman perhaps was
badly hurt, and she thought her ribs were broken, when in fact they
were not, and with a little good nursing she was able to join the
dance; others might be extravagant enough to suppose that something
marvelous had taken place, but who would know? Or, I will add, who
would care? But will you undertake to argue that the most learned and
artful could impose on people by pretending to have power from God to
open the eyes of the blind, to heal all manner of diseases with a
word, and to raise the dead from their graves? No, sir, if Jesus did
not perform the miracles which he pretended to perform, there is no
propriety in believing that any body was disposed to charge the Jews
with cruelty for ridding community of such an impostor. But after all,
even allowing your proposed method of accounting for the absence of
the body, which by no means is half as probable a story as that
reported by the Jews, as this does not account for the disciples'
believing that Jesus had actually arose from the dead. What is to be
done with this circumstance? Are we to suppose that as soon as the
disciples found that the body was missing, they took it into their
heads that he had actually arose from the dead without any further
evidence? Well if they really believed it they could honestly state
their belief to the people. You will remember that you have agreed
that the apostles were honest men. But then the apostles go further,
they assert that they were certified of the real resurrection of Jesus
by many _infallible_ proofs, that they saw him, conversed with him,
ate with him, heard his discourses in which he expounded the
scriptures of the law, of the prophets, and of the psalms which
respected his passion and resurrection. Will you allow these men to
have been honest men, and still suppose that somebody stole the body
of Jesus from the sepulchre? The boldness of the disciples in
declaring the resurrection, their willingness to suffer all manner of
persecutions for the name of Jesus, show plainly that they did believe
in his resurrection. Here I refer you to my former arguments in which
I have attempted to make it appear that the disciples could not have
been deceived.
But even allowing, that the body was stolen, and that the disciples
were deceived, there is still, if possible, a greater difficulty to
account for, viz. the success of the preaching of Jesus and him
crucified. Here I wish, in a special manner, to call your attention.
The four evangelists and the acts of the apostles were written in the
life time of the disciples of Jesus; this, Paley, in his Evidences of
Christianity, fully proves. He likewise proves beyond any reasonable
doubt that they were written by the men whose names they bear. These
historians then relate all the miracles recorded in the four gospels,
and inform us that Jesus actually performed them. They give each of
them an account of the crucifixion and resurrection of their divine
master. They relate the things of which they were eye witnesses. But
supposing they were deceived, which I humbly conceive, is not
supposable, can we reasonably believe that these gospels in which such
barefaced falsehoods were recorded would ever gain credit among a
people whose religious education was to be all overthrown by coming
into the belief of those writings?
But the apostles had not these books to assist them in their ministry;
they went on in preaching Jesus and the resurrection, first in the
city of Jerusalem, and throughout all Judea, and among the Gentiles
with astonishing success before they wrote the accounts which we have.
Now, sir, on the supposition that the body was stolen will you account
for the people's being persuaded that Jesus rose from the dead?--Is it
possible to conceive of any thing to which the Jews could have been
more opposed, than to the testimony, that the man whom they had
crucified was the Messiah, and that God had raised him from the dead?
Now turn to the account given in Acts, chap. ii. and let reason and
candor have their voice in the matter under consideration. "Therefore
let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that
same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Can you
conceive of any thing that could have been more trying to the feelings
of the people? Observe, "whom ye have crucified." Bring the matter
home to yourself. Suppose you had been active in the prosecution of
one of your fellow creatures, and the prosecution should have
terminated in the execution of the accused, how would it try your
feelings for your neighbours to come and tell you, that you had been
the murderer of a good and innocent man? But in the case under
consideration there are circumstances that heighten the importance of
the subject. The great Messiah in which all the Jews were educated to
believe, as much as we are educated to believe in Christ; this
personage is the subject. See the account, "Now, when they heard this,
they, were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to the
rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?" Why do we
hear this exclamation? "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Why
should the people now feel thus affected? Why do they not cry out
against the men who accuse them of having done this wickedness, as
they did against Jesus a few days before? Can you, sir, believe that
all that caused this, was the body's having been stolen from the
sepulchre, the disciples having gotten the whim into their heads that
Jesus had arose from the dead, now run about like mad men and accuse
the people of having murdered the great Messiah, the anointed of God,
affirming that God had raised him from the dead, when barely the
absence of the dead body was all the evidence on which this could be
founded? Not only did the testimony of Peter, on this occasion, which
will remain a most memorable one while the world stands, carry pungent
conviction to the very hearts of the people, but it happily issued in
the glorious triumph of faith in the risen Jesus in about three
thousand of the then present audience.
In the fore part of this chapter we have an account of the
manifestation of the mighty and miraculous power of God which was the
evident cause of the conviction of the people; and to no other cause,
I humbly conceive, can we impute such consequences.
Permit me to remark here, that all that ingenuity has ever invented
about how the body of Jesus was disposed of, can have no weight at all
against the doctrine of the resurrection which the apostles
propagated. The body's being absent from the sepulchre never convinced
one reasonable being in the world, of the fact of the resurrection. It
did not convince those who first saw the sepulchre empty.
"Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping; and they (the angels)
say unto her, woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto him, because
they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus
standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, woman,
why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She supposing him to be the
gardner, saith unto him, sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me
where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto
her, 'Mary.' She replied, 'RABBONI!'" How naturally is this account
given. In what an artless manner is the story told. I so much admire
the sincerity and unaffected love of Mary to her master that the
following reflections demand a place here. The person who but three
days before was crowned with thorns, was reviled and spat upon, was
most ignominiously crucified between two thieves and laid in the
sepulchre is so much the object of Mary's affection that she appears
solicitous for the body. I cannot doubt the truth of Mary's being
here, for the story is told without any design. But why is Mary here?
If Jesus was an impostor she never knew of his working a miracle in
her life. But if Jesus was in fact what he pretended to be and if he
wrought those miracles which are recorded of him, all is explained.
But it is evident that Mary had not thought of Jesus' having been
raised from the dead, when she saw that he was absent from the
sepulchre. When Jesus spake to her, and called her by name as he had
frequently done before, she knew him. When this Mary and the other
women that were with her went to the eleven, and told them the story,
they did not believe it, nor does it appear that Peter believed in the
resurrection, even after Mary and others had certified him, and he had
been himself to the sepulchre and found it empty; but he went away
"wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."
The evidences by which the disciples believed in this all-important
truth were equal to its importance and to its extraordinary character.
These evidences have been noticed.
2d. The mission of Christ and his apostles, the miracles wrought by
them in attestation of that mission, and the credibility of their
testimony respecting a future state may now receive some notice.
You are disposed to call on me to inform you what I mean by this
mission, to which I reply; I mean a divine appointment to act in a
certain official character, accompanied with certain powers by which
they were _enabled to evince_, by miracles, this their appointment.
Jesus was appointed by God himself to reveal the divine character,
nature, and will of the Father to the world, by his preaching, by his
miracles of mercy, by his sufferings, by his death and resurrection.
The apostles were sent by Jesus Christ on the same mission, on which
Jesus himself was sent. See his prayer, John xvii. "As thou has sent
me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world."
Those who believed in Jesus, and acknowledged him to be the Messiah,
believed on account of the miracles which he wrought, and as I have
before argued, Jesus never required of any a belief in him, barely on
his testimony of himself, but on the evidence afforded by the works
which he did in his Father's name. So likewise, those who believed on
Jesus through the ministry of the apostles, never were called on to
believe but by the authority of as great wonders as were wrought by
Christ himself. I need not say much on this particular, as you must
know that the ground on which I have here placed this subject, is the
ground on which the New Testament places it.
The absurd notions which have been erroneously adopted by Christian
doctors and councils concerning the mission of Christ to appease the
divine wrath, to reconcile God to man, to suffer the penalty of the
divine law, &c. &c. which have rendered the gospel a mystery and a
mist, in room of a high way for the ransomed of the Lord to return to
Zion in, is chargeable to the enemy who sowed tares among the wheat.
These opinions with a multitude of studied inventions about a
mysterious work of sovereign elective grace wrought in certain
individuals, in an unknown way and frequently in an unknown time all
which is to be followed by a system of mysterious sanctification,
connected most mysteriously with final perseverance, together with all
the intricate unknown items set down in the Westminister Catechism,
have only served to perplex some, puff others up with spiritual pride
and exalt them in the kingdom of spiritual wickedness in high places,
to drive some to despair, and to disgust reason and common sense in
others. There is not a word of all the above jargon in the sacred
scriptures, which give us a most rational account of the great object
of the gospel ministry. This object is the redemption of mankind from
moral darkness, which is the whole occasion of moral evil, and to
produce that improvement in the religious world which science is
designed to effect in the political. It is to bring truth to light, to
commend the character of God to man, to lead all men into the true
knowledge, spirit, and temper of the divine nature. Thus we discover
in Jesus no partialist, no sectarian, no friend to any one
denomination, more than another. And when he had accomplished, by his
sufferings, what the prophets had foretold, he then sent his gospel of
the love and mercy of God to the whole world. His divinely inspired
apostles followed the examples of their leader and preached the
universal, impartial goodness of God to all men, and confirmed their
mission by similar miracles to those wrought by Jesus.
You further inquire the grounds on which we are to believe Jesus and
his apostles respecting a future state. Reply, on the same ground on
which we believe them in other matters, viz. because they have proved
the divinity of their mission or appointment to teach truth by the
power of the God of truth. See 2 Cor. xii. 12, "Truly the signs of an
apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders,
and mighty deeds." You need not be told that an _apostle_ is a
messenger, and that a messenger must have a mission. What then were
the signs of St. Paul's mission? Answer, patience, signs, wonders, and
mighty deeds. Jesus is said to be the great _apostle_, and high priest
of our profession, and he evinced his apostleship by signs, by
wonders, and mighty deeds. Now, sir, as these signs were designed to
prove to us that Jesus and his apostles were divinely inspired, so
they are the ground on which we may safely believe their testimony in
all things.
If your inquiry extends further than the plain statements and facts
go, you will at once see that they go beyond the demands of reason,
for it is an unreasonable thing to require of an uninspired person any
further account concerning the way by which an inspired man knows what
he says to be true, than it has pleased God to enable his messenger to
make known.
When the pharisees asked the man who was born blind, to whom Jesus had
given sight, "What sayest thou of him? that he hath opened thine eyes?
he said, he is a prophet." How comes this man to believe that Jesus
was a prophet? Because the sign of a messenger of God had been given.
If the pharisees had asked him, how he knew that Jesus was a prophet,
would he not answer them by the miracle wrought upon him? If they
should further ask him of particulars, how Jesus could be a prophet,
how he knew things which others did not know, would they have
discovered any wisdom in their questions? or would he have discovered
any in attempting to answer them?
If I may further remark on the mission of Jesus and his apostles, it
seems reasonable to say that it comprehends the whole doctrine of the
gospel, that is to say, they were appointed to preach the gospel which
comprehends the whole ministry of reconciliation, or a manifestation
of reconciling truth. There is, therefore, no truth in the gospel
which is not calculated in its nature to reconcile man to God, when
such truth is understood.
If our heavenly Father had from all eternity predestinated far the
greatest part of mankind to a state of endless un-reconciliation, the
revelation of this to them who were thus destined, could have no
effect in reconciling them to God. What had Jesus or his apostles to
do with such doctrine as this? Nothing. They make no mention of any
such thing. If according to the vain traditions received from the
wisdom of this world that cometh to nought, our tender babes were
doomed to everlasting wrath for the sin of the first man who lived on
earth, the manifestation of such a truth could reconcile none of those
victims to this God of unmerciful vengeance. But what had Jesus to do
with such blasphemous doctrine? See him as the representative of God,
as the great apostle of heaven to man, notice what he does and what he
says. He takes young children in his arms and blesses them, he says
suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of
such is the kingdom of heaven. If our Creator was full of wrath and
vindictive vengeance towards sinners, the manifestation of such a
truth would by no means reconcile sinners to God; but when God
commendeth his love towards the sinner through the mission, ministry,
or dispensation of Jesus Christ, such truth when revealed, naturally
reconciles the sinner to God. God is eternally the same, his love is
the same, his will to do his creatures good is always the same, and
his means to carry his good will into effect are always at his
command.
Jesus taught sinners, enemies to God, that God to whom they were
enemies, loved them. This he demonstrated by the rain and sun shine
which was communicated to the evil and the good, and this impartial
love of God, he urged as the perfect pattern for our imitation, and
set it up as the mark where lies the prize to be won by our Christian
vocation. I say unto you love your enemies, pray for them that use you
spitefully and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your
Father which is in heaven; that is, that you may imitate him in your
conduct and moral character. Now, sir, what has all this to do about
reconciling God to man? What has it to do about appeasing divine
wrath? If Jesus taught the doctrine of God's love to sinners, and our
doctrine taught by our Christian doctors of God's wrath and hatred
towards sinners be true, the matter is settled at once. These doctors
being ministers of divine truth, Jesus may be any thing else, but he
cannot be an apostle and high priest of God.
But I need not extend this article, you are as well persuaded of the
erroneousness of these doctrines of men as I am; but it belongs to
this subject, to take a general view of the ministry of Jesus and his
apostles. It is so especially, because this view shows at once the
necessity as well as the nature of this divine ministry. If you view
the nature of truth as you have heretofore expressed it, and as I am
confident you do, you cannot reasonably doubt the necessity of having
it manifested to the world.
It was necessary then for God to endue one with this ministry of
truth, it is reasonable that others, being taught by him should be
appointed to the same ministry; but you will see at once that truth
could not be preached to the Jews without moving the superstitious
scribes, pharisees, and doctors of the law against it, this opposition
hid its natural tendency, and terminated in the death of the divine
teacher; and if the disciples had gone on and preached the same
doctrine, reason would suppose that they would all have been put to
death immediately, and the work of reformation would have stopped.
Now, sir, if I am able to reason at all, it was necessary for God to
make a display of divine power in vindicating truth, which would place
it on ground too high for all the superstition of the world to remove.
You contend that the voice of reason should be heard. What does it
say? It says that God produced man in the first place on this earth,
in a different way from that by which man is now multiplied. Reason
says, there was a necessity for this; but it does not say that the
means of procreation now do not answer even a better purpose than to
have man multiplied by the same means by which he came first to exist.
The same reason will contend that in the establishment of the gospel
ministry in the world, different means were necessary from those which
are successfully employed in perpetuating it.
3d. You contend that the Christian hope of a future happy existence,
is not necessary to our present happiness; and that there is nothing
more disagreeable in the thought of an eternal cessation of existence,
than there is in the thought of reposing ourselves in quiet sleep.
Notwithstanding what you say about non existence, all your play on
words makes no difference about the thing talked of. Nor do I see that
reason in your observations on this subject, for which you contend.
You very well know that to cease to possess an identity of being and
of intellect is what we mean by non-existence, and this is just the
thing for which you argue. Now when we contemplate taking refreshment
in sleep, it is in hope of awaking again in a better condition for
enjoying ourselves and others, and for the performance of our duty.
But the contemplation of passing out of existence, never to have
another thought is certainly very widely different as to the nature of
the subject, from the former. Now, sir, why should not these different
subjects produce different sensations in the mind? And wherein one is
entirely repugnant to the other, why is it not reasonable that the
contemplation of them should be attended with effects in the mind as
repugnant to each other as are the subjects? If it be a pleasure to a
parent to contemplate, when he retires to rest with his family, the
expectation of seeing them again in the morning, all refreshed and
invigorated anew is it not reasonable to suppose that a contemplation
exactly reverse from this would produce mental pain? I can conceive,
without any violation of my reason or senses, how a fond mother can
take satisfaction in nursing her babe to sleep, knowing that the
tender being needs this repose; but I cannot conceive how the same
affectionate mother could be equally pleased with the thought that her
child would never wake again in time or in eternity. I feel grateful
to the giver of every good and perfect gift, that he has given that
blessed hope which is as an anchor to the soul, whereby the Christian
in his dying hour is enabled to take a short farewell of his friends,
expressing his hope of meeting them soon in a better world. And I
think it unreasonable, even in the extreme, to suppose that a rational
person could, in a similar situation, feel as well satisfied with an
expectation of an extinction of being.
You fault the address to truth, which you say I put into the mouth of
your argument, but this you do without the least occasion, nor is it
in your power, sir, to show that your argument does not afford all I
have made it say. You might, or rather you have varied the language a
little, but the sentiment is preserved entire. The address to truth
would, as before, extoll her existence, express the most ardent and
constant love for her divinity and finish the climax by _soaring down_
to non-existence, which you can contemplate with as much satisfaction
as you could an eternal existence in the enjoyment of the object of
your love!
But you contend that truth is lovely, and if your doubts are
consistent with truth you shall be happy to be confirmed in them; &c.
This hypothesis, sir, is too large to suit your own views; for you
have before decided a choice between the doctrine of eternal misery
and that of, I will call it, annihilation for this is its true
meaning. You have revolted at the thought of eternal misery, but your
hypothesis allows you no such liberty. Truth is lovely, and if the
doctrine of eternal punishment, with all the fire and brimstone that
has ever been preached by the most zealous advocates of torment be
truth, your hypothesis compels you to embrace the goddess, and
contemplate eternal misery with the same pleasure that you do
non-existence, or with the same you would everlasting felicity did you
believe in it!
If we would reason well, we must reason from what we know. We know
that man is capable of being miserable, he is capable of great
sufferings; likewise he is capable of being happy, he is capable of
great enjoyments. Now to pretend that he has no choice, that it is as
well for him to be miserable as to be happy, as well for him not to
exist as to exist, is the reverse of reason.
4th. As Jesus, in the instructions which he gave to his disciples,
respecting their conduct towards their enemies, had no design reaching
to the laws of a body politic, but only to the conduct by which the
ministry of the gospel would best succeed in its early beginning,
while it was _necessary_ for it to be persecuted, by which we are now
favoured with its evidences, we may now err in applying those
instructions differently from their primary design. St. Paul, as much
as any of the disciples of Jesus, submitted himself to the directions
of non-resistance, yet he insists on submission to the higher powers,
because they were the ministers of God, even revengers to execute
wrath upon them that do evil.
5th. With a confidence rather unusual, you challenge me to account for
Jesus' not being known by the two disciples while he walked with them
on their way to Emmaus; you bring a comparison, and urge the subject
in a way to signify that you have found something in the scripture
account that "_refutes itself_." You might have considered Mary's case
too as a similar one. She saw Jesus with whom she had had a familiar
acquaintance, but she thought it had been the gardner, and talked with
him without knowing him, until, in the same manner as he used to
address her, he said _Mary_, when in a moment she knew him. So the two
brethren walked on the way with Jesus, and attended to his
conversation, which must have been of considerable length, yet knew
him not until he performed an office at table in which no doubt, he
appeared as he had done many times before, which led them to know him
at once. But I am called on to tell how they could walk and discourse
with him and not know him. Well, sir, do you not understand that your
question is asked on supposition that the miracle of the resurrection
was a fact, and on the supposition that Jesus could appear and
disappear to persons as he pleased? We are informed that when the two
brethren knew him, "he vanished out of their sight." On the
supposition then, that Jesus could appear and disappear at pleasure,
is it at all difficult to allow that he could appear to his
acquaintance as a stranger, if he pleased?
It seems to me, sir, a little unaccountable why you should take hold
of this subject with so much seeming earnestness. Is it possible that
you should suppose that the fate of this particular should have any
power on our general subject? Without the least concern for the
argument in which I am engaged, I might allow that St. Luke was
wrongly informed respecting this particular, but that he wrote it just
as he understood the matter. And what would follow? Would this prove
any thing false on which christianity rests? I am unable to see how it
affects the argument one way or the other. I am not the less inclined
to believe the account, because it does not affect the truth of the
resurrection; and I should think that as this story does not seem at
all necessary in proof of that fact, it would be considered an
evidence that the writer of it was not endeavouring to make a story
for such a purpose. If we read the several accounts of the
resurrection, we shall perceive that the writers probably put down as
many particulars as come into their minds at the time of writing,
without thoughts coming into their minds how the truth of the
resurrection would be proved by the incidents which they wrote. There
is no design of this sort in what they have written that we can see.
They write as if they knew for certainty that Jesus rose from the
dead, and as if the matter was out of all dispute. They discover no
concern for fear the account they were giving would not be believed.
There is not one instance of an attempt to guard the story by clearing
up any difficulty. Would impostors write in this way? It is not
believed that there was ever the instance. Imposture is like a thief
who starts at his own shadow, and discovers guilt by endeavouring to
hide it. But truth having no concern of this sort, discovers
none.--And this is in all respects the apparent character of the four
gospels.
6th. Your criticism on my argument respecting the evidences of the
resurrection I shall now endeavour to show to be incorrect.
You criticise as follows; "The apostles could not have been convinced
of the fact of the resurrection by any evidence short of the fact
itself. 2d. If the fact did exist there is no evidence which can
counterbalance it. _Ergo_, as the apostles were convinced of the
truth, the fact did exist. This is pretty much like saying, if the
fact were _true_ it could not have been false!"
The first member of your criticism supposes that I contend that the
apostles had no evidence of the resurrection but the fact itself. The
second member of your criticism supposes that I contend the fact of
the resurrection could not exist without proving itself to the
apostles in such a way that no evidence could counterbalance it. Now
in both of these you are under a mistake, I never urged the fact of
the resurrection as evidence of itself to the apostles. I never
pretended that they saw him rise. We have no account that any body saw
this act performed. If the apostles had stood by the sepulchre and had
seen the body of Jesus rise up and walk out of the house of death,
then their evidences of his resurrection would have been the fact
itself; but this was not the case, nor did I use any intimations of
this nature. So the first member of your criticism is an error of
yours. 2dly. If Jesus had rose from the dead and ascended into heaven,
and never had given any proofs of this to any one, would the fact of
his having risen be any evidence of itself to any person? It surely
would not. Nor have I suggested any thing which intimates that the
resurrection could not have been true without proving itself to be so
to the apostles. What seems a little remarkable respecting this
subject, is, you profess to care for nothing but simple truth, and yet
you seem to study how to avoid it, as the above criticism seems to
evince. I say _seems_ to evince, for I am not prepared to accuse you
of such a fault--I would charitably believe that you thought your
criticism would hit something or another nearly about right, without
understanding what the amount of it is.
After having laboured, in a lengthy manner, as you acknowledge, to
prove that the evidences which proved to the apostles the truth of the
resurrection could not be counterbalanced, you must reasonably suppose
that I feel a little disappointed that you should condescend to pay no
other attention to my reasoning than the above criticism. If I did not
make my argument clear why should you neglect to point out to me
wherein it was wanting? Why should I not expect to have my errors
corrected, as well as to be called on to correct my brother's? Should
not these kind offices be reciprocal? If you conduct in this way, I
shall certainly grow vain, and boast of doing more for you, than you
do for me.
Having noticed in a brief manner, the several particulars which were
proposed on my first page, I will occupy a few more with some
observations on the evidences which we are favoured with, on which to
build our belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
I have in one or two instances referred you to Paley, who has, with
abilities and learning suited to such a task, brought forward the
authorities on which the credibility of the gospels rests. I have set
down his eleven propositions respecting the scriptures, and I humbly
request you to examine the proof which he has brought to support them.
If he has fairly supported all these propositions, as I humbly
conceive he has, will you show why the scriptures of the New Testament
are not worthy to be credited by us?
I am loath to attempt to present the evidences on which I conceive our
faith rests, because in the first place they are vastly numerous;
2ndly, I do not believe that I am capable of doing that justice to the
subject which it justly claims; and 3dly, Paley has done it by the
assistance of Dr. Lardner's works, to so great an extent, that it
renders unnecessary any attempt of mine.
However, as there seems a particular sort of pleasure in it, I will
here make a little addition to what I quoted in my former
communication, and notice that, following the passage from the epistle
of Barnabas, Paley mentions an epistle written by Clement, bishop of
Rome,[4] another of St. Paul's fellow labourers. "This epistle is
spoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and as
Irenæus 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 Irenæus,
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 Irenæus, 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 Irenæus, who in his youth had seen him. "I can
tell the place," saith Irenænus, "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 Irenæus
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.