Opening the text

A Series of Letters, in Defence of Divine Revelation: In Reply to Rev. Abner Kneeland's Serious Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Same. To Which is Added, a Religious Correspondence, Between the Rev. Hosea Ballou, and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Buckminster and Rev. Joseph Walton, Pastors of Congregational Churches in Portsmouth, N. H.Ballou, Hosea

Religion

A Series of Letters, in Defence of Divine Revelation: In Reply to Rev. Abner Kneeland's Serious Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Same. To Which is Added, a Religious Correspondence, Between the Rev. Hosea Ballou, and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Buckminster and Rev. Joseph Walton, Pastors of Congregational Churches in Portsmouth, N. H.

Name: A Series of Letters, in Defence of Divine Revelation: In Reply to Rev. Abner Kneeland's Serious Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Same. To Which is Added, a Religious Correspondence, Between the Rev. Hosea Ballou, and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Buckminster and Rev. Joseph Walton, Pastors of Congregational Churches in Portsmouth, N. H.
Author: Ballou, Hosea

Ballou, Hosea

Revelation; Universalism -- Doctrines

It should be kept in mind, that the writings of the evangelists are
guarded by the early attacks of the enemies of christianity, who ever
treated them as being, what they pretended to be, a faithful history
of the origin of the religion they inculcated; and also by the
opposition of the early sects who arose from the church, who would
have demolished their foundations if they had been spurious.

4th. The argument you rest on the supposition that the apostles did,
in reality, believe in the resurrection of Jesus, when in fact the
thing was not true, may now be noticed.--As you would naturally
expect, I shall by no means allow either your premises or conclusions.

1st. Why should I allow your premises? You have brought no argument,
nor attempted to bring any to disprove what I contended for, viz. that
the apostles could not have been persuaded to believe the resurrection
with any evidence short of that recorded in the evangelists. "Here,"
you say "lies the mistake if there be any;" and to this I agree. Where
then is your argument against mine, on which so much depends? You have
attempted to bring none. But you say: "only suppose the resurrection
to have been actually believed, by any evidence, or circumstance
whatever, no matter what." What argument is there sir, in this "_only
suppose_?" I contend the thing is not supposable. It was as true in
that age of the world, that a fact naturally incredible requires
indubitable evidence to substantiate it, as it is now. I would allow
that it is supposable, that one man might, in a sort of a delirium,
which generally throws the brain into a situation, by which, what only
exists in the mind, appears a reality to the sense of sight, might
think he saw Jesus after his crucifixion, when in fact he did not. But
I cannot allow it to be a supposable case that the whole eleven
apostles should all become delirious at once and with them a number
more, and all be persuaded against the prejudices of their minds, that
they saw Jesus, and that at a number of times, and in diverse manners,
when there was no such thing. But:

Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.