The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint

by Charles R. Morrison

Fourth.—A necessary consequence from his Resurrection must be an undoubted assurance that we have the means of knowing what his teachings were, so far as they are essential to our guidance in this life and preparation for that which is to come. The very idea of a revelation is that it shall be so made known, that it can be understood, trusted in, and obeyed, by those to whom it is given, and for whom it is intended, so far at least, as shall be necessary for the regulation of their own conduct.

Beyond this, we cannot claim, as a logical result of Christ’s Resurrection, and do not now inquire. And we find that through all the years since our Lord’s ascension, while the church has had essential truth, and there has been substantial[3] agreement in different copies and versions, there have always been and still are, unsolved questions of genuineness, translation, interpretation, and inspiration. In respect to the last, Ingersoll’s demand[4] that if the writers of the Gospels were inspired there should be but one account, or, if more than one, there should be no contradiction, is unwarrantable; and his own concession proves it. “As a rule,” he says, “where several persons testify to the same transaction, while agreeing in the main points they will disagree upon many minor things, and such disagreement upon minor matters is generally considered as evidence that the witnesses have not agreed among themselves upon the story they should tell. These differences in statement are accounted for from the facts that all did not see alike, and that all did not have the same opportunity for seeing, and that all had not equally good memories. But when we claim that the witnesses were inspired, we admit that he who inspired them did know exactly what occurred, and consequently there should be no contradiction in the minutest detail.” This is very poor logic. For although “He who inspired” did know exactly what occurred, there may have been the best of reasons for not inspiring a full record of all that occurred, or an exact record in all respects of what is recorded; and it must be presumed that such an inspiration would be given as would be most conducive to the end in view. And a like answer disposes of his confident assertion, that “one inspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.” He would have Divine wisdom sacrifice everything else for the sake of uniformity and precise accuracy in incidental and immaterial matters. In other words he would tithe “mint and anise and cummin,” at the expense of “weightier matters.” The Gospels were separately written at different times, according to the needs in the first instance of the particular classes for which they were immediately intended, and ultimately for the wants of the whole world. Each by itself was as complete and accurate as it was best it should be; and the whole taken together are as full and exact, as it is best they should be. And looking beyond the particular classes to whom they were first given, to all generations and peoples, it was of supreme importance that they should be believed; and in order to this, that they should be so written as not to carry suspicion of collusion or fabrication upon their face. Mr. Ingersoll knows that the testimony of four witnesses agreeing in the main points, while differing in minor matters, is more satisfactory than the testimony of one. If there were nothing to be counted but numbers, the evidence would be four times as strong. It is more than four times as strong. For, as Mr. Starkie says,[5] and every lawyer knows, “The credibility of testimony frequently depends upon the exercise of reason, on the effect of coincidences in testimony, which, if collusion be excluded, cannot be accounted for but upon the supposition that the testimony of concurring witnesses is true; so much so that their individual character for veracity is frequently but of secondary importance.” But to have this effect it is indispensable that collusion be excluded. And it is of vastly greater consequence that we be certain that we have (as it is conceded we have) independent accounts of the crucifixion than it is, for instance, that the inscriptions over the cross as given by the four Evangelists should precisely agree, or that either should have been the exact words that were written. In fact, while they all agree that the accusation was “The King of the Jews” (which is all that is material), no two of them agree with each other. But as Professor Greenleaf says, no greater certainty is called for. “The same[6] verbal exactness is not necessary in historians whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public inscriptions.”

If but one account, there would be the absence of that personality and variety, which we now have, and more especially the want of that conclusive proof which comes from independent witnesses.

If the Gospels had been written as Mr. Ingersoll says they should have been if inspired, the objections against them, if not insurmountable, would have been tenfold stronger. And why should not Divine wisdom so inspire as to secure the best possible results? And although two of the writers were Apostles, and to the Apostles was the Holy Spirit given to teach them “all things,” and bring to their remembrance “all things” which Jesus had said unto them (John xiv. 26), this does not necessarily imply an exact transmission of all the words spoken. Regard should be had to the substance of things in this, as in other matters, and not to mere verbal accuracy, except in those rare cases in which it is important to know the precise language used.

It may safely be affirmed that there is no discrepancy in relation to any essential fact, or important doctrine or duty. And it is just this degree of certainty and accuracy, that we should expect from our Lord’s true Messiahship as proved by his Resurrection.

Fifth.—By it, we know that he had power to impart to his Apostles to whom he entrusted the establishment of his church, and to Paul whom he especially selected as an Apostle to the Gentiles, inspiration and the gift of miracles. As the Father sent him into the world, even so he sent them into the world (John xviii. 18); and what things soever they should bind, or loose, on earth, should be bound or loosed in heaven (Luke xxi. 14-16). Miracles were attestations of their Apostleship, “God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.” (Hebrews ii. 4.)

With the writings of John the volume of inspiration was complete. If any miracles were wrought after his time (which is questioned by many[7]), there are none sufficiently authenticated to be of any evidential value to us.

But there is in every true Church, and will be to the end of time, what is of greater importance than the working of miracles, the convicting and transforming power of the Holy Ghost; and any community, by whatever name it may be called, that has not this attestation is not a true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The promise of the Comforter who shall “convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment;” and “Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” are as immutable as the throne of God.

If the Gospel had been only a “civilization,” as Mr. Chadwick terms it, it had never been known outside of Judea. It is because it is the “wisdom of God, and the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,” that it has gained its marvellous victories, overturning Pagan Rome, and in these later days transforming even Madagascar, the Sandwich Islands, and the cannibals[8] of the Fiji Islands into Christian communities.