CHAPTER XX.LOGICAL RESULTS.

Of these we mention only the following:

First.—Since the proofs of Christ’s Resurrection are incomparably greater than those of any other miracle, and its consequences are beyond conception more glorious, it is the part of wisdom to force the issue upon it. The decisive battle of the world in respect to the miraculous in Christianity is to be fought right here, and all other engagements are mere skirmishes. It is well it is so. Christ’s Resurrection is our Gibraltar. If we cannot hold this position, we cannot hold any. But we do hold it, and with it the whole field of controversy upon the subject. Let any one who doubts or denies the reality of miracles, meet the overwhelming proofs of this the greatest of all miracles. If he cannot do it, he should yield; and it is no dishonor to be vanquished by the truth. If, after examining these proofs, he still imagines that he can overcome them, he is beyond the reach of argument.

Second.—As it is the central fact of Christianity, the keystone in the arch of the Christian Faith, those who reject it have no right to the Christian name. Strauss is so far to be commended that, when by his myths and sophistries he had brought himself to deny the one, he had the manliness not to appropriate the other. And of those of his fellows who still cling to it for its supposed advantages, he sarcastically says: “Reasons they may have, but reason they have none.” Chadwick, Hooykaas, Miln, Savage and others,[1]who talk of their “Church of the Future,” may well follow his example. If they refuse, there is as little sense as piety in a recognition, orquasirecognition, of them as ministers of the Gospel, when at the best they are only popular lecturers to mere social or literary, if not infidel clubs, that choose to be called Churchesor Religious Societies. This no doubt is distasteful to those who are looking for the time when all sects shall fraternize on a common level of skepticism and indifference. But if we have any colors we should stand by them. Fidelity to truth and to the Master requires a separation uncompromising and complete from all who deny Him. It is safe to be as tolerant as Jesus and his Apostles. (See John viii. 21; 2 Corinthians vi. 14, 15; Revelation i. 4, 5; 1 Corinthians xv. 16, 17, 18; 1 John ii. 12, 23; 1 Peter i. 3, 4; 2 Peter ii. 1, 2; Revelation ii. 6; Acts v. 30-33; Acts iv. 11, 12.)

Third.—It authenticates his mission and vindicates his claims to the utmost. By it God affixed the seal of his approval, and evermore declares as by a voice from heaven, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him.”

His teachings are no longer opinions to be accepted or rejected as they meet with our approval, but authoritative and final. They are not the speculations of sages and philosophers, either of olden or recent times, to be weighed in the balance of human reason, but everlasting truth to be received and obeyed without doubting or questioning.

Since Christ’s resurrection is assured, Webster well declared,[2]as every man in the exercise of right reason must, “I hold it my duty to believe, not what I can comprehend or account for, but what my Master teaches me.”

By this, of course, it is not intended that we are not to exercise our reason as to the genuineness of the teachings ascribed to him, or their proper meaning, or, in other words, as to textuality, inspiration, translation, and interpretation. In each of these departments there is and will be ample room for the greatest research, and the ripest scholarship. In respect to all these, is doubtless true now, as when spoken by Robinson, that, “The Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word.”

But when in a teachable spirit, we know what Jesus taught, it is the end of controversy.

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 benocontradiction, 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 thatsuch 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 “oneinspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.”Hewould 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 bebelieved; 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 ofcoincidences 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 isindispensablethatcollusionbe 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 shouldhave 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 isnodiscrepancy 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 loosedin 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.

Sixth.—In our conception of Jesus as our Saviour, we should not separate his death from his resurrection and ascension. If he died for our sins, he rose again for our justification. He is now exalted as a Prince and a Saviour at the right hand of the Father, to give repentance and the remission of sins. United to him by faith, and changed into his image, our resurrection is assured by his, and because he lives we shall live also. As oft as we “eat this bread and drink this cup,” we do show forth his deathtill he come. “Henceforth,” (said[9]the great Apostle) “there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, therighteous judge, shall give to me at that day, and not only to me,but also to all them that leave loved his appearing.” “And[10]the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and he that heareth let him say, Come; and he that is athirst let him come; he that will, let him take the water of Life freely.”

[1]It is one of the marvels of sin and shows the effrontery of Satan, that Hooykaas, who is about as rank an infidel as Strauss himself, should be pastor at Rotterdam, a Doctor of Divinity, and entitle his book, which laboriously excludes everything miraculous or supernatural in relation to Jesus, “The Bible for Learners.” Mr. Chadwick, while admitting that he is not a Christian in the original sense of the word, argues against Strauss (with whom he agrees in sentiment) the right to apply the term to himself, but meaning by it only “a stream of tendency,” “freedom, progress and civilization.” “It may be,” he says, “that some of you conceive that my definition of Christianity does worse than include those who are at pains to prove themselves not Christians. It includes the dangerous classes of society; it includes the men of vice and crime. There is no doubt of it.” (SeeFree Religious Indexfor March 17, 1881, March 24, 1881, and March 31, 1881.) Mr. Miln recentlypreached a sermonupon “The Church of the Future,” from which he said all speculative beliefs as a condition of membership will be excluded, even the belief in a personal Deity. (SeeIndexfor February 23, 1882.) He does not believe in prayer other than communion with himself. (SeeNew York Observerof February 23, 1882.) If Mr. Savage has not yet gone as far, he stops but little short of it.[2]So expressed in a creed drawn up by him in 1807. (SeeCongregationalistof February 15, 1882.) A copy of this creed was read at the centennial anniversary of his birth (January 18, 1882) by the Congregational Church of Salisbury, New Hampshire. He joined this church on profession of faith September 13, 1807, and never removed his connection. (SeeNew Hampshire Journalof January 28, 1882.)[3]See chap. xiii.p. 67,ante.[4]In theNorth American Reviewfor August, 1881, p. 118.[5]Starkie on Evidence, Vol. II., Sec. 10, and note upon Hume.[6]Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists, p. 478.[7]History of God’s Church, by Enoch Pond, D.D., p. 606. And as to Judge Waite’s “many cases of resurrection from the dead, handed down in the ancient mythologies” and by heathen writers, it will be soon enough to notice them whenever there shall be a serious attempt to run a parallel between the evidence in support of them, and that which proves the resurrection of our Lord. And so of the whole swarm of lying wonders, whether found in heathen writers, the Apocryphal Gospels, or exhibited by modern conjurors or spiritualists,—senseless, frivolous, for no worthy object, and, beyond the mystery accompanying them, supported by no reasonableproof. Our Saviour told his disciples “beforehand” that “thereshall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew xxiv. 24.) Paul told Timothy that “the Spirit saith expressly that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisies of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.” (1 Timothy iv. 1, 2.) This will be strange to any modern Sadducee who believes there is “neither angel nor Spirit,” but the Christian will do well to give heed.[8]Within the last thirty years, through the labors of English Wesleyan missionaries, there has been an entire moral renovation of cannibals, once revelling and rioting in every excess of atrocity and bestial shame. Now there are nine thousand churches and thousands of communicants, fourteen thousand schools and nearly fifty thousand scholars: and out of a population of about one hundred and twenty thousand, over one hundred thousand are reckoned as regular attendants at the churches. Cannibalism has been voluntarily abandoned, save by a single tribe, in eighty inhabited islands: idolatry has been abjured, and all traces of it swept away. And to-day a gentle and refined English woman, as Miss Gordon-Cumming in her book, At Home in Fiji, testifies, can travel these islands alone, mingling with the people, rambling through their villages, sleeping in their huts and eating at their tables, with none to molest her or make her afraid. (See Rev. Edward Abbott, inCongregationalistof February 15, 1882.)[9]2 Timothy iv. 8.[10]Revelation xxii. 17.

[2]So expressed in a creed drawn up by him in 1807. (SeeCongregationalistof February 15, 1882.) A copy of this creed was read at the centennial anniversary of his birth (January 18, 1882) by the Congregational Church of Salisbury, New Hampshire. He joined this church on profession of faith September 13, 1807, and never removed his connection. (SeeNew Hampshire Journalof January 28, 1882.)

[3]See chap. xiii.p. 67,ante.

[4]In theNorth American Reviewfor August, 1881, p. 118.

[5]Starkie on Evidence, Vol. II., Sec. 10, and note upon Hume.

[6]Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists, p. 478.

[7]History of God’s Church, by Enoch Pond, D.D., p. 606. And as to Judge Waite’s “many cases of resurrection from the dead, handed down in the ancient mythologies” and by heathen writers, it will be soon enough to notice them whenever there shall be a serious attempt to run a parallel between the evidence in support of them, and that which proves the resurrection of our Lord. And so of the whole swarm of lying wonders, whether found in heathen writers, the Apocryphal Gospels, or exhibited by modern conjurors or spiritualists,—senseless, frivolous, for no worthy object, and, beyond the mystery accompanying them, supported by no reasonableproof. Our Saviour told his disciples “beforehand” that “thereshall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew xxiv. 24.) Paul told Timothy that “the Spirit saith expressly that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisies of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.” (1 Timothy iv. 1, 2.) This will be strange to any modern Sadducee who believes there is “neither angel nor Spirit,” but the Christian will do well to give heed.

[8]Within the last thirty years, through the labors of English Wesleyan missionaries, there has been an entire moral renovation of cannibals, once revelling and rioting in every excess of atrocity and bestial shame. Now there are nine thousand churches and thousands of communicants, fourteen thousand schools and nearly fifty thousand scholars: and out of a population of about one hundred and twenty thousand, over one hundred thousand are reckoned as regular attendants at the churches. Cannibalism has been voluntarily abandoned, save by a single tribe, in eighty inhabited islands: idolatry has been abjured, and all traces of it swept away. And to-day a gentle and refined English woman, as Miss Gordon-Cumming in her book, At Home in Fiji, testifies, can travel these islands alone, mingling with the people, rambling through their villages, sleeping in their huts and eating at their tables, with none to molest her or make her afraid. (See Rev. Edward Abbott, inCongregationalistof February 15, 1882.)

[9]2 Timothy iv. 8.

[10]Revelation xxii. 17.

Back to Index Next