Charles R. Morrison

“ Evidence which ought to convince a reasonable man should be deemed sufficient.
The standing objection from the days of Celsus, that Jesus should have shown himself after his resurrection to his enemies, is unreasonable. It is as if one should refuse to believe the transfiguration, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, or the agony in the garden, because not witnessed by the multitude, and by only Peter, James, and John of the Apostles. ”

“ 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 death till he come. ”

“ And will any one tell us, right here, what better proof Jesus could have given his disciples, of his Resurrection? If the evidence was sufficient for them, it may be sufficient for us, [122] unless we are prepared to say that the miracle shall be repeated whenever it is challenged! Was it essential to a reasonable conviction on their part that the Scribes and Pharisees should also be convinced? (Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, were convinced.) It must be admitted that the disciples, of all others, were qualified to judge, if any persons could be qualified. ”

“ Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as much credit as Josephus?
In comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should be constantly borne in mind, that omission (except under special circumstances) is not contradiction. The facts of history, like the conclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the transaction deemed to be as shown upon all the evidence. Positive testimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the negative testimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject. ”

“ These things cannot rationally be accounted for unless there is a God, and if there is a God, as all courts of justice everywhere assume, and universal conscience declares, to refuse assent to the conclusion to which they necessarily lead,—the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,—cannot be the exercise of right reason.
Least of all should lawyers, accustomed to weigh evidence, refuse to believe upon the testimony of others. ”

“ Or did these men conspire together, to deceive themselves, the churches, and the world? What name has come down to us from that age, or any other, who was capable of such an undertaking? What forger wrote those discourses of Our Lord with Nicodemus? Or those with the women of Samaria? Or those with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion? Or the parable of the good Shepherd? Or that memorable prayer recorded in the seventeenth of John? That any sane man should attribute either of these to a criminal forger would be incredible, if we were not confronted with the fact. ”

“ Paul is our authority. Neither time, nor place, nor circumstance is given. It is strong confirmation of the genuineness of our writings that there is no disclosure of the particulars of the interview with either Peter, the first of the Apostles, or with James, our Lord’s brother. Jesus doubtless had something to say to each for himself alone, and none of the sacred writers have lifted the veil. ”

“ Our Gospels in Justin’s time were where they should have been, if authentic. The Church was the proper repository for authentic Memoirs of its Founder. Our Gospels were there. They were in their proper repository. And upon every principle that rules in the administration of justice, or in the common affairs of life, it must be presumed that they were rightfully there. Their rejection is not “the judgment of charity.” It reverses the maxim that fraud is not to be presumed. It charges forgery, of which there is no evidence, upon persons whom it finds it impossible to discover and identify. ”

“ In reply Jesus said: “For as the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.... Marvel not at this, for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tomb shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done ill, unto the resurrection of judgment.” (John v. 1 to 29.) ”

“ THE PROOFS OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION. CHAPTER I.
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.
It is a characteristic of all who deny this and all other miracles, that they beg the whole question to begin with. They assume as an axiom that a miracle is impossible, or impossible to be proved by human testimony. Or, to put it more mildly, in the language of one of their number (Renan [1] ) , “neither men of the people nor men of the world are competent to prove it. Great precaution and a long habit of scientific research are requisite.” ”

“ If Jesus rose from the dead, the fact was susceptible of proof to his disciples. It was susceptible of proof to those who believed it on the testimony of his disciples. It is susceptible of proof to one to whom that testimony is transmitted. Assuming his resurrection to be true, it would be more wonderful than a miracle, if all means of a rational belief in the fact were the exclusive property of his immediate disciples; and their contemporaries and all after them, to the end of time, be compelled in the exercise of right reason to reject it, notwithstanding it is true. ”

“ Yet writing this epistle from the church at Rome, to the church at Corinth, he has but a single quotation from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and but a single quotation from Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and no reference to Galatians.
The well-known distinction of everyday application in courts of law and elsewhere, between positive and negative evidence, is to be kept in mind. Whether John’s Gospel would be quoted by any writer acquainted with it, might depend entirely upon his object in writing; and so of Galatians, or any of the books of the New Testament. ”

“ It is utterly incredible that accepted Memoirs of Christ, thus worshipped, should have been thrown aside by presbyters or bishops, and hundreds of churches, throughout the Roman Empire, without a shock that would have left unmistakable evidences of it in history. There being an entire absence of any evidence of displacement [60] and substitution, it is morally certain there was none. John’s Gospel, however, stands upon a different footing, since it came in not to displace, but to supplement. John lived to the close of the first century. ”

“ Judicial fairness requires that the whole be considered, just as it comes to us, reconciling such parts as may be reconciled, and adopting the more probable view in case of any seeming contradictions, if there are any. Yet those who deny the resurrection adopt a course that could not be tolerated in any judge or jury, or secular historian. They suppress, or supply, as best suits their theory. ”

“ The objection that they could not have known that Jesus had said, “After three days I will rise again,” is well answered by Alford: “Not the saying, but its meaning was hid from his disciples.” Judas knew it, and may have informed the chief priests and Pharisees of it; and they may have known it from other sources, for it was not spoken in secret. Nor with their perverse rejection of him while they could not deny his works, is it improbable that they might have some apprehension of the necessity of a guard? We are not to judge them from our standpoint, but from theirs. ”

“ 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.” ”

“ Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance) , and the same is true of the First and Second Gospels. It is no impeachment of their credibility. Every historian makes such use of materials that he deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be traced in our Gospels, or either of them. ”

“ Pilate refused his consent to any removal until he had instituted an inquiry, and knew that Jesus was dead; nor is it possible to accept the hypothesis of a return from mere lethargy or trance, without destroying his moral character. This hypothesis may be put aside.
Others have claimed that the Apostles did not believe what they preached. To accept this view we must conclude that, without motive and against every motive, and “amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh and blood, they persevered in a conspiracy to cheat the world into piety, honesty and benevolence.” ”

“ Thus, all the members of a Christian community, being presumed to entertain the common faith, no man is supposed to disbelieve the existence and moral government of God, until it is shown from his own declarations.” This presumption being founded in reason and experience, is of universal application. It is not conclusive, but stands “until something is shown to rebut it.” It is the basis of Hume’s argument against miracles, but which he misapplies, making it conclusive instead of presumptive evidence. ”

“ In his discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum, concerning the manna, he said to the Jews: “The bread which I give is my flesh (that is, my life) , for the life of the world.... For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.... Many therefore of his disciples when they heard, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can hear it?’ But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, ‘Doth this cause you to stumble? What then if ye behold the Son of man ascending where he was before.’” (John vi. 30 to 63.) ”

“ The present treatise is intended to give what the author has often felt the need of—a compact and thoroughly reliable statement of the principal historical facts to the authenticity and integrity of the New Testament writings concerning our Lord, and the presumptions from them which establish his claims as our Divine Redeemer and Saviour.
The question of his Resurrection from the dead is selected as the pivot, because everything hinges upon it. This question, whichever way it is determined, is decisive. It is a question which greatly concerns every one. ”

“ Such is the testimony of these three witnesses. They agree also, that he warned the disciples not to anticipate worldly glory, but the reverse. Peter, from his conception of the Messiahship, treated Christ’s predictions of his death as but gloomy forebodings, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall never be unto thee.” But he turned and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.” (Matthew xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33.) ”

“ If inspired, inspiration may have been bestowed in such a manner as to leave them subject to some of the limitations of human testimony. If reliable accounts of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection, of our Lord, were to be published to the world, it was of the last importance that they should not carry upon their face the appearance of collusion and contrivance. Let any one who is disturbed by any seeming contradictions or errors, consider for a moment what would be the consequence if they did not exist. ”

“ Emmaus [9] was about eight miles from Jerusalem. The narrative seems to indicate that the event had but just occurred.
The two disciples rehearsed the things that had happened. As they spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of the disciples, and said, “Peace be unto you.” But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. He said unto them, “Why are ye troubled, and wherefore do reasonings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.” ”

“ It was the absence of the body that first arrested the attention of the women, and also of Peter and John, and which, with the orderly arrangement of the grave clothes, induced a conviction of the truth in the mind of John, before Jesus appeared to any, and sent Peter to his home “wondering.” And these same facts (the good faith of the disciples themselves being undoubted) , can never be explained, in any rational way, otherwise than by the fact of the Resurrection. There is a great truth in Professor Keim’s expression [2] that: “It is upon an empty tomb that the Christian Church is founded.” ”

“ Yet none have reached our time other than those which have come to us through all the centuries as authentic writings of those whose names they bear.
By the law of the “survival of the fittest,” all other productions making any pretensions to such a character perished long ago, only fragments of them remain, and our four Gospels are in the churches. There is, therefore, to begin with, the strongest presumption in their favor. “It is,” says Professor Greenleaf, [2] “for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof.” ”

“ Among the Greeks, [13] women were not competent witnesses; and Paul and the Apostles rested their faith upon appearances to Apostles, either alone or in company with others, they being the constituted witnesses. When one was to be substituted for Judas, Peter [14] said that the choice must be made from those “which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us; of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.” And Paul makes no reference to the journey to Emmaus. ”

“ The greatest of miracles, and the central fact of Christianity, appears in the earliest writings (outside of the New Testament) , the date of which can be determined. Judge Waite, in his “wonderful hundred [1] years of silence by Christian writers” concerning the miracles of Christ, is oblivious of what he had before stated, that aside from the Gospels, there are left of the first century “only the Epistles of Paul, the one Epistle of Clement of Rome, some slight notices by Jewish and heathen writers, and the few legends and traditions preserved in the writings of the Fathers.” ”

“ Any one who now refuses to accept the genuineness of the Gospel, or the credibility of the writers, or, accepting both, refuses to believe upon the testimony of his disciples, would not be convinced by any amount of evidence. ”