John's testi mony to nature of Gospels differ from the influence exerted by the memories of the mighty dead, who, after all, are but human, whereas in the case of Christ, this stupendous miracle is the great proof of His Divinity. To come back again for a few moments to St. John. He ends his memoirs by telling us, " And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." A clear proof that like the other Evangelists, John has only made a selection from amongst all he knew; and in no sense did he attempt to write all that Jesus said and did. A chief and fertile source of the objections made by the Agnostic and Rationalistic schools against the testimony and value of the New Testament, arises from forgetfulness of this very point. The accounts do not profess to be either chronological or complete. They are but memoirs written for those who already believe, and are in no sense given as a demonstration or a proof of that which they relate. And hence it is, as we have already said, that the events are recorded without comment or exclamation, though they relate strange and wonderful occurrences. They are a mere statement of certain facts, put into writing for the benefit-not of un believers-but of faithful Christians. If the ob jectors would but remember this fact, at least threefourths of their difficulties would vanish. It is objected, "The narratives of the Gospels, Narratives alleged to be instead of being independent and genuine history, built on are constructed upon the lines of supposed Mes- Psalms sianic Psalms". The facts are related by the writers, who have in their minds, what they regard as prophecies made either in the Old Testament, or by Christ Himself, before the events occurred. Looking back they see how the fact and the prophecy correspond, and hence, when they use such terms as, "according to the Scriptures," "as it was foretold" and so forth, they merely state that, whilst relating the fact, they wish to put on record how in their opinion it was the fulfilment of a previous prophecy. Their references and inferences may be wrong, but that does not invalidate the facts themselves. They do not build up these occurrences upon the prophecies but rather the prophecies upon the occurrences. and the Resurrection With one more quotation from the New Testa- "The Acts" ment writings we shall content ourselves. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke again refers to the Resurrection, and to the subsequent appearances of Jesus, "To whom (the Apostles) also He showed Himself alive after His passion, by many infallible Nature of testimony to Resurrec tion proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".1 He would lead us to infer, and there is nothing in the Gospels against it, that Jesus may have been with His Apostles very frequently during these forty days, and have said many things, and given many instructions, that are not set down in writing. And in this very quotation we have again proof of the selective character of the writings composing the New Testament. We have then the testimony of the Gospels, written by eye-witnesses, or by those who were in communication with them, that Jesus appeared five times on Easter Sunday, and subsequently; testimony given at a time when many of the witnesses must have been alive; testimony, which, at that early date, was easy of confutation; and yet, not a single opponent comes forward in this matter of public knowledge seriously to dispute and disprove the fact. Some tried to explain it away, as in the witness of the "sleeping guards," but the attempt is ridiculous and self-confuting. All these witnesses to the Risen Christ are men who had no end to serve, but rather all to lose by their story,-even reputation and friends, home and life itself. Yet unflinchingly they pro 1 Chap. i. 3. claim the Resurrection and before God and man declare it a reality. Can testimony be stronger? And the author of the Acts of the Apostles, who Acts of the Apostles was certainly also the writer of the Gospel according to Luke, corroborates all this when he tells us that Jesus "showed Himself alive after His Passion by many proofs, being seen of them for forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, you have heard from Me."1 And again,2 “But ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and all Judæa and Samaria, and even to the uttermost parts of the earth". But does not this Objection: command not to depart from Jerusalem until the plenitude of the Holy Ghost should be given them, part from make the appearances in Galilee impossible? at all. They are not to leave Jerusalem on their appearances missionary work until after that event. And this impossible command is given, not in Jerusalem, but in Galilee immediately before His Ascension into Heaven. They are to return to the Holy City and there wait for Pentecost. Command not to de Jerusalem Not makes A very plausible argument against the pro 1 Verses 3, 4. 2 Verse 8. K Galilean Why did not Jesus Sanhedrin reply bability of the resurrection has been based upon the fact that Jesus manifested Himself to His friends and not to His enemies. "If," say they, appear to the“ He had appeared before Pilate and the Sanhedrin, He would have convinced them of His Resurrection, and that He was the Master of life and death, and thus have established the truth of Christianity before the world. As it is, the resurrection is a hole and corner thing, only seen by those who were His friends." This is the argument also employed by Celsus centuries ago. We can give our answer in no better terms than those of Newman's the late Cardinal Newman. "This is the question, 'Why did not our Saviour show Himself after His resurrection to all the people? Why only to witnesses chosen before of God?' and this is my answer, 'Because this was the most effectual means of propagating His religion through the world'."1 He goes on to say that if Jesus had made a public exhibition of His resurrection it might have made a passing sensation. "Had our Lord appeared in public, yet few could have touched Him, and certified themselves it was He Himself. Few, comparatively, in a great multitude, could so have seen Him both before and after His death, as to be adequate witnesses of the reality 1 Newman's Parochial and Plain Sermons, Serm. xxiv. (Easter-tide), "Witnesses of the Resurrection," p. 196 ff. |