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 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