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.

His humiliation and sufferings were ended. Not again was he to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified. Those who had wilfully rejected him, would have been no more convinced than before. They had said he cast out devils through the prince of devils. They had plotted to put Lazarus also to death, whom he had raised up before their eyes. They had bribed the soldiers to report that his body had been stolen. They would have proclaimed that he was not dead, or else that his return to life was by the agency of Satan. To return to those who had put every insult upon him, and were ready to renew the attack, could only have been to their swift destruction, and the time for this had not come.

And even if some of them had believed, it would have added nothing to the proof. 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. There would remain every question of credibility, and, in addition, that of personal identity, as to which only those intimately acquainted with him were fully qualified to judge.

The proofs will be found sufficient by those who are disposed to lay aside preconceived adverse opinions, and believe the fact when it is proved.

PROOF IS POSSIBLE.

The event may have occurred. By this is meant that it cannot be said that its occurrence is, in the nature of things, an impossibility.

The existence of the Lord God Almighty, the Jehovah of the Scriptures, may be real, as accepted by the reason and conscience of most men in civilized nations. It may have been within his power to raise his Son, Jesus Christ, from the dead; and there may have been sufficient reasons for the exercise of this power. He may have been able to do this, without violating, or suspending, any law of his universe. The resurrection may have been as conformable to law as the death of the body. The law of gravitation is neither violated nor suspended, but merely overcome, in numberless instances every day, by the introduction of what is, under the circumstances, a greater force; and it may be a universal law that the greater force (other things being equal) shall overcome the less. If it were true that the like had never occurred, it cannot be maintained that God has not in any instance done something which he had not done before, and of which consequently there had been no previous experience. “Men,” says Dr. Taylor,[1] “are continually reaching results which the forces of nature, left to themselves, never could have caused; and if this be so with men, why should we deny to God the possibility of intervening in a similar way, and so producing effects that are not merely supernatural, but superhuman?” And why, we ask, should we deny to him the possibility of doing something which he has not done before; “My Father worketh hitherto,” said Jesus, “and I work.”

“The[2] affirmation of the impossibility of a miracle carries with it the elimination of God out of the universe.” There is no escape from this conclusion; and consequently there are those who admit the possibility[3] of miracles, even while denying that they can be proved.

The event, then, may have occurred. It is a question of evidence.

Again, if Christ did rise from the dead, he would give his disciples sufficient evidence of it. He could give to the bodily senses and perceptive powers which they had as other men have (and which “experience” tells us, may be trusted when they have a fair chance), such proofs of his resurrection that they could believe it, and rationally believe it. This may be said to be almost a truism. To concede that God could, and did, raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and deny that he could, or would, afford evidence of it, if not an utter absurdity, is in the highest degree unreasonable, and we are not trying to convince any but reasonable men. To what end should he perform this miracle, and yet afford no evidence of it? The question right here is not whether we have sufficient evidence for our assurance, but whether his disciples could reasonably be convinced of his resurrection, assuming that it really took place.

Then if they might rationally believe what actually occurred, upon evidence furnished them, those to whom they declared it, and we to whom their testimony has come, may also believe it. If they were not bound to reject the evidence of their own senses, because of previous experience or the want of it, neither were those to whom they preached, nor we ourselves, bound to reject it.

In other words, assuming that Christ did rise from the dead, and assuming that satisfactory proofs of his resurrection were given to his disciples, it is not impossible that sufficient evidence of both of these facts may be accessible to us. To deny this, is to say that Christ must die and rise again, in every age, and in every place, where there are nations or persons, whether few or many, who have not before witnessed such events. Yet to this absurdity must Hume’s famous argument from experience come.

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. Hence we say as the basis of further argument that the resurrection may have occurred; and if it did occur, we undoubtedly have such evidence of it as may be accepted by a reasonable man. Leaving, then, the possible for the probable, in a matter that is but a question of evidence.

WHAT ARE THE PROOFS?

The fact of Christ’s resurrection was proclaimed by his Apostles and disciples from the beginning of their ministry, commencing on the Day of Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion. This fact was, as expressed by Paul, that Christ “died,” and was “buried,” and was “raised on the third day;” and by Luke that “he showed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs,” appearing unto the Apostles whom he had chosen[4], for forty days, “and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God;” and by Peter, “whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death because it was not possible that he should be holden of it:” and “Ye killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

The evidence being conclusive that such was the proclamation, how is it to be accounted for? The obvious explanation is, that the Apostles so preached because they so believed, and because such was the fact, and they had sufficient evidence of it: and this has been accepted by the church these eighteen hundred years.

How do infidels account for the preaching of the Resurrection within fifty days after the crucifixion? Some have claimed that his death was not real, and that he recovered from a swoon. This is disproved by the evidence to which we have referred[4], and, although once held by Paulus and others, has by later skeptical writers been “treated with contempt.”[5] “The whole country-side,” says Strauss,[6] “knew that he was dead.” Roman executioners made sure work. 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.” Conscience and common sense revolt against such a theory, and it shares the fate of the other. It has, says Professor Milligan,[7] “been abandoned by every inquirer to whom a moment’s attention is due.”

The final refuge of most infidel writers, is the theory of visions. By this they mean that the appearances of our Lord were either optical illusions, or mere hallucinations.

Some, like Dr. Hooykaas[8] in Holland, and Judge Waite[8] in this country, claim that the doctrine preached was not that Christ’s body was raised up, but that his spirit came back from Hades, or the place of departed spirits. We have before[9] shown that such a conception is an entire perversion of the language of Paul, as well as of the Evangelists. And Mr. Hooykaas’ argument that we are never told that Jesus rose “from death,” far less “from the grave,” but always “from the dead,” does not agree with the record; and if it did, the inference would be unwarrantable. When the angel said to the woman, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? he is not here but is risen,” they were not looking for him in Hades! Peter, in the passage from which we have quoted, distinguishes between Hades and the grave, for he says, that David, “foreseeing, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up.”

Now, by what evidence is the theory of visions or optical illusions to be tested? By the whole evidence? By suppressing a part, and changing the rest? 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.

Thus some of them assume that there were no appearances at Jerusalem, although the contrary is plain in all the Evangelists. Even Mark, whom Strauss treats as giving the oldest tradition, represents the women as going to the sepulchre. This implies that they were at Jerusalem, if the sepulchre was at Jerusalem. Were they there alone? Mark, in saying that “the disciples left Jesus when he was arrested, and fled,” does not say that they fled from Jerusalem. On the contrary, he, in the same chapter, speaks of Peter as following Jesus afar off, and then denying him. And so in the Fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is said to have been so near to the cross, that Jesus could say unto him “Behold thy mother!” They would not leave Jerusalem till the end of the Feast. This continued one week, the first day and the last being “an holy convocation.” Although they fled at first, they rallied; and they did not leave Jerusalem till they had conformed to the requirements of the law. Mark also, in giving the direction, “Go tell his disciples and Peter,” “He goeth before you into Galilee,” implies that they had not yet gone into Galilee.

They also assume that the Apostles believed because of Mary Magdalene’s faith. This is pure fiction. Peter and John knew that the tomb was empty, before the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Matthew does not mention her statement that she had seen the Lord, nor John the reception which she had. Mark[10] says that they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, “disbelieved;” and Luke[11] (referring to all the women) says that their words “appeared in their sight as idle talk, and they disbelieved them.” There is not the slightest allusion to Mary Magdalene, or to the company of women, in the Acts of the Apostles, or either of the Epistles. How idle, then, is Renan’s boast,[12] that “the glory of the Resurrection belongs to Mary of Magdala.” Indeed it might appear to us that there should have been some reference to her. The explanation, probably, is twofold: 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.

They also assume that the Apostles were in a state of mind conducive to misleading fancies. The reverse of this is true. It must, however, be conceded that the idea of a restoration to life of one who had been dead was not strange to them; for three[15] such instances were recorded in their Scriptures, and they had witnessed three miracles of the kind. But these were in respect to persons who, after they were raised up, lived and died as other men; and they were brought to life by some visible agency, as by a prophet in the name of the Lord, or Jesus by his own word. The resurrection which the disciples came to believe was, on the contrary, to a temporary sojourning with them, and then an ascension before their eyes; and it was accomplished by no visible hand.

And although Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection, they could not understand the one, any more than the other, because they could not conceive how that their Messiah could suffer death at the hands of his enemies. The evidence upon this point is most conclusive; and its scope was admirably put by Gilbert West,[16] four generations ago. “This, therefore, being their settled notion of the Messiah, can we wonder their former faith in him should be extinguished, when they saw him suffering, crucified, and dying, and, instead of saving others, not able to save himself? To prepare them for these events he had indeed most circumstantially foretold[17] his own sufferings, death, and resurrection; but the Apostles themselves assure us that they did not understand those predictions till some time after their accomplishment; and they made this confession at a time when they were as sensible of their former dullness, and undoubtedly as much amazed at it as they now pretend to be who object to it against them; so that their veracity upon this point is not to be questioned.... They had conceived great expectations from the persuasion that he was the Christ of God; but these were all vanished; their promised deliverer, their expected king, was dead and buried, and no one left to call him from the grave as he did Lazarus. With his life, they might presume, ended his power of working miracles; and death, perhaps, was an enemy he could not subdue, since it was apparent he could not escape it, and hence their despair.”

And hence we say, when the third day was ushered in there was no one of all his disciples at the sepulchre to welcome him. Those who loved him most, came but to embalm his body. Mary Magdalene beheld not her risen Saviour, but an empty tomb; and her hurried tidings were not that he is risen, but, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.” When Jesus even speaks to her, she at first supposes him to be the gardener, and says, “If thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” Peter and John beheld no vision, but only “the linen clothes lying, and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but rolled up in a place by itself.” The other women do not see Jesus until after they have found that the sepulchre is empty, and have been told by the angels, “He is risen, even as he said: Come see the place where[18] the Lord lay.” The two disciples, some hours after, had heard, not that he had been seen, but that certain women who were early at the tomb found not his body, and were told by angels that he was alive; and that the absence of the body had been confirmed by those of their company who visited the tomb. And finally, the Apostles, instead of expecting to see him, refused to believe upon the testimony of the women, and were only convinced by the evidence of their own senses.