First: That at the year A.D. 25, this society had no existence.
Secondly: That in A.D. 40, it was in a state of vigorous growth.
Thirdly: That it was founded by Jesus Christ.
Fourthly: That His crucifixion by the Roman government caused its temporary collapse.
Fifthly: That an event of some kind, which took place shortly after His death, imparted to it a new vitality, which it has never lost to the present hour, and which has caused it to exert a mightier influence on mankind than any other community, whether political or religious, that has ever existed.
The problem, therefore, which history has to solve, is to account for the renewed life, the marvellous progress, the intense vitality of this society, and the mighty influence which it has exerted on the destinies of mankind; originating as it did in the smallest possible beginnings, and in a manner differing from all other existing institutions.
The Christian Church has propounded, from the first commencement of its renewed life, its own solution of this problem. It is: that its founder, after having been crucified, rose again from the dead. This account has this clear and obvious advantage, that if it be true, [pg 374] it sufficiently accounts for all the phenomena whose existence we have to solve. His resurrection was a power adequate to revive the society after its temporary collapse, to impart to it its mighty moral and spiritual energy, and to impress on the original work and teaching of Jesus, a new and peculiar aspect. In short, assuming the Resurrection to have been a fact, it assigns a cause adequate to account for all the phenomena which have been presented by the Church. Here then we have firm ground on which to take our stand; viz., the belief of this society as to its origin, capable of being traced historically to the first hour of its renewed life, and which also, if true, affords a rational account of it.
But further; besides this account which the Church has given of its own origin, there is no rival account of it in existence. As far as historical documents are concerned, there is no other. All others are founded on conjecture.
Our opponents, however, affirm that the alleged fact which the Church asserts to have been the cause of its existence is incredible, because all miracles are impossible. Then, leaving à priori grounds, they also affirm that the evidence to prove the Resurrection to have been an historical fact is insufficient for the purpose.
The Church, however, is clearly in possession of a vantage-ground, from which it is not easy to dislodge her. The cause which she alleges is adequate to account for all the phenomena.