CONTENTS.

CHAPTER		PAGE
I.	Sources of Evidence	[7]
II.	Admissions and Presumptions	[12]
III.	Papias and Justin Martyr	[14]
IV.	The Memoirs intended by Justin Martyr	[18]
V.	Quotations and Citations	[23]
VI.	Justin’s Use of the Fourth Gospel	[30]
VII.	No others proved	[34]
VIII.	Presumption of Permanency	[43]
IX.	The Memoirs of the Year One Hundred And Eighty	[45]
X.	Ascending the Stream	[50]
XI.	Still ascending the Stream	[57]
XII.	In their proper Repositories	[63]
XIII.	Integrity of the Gospels	[67]
XIV.	The Credibility of the Evangelists	[74]
XV.	The Apocalypse and the Four Epistles	[81]
XVI.	His Predictions concerning Himself	[89]
XVII.	Order of Events	[101]
XVIII.	Sufficiency of the Proofs	[110]
	(False Assumptions.)
XIX.	Sufficiency of the Proofs	[120]
	(Affirmative Evidence.)
XX.	Logical Results	[134]
	Index	[143]

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 these are sound axioms, it should be a matter of indifference who were the witnesses, or what their credibility or means of knowledge, since at the best they were but human, and it is not claimed that they were experts or savans after the modern skeptical school, although they might be expected to know whether one who walked with them, and to whose instructions they listened, and from whom they received their commission, were dead or alive.

It is also a comfortable assumption on their part that no one is a scholar who does not agree with their opinion, and many young men who would not be thought to be behind the times are misled by their confident boasting. “No modern theologian,” says Strauss,[2] “who is also a scholar, now considers any of the four Gospels to be the work of its pretended author, or in fact to be by an Apostle or colleague of an Apostle.” The logic of this is, that if any one does so consider them, he is not a scholar. The same kind of scholarship and habit of thinking that induced this wise conclusion brought him at last to the denial of the existence of a personal God or a future life. His experience is instructive, and shows the inevitable tendency of all reasoning that denies the possibility of a miracle or a divine revelation. Mill’s hard logic cannot well be resisted. “Once admit a God, and the production, by his direct volition, of an effect which in any case owed its origin to his creative will, is no more a purely arbitrary hypothesis to account for the past, but must be reckoned with as a serious possibility.” If, then, a miracle may occur, it may be proved[A] by human testimony, for the very motive or reason for its occurrence, or, at least the principal reason, must be its value as an attestation.

CONTENTS.

THE PROOFS OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION.

CHAPTER I.SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.

CHAPTER I.
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.