We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact when many persons were known to have strong political, sentimental, or mercenary motives for proving the fact alleged, than we should demand when no serious interest would be affected by a decision for or against the fact alleged.
There are millions of men and women known to have strong motives—sentimental, political, or mercenary—for proving the verity of the Resurrection.
On all these counts we are justified in demanding the strongest of evidence for the alleged fact of Christ's resurrection from the dead.
The more abnormal or unusual the occurrence, the weightier should be the evidence of its truth.
If a man told a mixed company that Captain Webb swam the English Channel, he would have a good chance of belief.
The incident happened but a few years ago; it was reported in all the newspapers of the day. It is not in itself an impossible thing for a man to do.
But if the same man told the same audience that five hundred years ago an Irish sailor had swum from Holyhead to New York, his statement would be received with less confidence.
Because five centuries is a long time, there is no credible record of the feat, and we cannot believe any man capable of swimming about four thousand miles.
Let us look once more at the statement made by the believers in the Resurrection.
We are asked to believe that the all-powerful eternal God, the God who created twenty millions of suns, came down to earth, was born of a woman, was crucified, was dead, was laid in a tomb for three days, and then came to life again, and ascended into Heaven.