of evidence which we accept in regard to all other matters of fact.

With regard to the sufficiency of the specific evidence here, I wish
to make only one or two observations.

Suppose you yield up everything that the most craving and
unreasonable modern scepticism can demand as to the date and
authorship of these tracts that make the New Testament, we have still
left four letters of the Apostle Paul, which no one has ever denied,
which the very extremest professors of the 'higher criticism'
themselves accept. These four are the Epistles to the Romans, the
first and second to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians. The
dates which are assigned to these four letters by any one, believer
or unbeliever, bring them within five-and-twenty years of the alleged
date of Christ's resurrection.

Then what do we find in these undeniably and admittedly genuine
letters, written a quarter of a century after the supposed fact? We
find in all of them reference to it--the distinct allegation of it.
We find in one of them that the Apostle states it as being the
substance of his preaching and of his brethren's preaching, that
'Christ died and rose again according to the Scriptures,' and that He
was seen by individuals, by multitudes, by a whole five hundred, the
greater portion of whom were living and available as witnesses when
he wrote.

And we find that side by side with this statement, there is the
reference to his own vision of the risen Saviour, which carries us up
within ten years of the alleged fact. So, then, by the evidence of
admittedly genuine documents, which are dealing with a state of