Jesus appeared to the disciples when they assembled at Jerusalem. "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side."[230:1] They were satisfied, and no doubts were expressed. But Thomas was not present, and when he was told by the brethren that Jesus had appeared to them, he refused to believe; nor would he, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."[230:2] Now, if Thomas could be convinced, with all _his_ doubts, it would be foolish after _that_ to deny that Jesus was not in the _body_ when he appeared to his disciples. After eight days Jesus again appears, for no other purpose--as it would seem--but to convince the doubting disciple Thomas. Then said he to Thomas: "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing."[230:3] This convinced Thomas, and he exclaimed: "My Lord and my God." After _this evidence_, if there were still unbelievers, they were even more skeptical than Thomas himself. We should be at a loss to understand _why the writers of the first three Gospels entirely omitted the story of Thomas_, if we were not aware that when the "_John_" narrator wrote the state of the public mind was such that proof of the most unquestionable character was demanded that Christ Jesus had risen in the body. The "_John_" narrator selected a person who claimed he was hard to convince, and if the evidence was such as to satisfy _him_, it ought to satisfy the balance of the world.[230:4] The first that we knew of the fourth Gospel--attributed to _John_--is from the writings of _Irenæus_ (A. D. 177-202), and the evidence is that _he is the author of it_.[230:5] That controversies were rife in his day concerning the resurrection of Jesus, is very evident from other sources. We find that at this time the resurrection of the dead (according to the accounts of the Christian forgers) was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle was frequently performed on necessary occasions by great fasting and the joint supplication of the church of the place, and that the persons thus restored by their prayers had lived afterwards among them many years. At such a period, when faith could boast of so many wonderful victories over death, it seems difficult to account for the skepticism of those philosophers, who still rejected and derided the doctrine of the resurrection. A noble Grecian had rested on this important ground the whole controversy, and promised Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, _that if he could be gratified by the sight of a single person who had been actually raised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Christian religion_.