THE NEW TESTAMENT THE RESURRECTION VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE IN LAW Christianity as a religion must, I am told, stand or fall with the claims that Christ was divine, and that He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Archdeacon Wilson, in a sermon at Rochdale, described the divinity and Resurrection of Christ as "the central doctrines of Christianity." The question we have to consider here is the question of whether these central doctrines are true. Christians are fond of saying that the Resurrection is one of the best attested facts in history. I hold that the evidence for the Resurrection would not be listened to in a court of law, and is quite inadmissible in a court of cool and impartial reason. First of all, then, what is the fact which this evidence is supposed to prove? The fact alleged is a most marvellous miracle, and one upon which a religion professed by some hundreds of millions of human beings is founded. The fact alleged is that nearly two thousand years ago God came into the world as a man, that He was known as Jesus of Nazareth, that He was crucified, died upon the cross, was laid in a tomb, and on the third day came to life again, left His tomb, and subsequently ascended into Heaven. The fact alleged, then, is miraculous and important, and the evidence in proof of such a fact should be overwhelmingly strong. We should demand stronger evidence in support of a thing alleged to have happened a thousand years ago than we should demand in support of a fact alleged to have happened yesterday. The Resurrection is alleged to have happened eighteen centuries ago. We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact which was outside human experience than we should demand in support of a fact common to human experience. The incarnation of a God in human form, the resurrection of a man or a God from the dead, are facts outside human experience. We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact when the establishment of that fact was of great importance to millions of men and women, than we should demand when the truth or falsity of the alleged fact mattered very little to anybody. The alleged fact of the Resurrection is of immense importance to hundreds of millions of people. 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.