Then if _they_ might rationally believe what actually occurred, upon evidence furnished _them_, those to whom they declared it, and we to whom their testimony has come, may _also_ believe it. If they were not bound to reject the evidence of their own senses, because of previous experience or the want of it, neither were those to whom they preached, nor we ourselves, bound to reject it. In other words, assuming that Christ did rise from the dead, and assuming that satisfactory proofs of his resurrection were given to his disciples, it is not _impossible_ that sufficient evidence of both of these facts may be accessible to us. To deny this, is to say that Christ must die and rise again, in every age, and in every place, where there are nations or persons, whether few or many, who have not before witnessed such events. Yet to this absurdity must Hume’s famous argument from experience come. If Jesus rose from the dead, the fact was susceptible of proof to his disciples. It was susceptible of proof to those who believed it on the testimony of his disciples. It is susceptible of proof to one to whom that testimony is transmitted. Assuming his resurrection to be true, it would be more wonderful than a miracle, if all means of a rational belief in the fact were the exclusive property of his immediate disciples; and their contemporaries and all after them, to the end of time, be compelled in the exercise of right reason to reject it, notwithstanding it is true. Hence we say as the basis of further argument that the resurrection _may_ have occurred; and if it did occur, we undoubtedly have such evidence of it as may be accepted by a reasonable man. Leaving, then, the possible for the probable, in a matter that is but a question of evidence. WHAT ARE THE PROOFS? The fact of Christ’s resurrection was proclaimed by his Apostles and disciples from the beginning of their ministry, commencing on the Day of Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion. This fact was, as expressed by Paul, that Christ “died,” and was “buried,” and was “raised on the third day;” and by Luke that “he showed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs,” appearing unto the Apostles whom he had chosen[4], for forty days, “and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God;” and by Peter, “whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death because it was not possible that he should be holden of it:” and “Ye killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” The evidence being conclusive that such was the proclamation, how is it to be accounted for? The obvious explanation is, that the Apostles so preached because they so believed, and because such was the fact, and they had sufficient evidence of it: and this has been accepted by the church these eighteen hundred years.