226 EEV. H. C. M. WATSON 



58 was his Creed in the year 40^ so far as the Resurrection and 

 its proof are concerned. The evidence presented by St. Paul 

 in his first Epistle to the Corinthians was substantially the 

 same as that accepted by St. Paul eighteen years before that 

 letter was written. Another inference may be drawn that the 

 Creed of St. Paul in the year 40 was the Creed of the then 

 Christendom^ — of Apostles, Evangelists^ and believers gene- 

 rally, so that this general conclusion is reached : A large 

 number of persons, — Apostles, Evangelists, and believers 

 generally, including men like Paul, Peter, John, Luke, — be- 

 lieved that they saw Jesus alive subsequent to His crucifixion. 

 They believed that they saw Him, not once or twice, but 

 several times ; not in the gloom of evening, but in the open 

 day; that He talked with them, walked with them, ate and 

 drank with them. Such is the nature of the testimony which 

 affirms the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The natural and 

 only adequate explanation of the testimony, is the Fact of the 

 Resurrection : therefore it is reasonable to bcHeve that Jesus 

 Christ is risen from the dead. 



The Chairman (Eev, A. I. McCaul, M.A.). — I think all will agree 

 that our thanks are due to the author of this paper, and also to Mr. Cadman 

 Jones for the ability with which he has presented the paper to the 

 meeting. As to the paper itself, although a good deal of M'hat it puts 

 before us exists already in other works upon the same subject : and some 

 critics may think that the matter it contains has already been dealt with in 

 a higher form ; yet, to my mind, it is a clear, sensible, and forcible state- 

 ment of the argument in favour of miracles suited to the general reader. 

 We are met with a denial of miracles in so many different classes of society, 

 and the denial assumes so many different forms at the present day, that I 

 think it highly desirable that the subject should be treated frequently from 

 different standpoints. It appears to me that the argument in the paper is 

 both cogent and philosophical, from first to last. To those who believe in 

 the evidence for miracles, and who feel that that evidence is overwhelmingly 

 strong, the attitude of objectors, who altogether deny that there is any 

 evidence for miracles, is almost unaccountable. It seems to me that the 

 argument for miracles is much the same as the argument from design. To 

 those who appreciate the beauty as well as the dignity of design, and who 

 have read something of the way in which the argument for design has been 

 formulated and presented by men of rare ability and skill, both in ancient 

 and modern times, the attitude involved in the denial of that argument 

 seems absolutely inexplicable. It would appear, in point of fact, to involve 



t^an inability to meet them on any common ground, inasmuch as it seems as 



exv 



