So if we reject the Gospels, with far greater reason must we reject every other ancient history. Julius Cæsar, for instance, is historically far less a certainty than Christ; yet no critic would be rash enough to deny that Cæsar ever lived or to question the historical truth of the things he is said to have done in Italy and Gaul and Britain. And probably, let me whisper it in parenthesis, no one would trouble to deny the genuineness of the Gospels, did they not impose upon mankind a moral law that was too irksome for human nature.
Add to this the undoubted fact that the Gospels were written shortly after the events which they record, and by men who had been eye-witnesses of them, as in the case of Matthew and John, or who had them from actual eye-witnesses, as did Mark and Luke.
Then, once they were written, the Christians themselves were the best guarantee that the original records would not be tampered with or altered. It is unthinkable that men who loved and revered the Sacred Writings as did the early Christians, would have allowed any alteration to be made—and, at least, the drastic alterations which our critics suppose.
These critics tell us that miracles are impossible, Therefore Christ did not rise from the dead. And therefore the Gospel account of the Resurrection must be false, and so on. With equal force I might say that Shakespeare never wrote Hamlet, because The Adamant Commissar
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.