and whatever he affirmed to be the fundamental features of that gospel, is

backed by a threefold testimony; the testimony of the Lord Himself Who

commissioned Paul, the deliverance by Paul of that message entrusted, and the

confirmation of that message by the Scriptures.  We might have expected that

Paul would elaborate the statement that he delivered that which he had

received, or that he would have assembled the passages from Old Testament

Scripture which were in his mind as proofs, but he passes these by, and

concentrates on the evidence of accredited witnesses, placing the

resurrection of Christ on the same footing as any other historic event, a

plain matter of unassailable fact.  Whatever our views may be on the creeds

of Christendom, we must agree that the insertion of the words 'suffered under

Pontius Pilate' are an evidence of the historic truth of the Gospel record,

for if no such Roman governor existed, or if he was known to exist and it

could be shown that he was not in Jerusalem at the time required, then the

whole case for Christianity would be in jeopardy.  William the Conqueror,

1066, is no more fully attested than is the resurrection of Christ.

The apostle assembles his witnesses as follows; the risen Christ was:

'Seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after

that, He was seen of above

five hundred brethren at once; of whom the

greater part remain unto

this present, but some are fallen asleep.

After that, He was seen of

James; then of all the apostles.  And last

of all He was seen of me' (1

Cor. 15:5-8).

Where and at what time the five hundred saw the risen Christ at once,

is not recorded.  It was evidently well known to his readers.  Macknight

suggests that Matthew 28:10 is the occasion, as it is more than likely a

great number would assemble at the appointed spot in Galilee.  There is no

recorded appearance of the risen Lord to James in the Gospels, and the

apostle would not have been so foolish as to introduce any evidence were it

not easy to verify.  Horne, in his Introduction makes a series of

observations concerning the credibility of the witnesses to the resurrection,

and the statements made by the enemy.

'Consider the terror of the timid disciples and the paucity of their

number.  They knew a Roman guard was placed at the sepulchre ... It was

the time of the full moon ... the sepulchre, too, was just without the

walls of the city, and therefore exposed to continual inspection.

'Is it probable that so many men as composed the guard would all fall

asleep in the open air at once? ... Death was the punishment for

sleeping on guard.  Would not the noise made by removing the stone

awaken them?  Why did not the Sanhedrin put all these soldiers to the

question?  Had they believed that the apostles stole away the body of

Christ, they would certainly have charged them with this gross fraud,

and unless they could have cleared themselves of the crime, would have

punished them for it with, at least, due severity'.

The interested reader should consult Horne's Introduction and weigh over the

evidences and arguments that occupy pages 248-257 in the tenth edition of

that work.

'Collect', says the eloquent Saurin, to whom we are indebted for some

of the preceding observations; 'Collect all these proofs together;

consider them in one point of view, and see how many extravagant

suppositions may be advanced, if the resurrection of our Saviour be