give the name of any one of them, nor is the testimony of any one
of them preserved, in the Testament or elsewhere.

Now, let us remember how difficult it was to disprove the statements
of the claimant in the Tichborne Case, although the trial took
place in the lifetime of the claimant, and although most of the
witnesses knew the real Roger Tichborne well; and let us also
bear in mind that many critics and scholars dispute the authorship
of Shakespeare's plays, as to which strong contemporary evidence
is forthcoming, and then let us ask ourselves whether we shall
be justified in believing such a marvellous story as this of the
Resurrection upon the evidence of men whose existence cannot be
proved, and in support of whose statements there is not a scrap
of historical evidence of any kind.

Nor is this all. The stories of the Resurrection as told in the
Gospels are full of discrepancies, and are rendered incredible
by the interpolation of miraculous incidents.

Let us begin with Matthew. Did Matthew see Christ crucified?
Did Matthew see Christ's dead body? Did Matthew see Christ quit
the tomb? Did Matthew see Christ in the flesh and alive after
His Resurrection? Did Matthew see Christ ascend into Heaven?
Matthew nowhere says so. Nor is it stated by any other writer
in the Testament that Matthew saw any of these things. No:
Matthew nowhere gives evidence in his own name. Only, in the
Gospel "according to Matthew" it is stated that such things
did happen.

Matthew's account of the Resurrection and the incidents connected