Their honesty being conceded, the only question remaining is, _were they deceived_? Mistake on their part could only have been in one or two things; either that he did not die upon the cross, or else that he was not alive afterward. And here it is important to observe, that the Evangelists do little more than give to some extent the times and circumstances of transactions already declared, in the Epistles, to have occurred. Of course those transactions as they were understood when the Epistles were written, _had_ their times and circumstances. Paul declared what he had “received,”—that Jesus _died_ and was _buried_. The Gospels state the time and the attending circumstances. Paul declared, as he had “received,”—that Christ _rose again the third day_. The Gospels state the circumstances. Paul declared, as he had “received,”—that Jesus after he rose on the third day, was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, after that by about five hundred brethren, after that by James, and then again by all the Apostles. The Gospels and the first chapter of Acts state the circumstances of some, though not of all, of these several appearances. From what we know already from Paul’s Epistles, further information from some source should be expected; and the Evangelists afford that information. We must believe that they state the _circumstances_, as they were understood when Paul wrote his Epistles, and as they were understood when the Resurrection was first proclaimed on the day of Pentecost. As the principal facts, _i. e._ the Resurrection and subsequent visible appearances till the Ascension, were not an afterthought, neither are the _circumstances_ attending them as recorded by the Evangelists, an afterthought. In respect to these circumstances, we can see and know what the Apostles _supposed_ they saw, and heard, and knew. The Evangelists, therefore, by stating circumstances not specified by Paul, enable us to determine more certainly, whether the Apostles were deceived. And what they state of Christ’s predictions of his death and his resurrection, may also help us to determine whether the Apostles were deceived. [1] Strauss’ Life of Jesus, Vol. II., pp. 843-4; Godet’s Com. on St. Luke, A.D. 1881, p. 511. [2] Conybeare and Howson’s Life, etc., of Paul, p. 962. [3] Judge Waite will not admit John’s authorship, and he cites Eusebius cc. 3-39, as having attributed the Apocalypse to John the Presbyter. This may indicate a present “tendency” by skeptical writers to shift their ground. Eusebius, however, only states that there were two, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, and that “it is probable that the second, if it be not allowed that it was the first, saw the Revelation ascribed to John.” Justin Martyr had long before (Dial., c. 81) in express terms given John the Apostle as the author; and such is the general verdict of scholars. [4] Conybeare and Howson, pp. 438, 961, 964. CHAPTER XVI. HIS PREDICTIONS CONCERNING HIMSELF.