V. 50. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

V. 51. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.

V. 52. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

V. 53. And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

But let the same reader turn to the 3rd verse in the Acts, written by the same person (whom we agreed to call Luke,' in the outset), and he finds this new statement:

"To whom also (the apostles) he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining," &c.

ye

Forty days: the old magical number again! When this writer has so far forgotten his former account, one may be spared the trouble of a scrutiny into his other new statements-about the "cloud" that received the ascending Jesus "out of their sight," and the "two men that "stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand gazing up into heaven," &c. Up into heaven! The old childish ideas of substantial heaven above the blue air! A man, too, with 'flesh and bones,' ascending thither: the natural laws again inverted! If this story were written in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, men may have found it easy to believe it there; but in the land where Bacon and Newton, Davy and Watt, have grappled with realities, can a thinking man believe it, in 1850? Before summing up our thoughts on the narratives of the Resurrection and Ascension, the ancient question presents itself-Did Jesus really die on the cross? I shall not delay, however, to review all that has been advanced on the negative side of this question; but shall merely deliver my own persuasion-that Jesus died by crucifixion as recorded, though with some divergencies of statement, by the Four Evangelists, and by the great philosophical historian Tacitus. If there be a single veritable fact in the whole history of Christianity-it is that of the Crucifixion. The divergencies of the Evangelists are slighter, in recording it, than any other important fact; while I, for one, cannot think Tacitus would have given credit to the relation of it, and set it down for an undoubted fact himself, unless there had been undoubted grounds for receiving it.

So far from thinking it needful to surmise that Jesus only 'swooned on the cross,' and so forth-I see no cause to entertain the question at all, seeing that the evidence for his risen life is so exceedingly contradictory. Now let us sum up the imperfections and divergencies in these stories, and then ask ourselves- If a 'fact,' on which our eternal existence is held to depend, can be considered as attested, when related with these strange imperfections and divarications ?

1. No resurrection, no actual rising, is witnessed, or related to have been witnessed.

2. The number of the women who brought the news to the disciples, of the grave being open and empty, is related differently: in Luke it is several women, in Mark three, in Matthew two, in John one.

3. The time at which the women go to the grave is differently related. 4. What and who they saw there is diversely described.

5. The relation in which the disciples are placed, with respect to the first news of the Resurrection, is described very differently in each of the Four Evangelists.

6. In describing Christ's risen appearances, beyond the neighbourhood of

the grave, the Evangelists differ widely: the statement of one-that Christ said he would appear in Galilee, and did appear there, being utterly opposed to the declaration of another-that Christ ordered his disciples not to depart from Jerusalem, and that his risen appearances were confined to that city and the neighbourhood.

7. The summary of the risen appearances, as given by each of the Four Evangelists and by Paul, are different: Matthew and Luke recording two, Mark three, John four, and Paul five.

8. The life of Jesus, after his rising, is such a contradictious and medley picture of the human and superhuman-the natural and supernatural-that men, in an age of science, must reject it as utterly legendary.

9. The place-but, above all, the time at which the Ascension took place (that is to say, at which the risen life on earth of Jesus terminated), is related with such wide divarications-not only between two writers, but in the two writings of one narrator-that the reality of the event is destroyed by the irreconcileableness of the narratives.

No all-important as the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth would have been to us-we cannot believe that it ever took place, while the historians of it tell their tale with divarications, contradictions, and omissions, which would be held fatal to the truth of any relation-on which not even a grain of human interests depended!

But how, then, came such a story ever to have been accredited ?

We will not slur over this question. It behoves us, as earnest men, to be able to give a rational answer to it.

We reject the opinion of Celsus, that the disciples and women were mere practisers, and sought to deceive; and we also spurn the more modern suspicion that the disciples stole Jesu's body, and afterwards fabricated illconstructed stories of his resurrection and after-appearances. Their astonishing change from deep depression and hopelessness, to strong faith and enthusiasm, is not explicable under these unworthy suppositions. Something extraordinarily encouraging-something, in fact, which had convinced them of the resurrection of their master-must have taken place.

What was it? Let us turn to the passage of Paul (1 Corinthians, 15ch.) and using it as a starting-point in this enquiry, see if it will not furnish us with a key to the comprehension of all the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection.

V. 3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

V. 4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

V. 5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

V. 6. 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.

V. 7. After that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

V. 8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul-strong-minded, though highly-imaginative, Paul-here places all the other appearances of the risen Jesus in the saine category with that experienced by himself. Now, what kind of an appearance was that which Paul experienced? Note the several accounts of it, in the Acts:

Chap. 9, v. 3. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

V. 4. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?

V. 5. And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

V. 6. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise; and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

V. 7. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

V. 8. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man : but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

V. 9. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Chap. 22, v. 6. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh to Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about

me.

V. 7. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

V. 8. And I answered, who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

V. 9. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

V. 10. And I said, what shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus ; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

V. 11. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came unto Damascus.

Chap. 26, v. 12. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

V. 13. At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

V. 14. And when we were all fallen to the earth; I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

V. 15. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. V. 16. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will appear unto thee.

V. 17. Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I now send thee.

V. 18. To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

The unmistakeable marks of legend first strike our attention in these accounts. In two of them it is Paul only that falls to the ground, and (according to the second account) 'the men which journeyed with him stood speechless. But in the third account we read, 'And when we were all fallen to the earth!' Again, in the first account, the men who were with Paul are described as 'hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' But in the second account the writer says they heard not the voice!' The simple direction to Paul to arise and go to Damascus is also enlarged, in the last account, to a considerable speech.

But-to our question. What kind of an appearance does Paul experience? Appearance! why, where is there any appearance mentioned? There is the wondrous light, in each of the three accounts; and we are told that a voice is heard-but where is there a word relating that anything was seen? Strange kind of an appearance this, my friends! So far from seeing

anything, Paul appears to have been struck blind with the glory of the light, and to have been led to Damascus in that state. Only, here again the marks of legend puzzle us-for, in the first account, there is evidently a blindness understood; but we speedily read, 'And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened he saw no man.' Then the leading into Damascus is described; and immediately we are told that Paul was 'three days without sight,' although we had just been told that 'his eyes were opened!' But note the words, that when his eyes were opened-he saw no man! Paul was looking about for something, then, pretty eagerly, having seen nothing, as yet-but he saw no man!

And so a mere internal impression is all that we are presented with, in this appearance of Jesus to Paul. Remembering that the same verb, he was seen,' is applied by Paul to the experience of Cephas, of the Twelve, of 500 brethren, of James, of all the Apostles, and of himself-what are we to think of the experience of Cephas, or of James, or of the Twelve, or of the 500 brethren? Paul sees nothing, in our human and natural sense: he merely believes that he sees: and yet he sets down his internal impression in the same list and catalogue with theirs, as if their seeing and his own were of the same nature. If he had not thought so, is it possible that a writer like Paul-so skilled in making subtle distinctions-would have omitted to tell us?

Paul's real case is this: his witnessing of that grand martyrdom of holy Stephen flashes upon his ardent mind new and astounding thoughts: he had held the clothes of the martyr's persecutors while they stoned him; but the sublime conduct of the sufferer would render him aghast with wonder: conviction would begin to work: it would be aided by what he saw of the life and conduct of the other Christians whom he persecuted: and, in spite of his desperate struggle to cling to his old persecuting faith -a time must come in which his prejudices would fall prostrate before the might of his judgment. It did come-but whether amidst thunder and lightning, occurring while he was on his persecuting journey-or how, or when, or where-one would not be bound to say, seeing that legend has evidently laid hold of the pen of the writer of the account.

But if a strong enthusiastic mind, which had opposed Christianity, could, at length, conceive that it witnessed, supernaturally, the risen Christ, who can wonder that the disciples who loved Jesus, and had all along cleaved to him, should overcome their doubts, and rise into similar, or even more striking and seemingly tangible visions? There is no need, therefore, to set down the Evangelical accounts as the production of deceit. Let us abandon that vulgar and most absurd way of talking. We have only here to analyse the workings of the human mind. It is not the testimony of broad history that we have to consider-for Jesus is never recorded to have appeared, after his resurrection, to his enemies-to the crowd-on the open stage of observation. Even the 500 whom Paul (and only Paul) talks of are brethren-followers of Jesus, that is to say. The appearances, then, even on the largest scale, are confined to the enthusiastic-though even some of these 'doubted' on one occasion. The possibility of believers feeling confident that they saw what they longed to see is not so very difficult to conceive.

And that the apostles would long to see their buried master was natural. They loved him; and, whatever be the judgment we form of the miracles generally, there was something so extraordinary about this young man of

Nazareth, that he had impressed his followers with the strong belief that he was the long-promised Messiah. His death gave a shock to this belief; but the earlier and long-cherished impression began to revive, and as it began to revive they would feel the mental necessity of bringing their new notions into consistency with their old: that is to say, they would have to receive into their minds the idea of a Messiah that had to suffer and die. But a Jew of those times fled to his scriptures perpetually: he could have no opinion without deriving it from thence. The 53rd of Isaiah, the 22nd Psalm, &c., where the man of God is represented as afflicted and bowed down to death-they would be seized upon, in his frame of mind, and the idea of a Messiah that was to undergo ignominy, suffering, and death, would transplant the old idea of a Messiah that was to be an earthly conqueror. Luke describes the risen Jesus, that, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself i. e., that Christ ought to have suffered such things." But we must rather take that as the occupation of the disciples themselves, without the tuition of their risen Master, I suspect. And when they had thus adopted the new idea, the ignominiously-executed Jesus was not lost but still remained to them. By his death he had only entered into his glory (Luke, 24 ch., 26 v.), in which he was invisibly with them always, even unto the end of the world (Matth. 28 ch. 20 v.)

"But how could he fail,' continues Strauss, "out of this glory, in which he lived, to give tidings of himself to his followers? and how could they, when their mind was opened to the hidden doctrine of a dying Messiah contained in the scriptures, and when in moments of unwonted inspiration their hearts burned within them (Luke xxiv. 32).-how could they avoid conceiving this to be an influence shed on them by their glorified Christ, an opening of their understanding by him (v. 45), nay, an actual conversing with him? Lastly, how conceivable is it that in individuals, especially women, these impressions were heightened, in a purely subjective manner, into actual vision; that on others, even on whole assemblies, something or other of an objective nature, visible or audible, sometimes perhaps the sight of an unknown person, created the impression of a revelation or appearance of Jesus a height of pious enthusiasm which is wont to appear elsewhere in religious societies, peculiarly oppressed and persecuted. But if the crucified Messiah had truly entered into the highest form of blessed existence, he ought not to have left his body in the grave and if in precisely such Old Testament passages as admitted of a typical relation to the sufferings of the Messiah, there was at the same time expressed the hope thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption (Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27); while in Isa. liii. 10, he who had been represented as led to the slaughter and buried, was yet promised a prolongation of his days what was more natural to the disciples than to reinstate their earlier Jewish ideas, which the death of Jesus had disturbed, namely, that the Christ remaineth for ever (John xii. 34), through the medium of an actual revivication of their dead master, and, as it was a messianic attribute one day to call the dead bodily from the grave, to imagine him also as returning to life in the manner of a resurrection?"

That the original belief among the Apostles was merely that Christ had been raised from the dead in an invisible or spiritual manner is probable, from Peter's words, in his Epistle, where he describes Christ as being "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." But perhaps enough has been said on this point; and we may now advance to the consideration of another question-whether the disciples' persuasion that Jesus was risen was strengthened by the removal of his body, or by their own removal from the immediate locality of his sepulchre ?

(To be concluded in next number.)