Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 86

The Resurrection of Christ: a lecture ... on Sunday, the 10th October, 1880

page break

The Resurrection of Christ,

A Lecture

Woodifield, Jolly & Co, General Printers Dunedin: Octagon

1880
page break

The Resurrection of Christ.

I Have chosen for the subject of my address "The Resurrection of Christ" In opening the session of our Association I spoke of the Inspiration of the Bible, and to the address I then delivered there were several replies. In one it was said that whether the Bible was inspired or not, whether every word was infallibly true or not, did not affect Christianity. That the keystone of that system was the Resurrection of Christ. Grant it was said that Christ rose from the dead and Christianity was divine. I do not think that even were this granted, Christianity could be proved to be divine. To-night, however, I propose to examine—(1) The Evidences of the Resurrection—the Bodily Resurrection; (2) What the Resurrection, if true, could prove.

In everything we do, we act on certain assumptions. For example, we all believe the sun will set and rise again; that there will be summer and winter; cold and heat. We all believe that men cannot fly in the air; that heavy bodies, if dropped from the top of a house, will fall to the ground; that all men will die. These and many other things are taken for granted. We do not require to prove them. Why is this? Is it not that we are guided by the recorded experiences of humanity? Underneath all our belief rests this—that nature is uniform. Granted like circumstances in all respects, and like results will follow. Oats will not grow in the best of soils if wheat be sown, nor potatoes come from turnip seed. Nature is uniform. Then, again, in our daily life we act on another supposition. That the existence of rare things—the happening of unusual eventsrequires greater proof before we believe in the existence of these things, or in the happening of these events, than is required for the belief in common occurrences. If a person tells us he has seen a stone on the top of a hill, we do not doubt it. If he tells us that he found gold there, we might not question it, as we live in an auriferous country. But if he told us he found a steamer on the top of a hill, we would not believe him. Nay, if he told us that he had found some diamonds there, we would at once ask him what lapidary has tested them. Again, if he said he saw a bird flying, we would express no surprise, but if ho told us he had seen a cow going through the air, without the aid of anything, we would be page 3 inclined to ask the police to proceed against him under the lunacy statute, so that he might be examined by two doctors, to see if he was fit to look after himself and his affairs. Again, I ask, why is this? Is it not that we believe in the uniformity of nature, and that we do not believe in the happening of things that contradict all prior experience. If, then, the universal experience was that once a man died his body became dust, we would require most strong most clear, most satisfactory evidence to overturn all prior experience. For what must the evidence do? It must show that not only something unusual happened, but it must contradict all prior observed phenomena as to the death of men. If, then, the Resurrection of Christ was unique, if it was an event that never had happened before, and the like had never happened since, what kind of evidence should we require? Would we not require the careful statements of known people of probity? Would the statement of one person be enough? Would even two suffice? Suppose you were told on the testimony of four people whom you know, whom you could cross-examine, that a man had flown through the air without any adventitous aid, what would you say? Would you not conclude that it was more likely they had been deceived, than that such a thing had occurred? And if the witnesses did not leave any statements themselves; if, moreover, they lived in an age when belief in the impossible was widespread; in an age when—to keep to the subject I am dealing with—resurrections from the dead were not rare, would you not infer that they were deceived, rather than that such an event had occurred? Which is the more probable? Tested by probability, it will be admitted that it is more likely that the believers in the Resurrection were deceived, than that all the previous experience of the world has to be overturned. Indeed, the position of Home on miracles—a position which, as Mill said, could not be refuted—was this :—

"A miracle," he said "is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more probable that all men must die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle,' to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle, that a man seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to Happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be an uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as an page 4 uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but as an opposite proof which is superior. The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the: testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish, and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after deducting the inferior.' When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have happened, I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

Now what are the evidences of the Resurrection? The Resurrection is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Acts of the Apostles detail the ascension, and what St. Paul says of seeing Jesus I shall also refer to. Taking the four gospels, the first question that will arise is, Are they the productions of the men whoses name they bear? This opens up a wide question, and it would require more time than I can devote to the subject to state to you the results of the recent criticism. In an article in the "Encyclopædia Britannica," Dr. Abbott states the position very fairly, and from it I may briefly summarise what fearless critics, and yet Christian ministers, say about the gospels :—

First, "That Matthew and Luke's Gospels are later than Mark's—that Mark's was written first. That Mark, however, borrowed from documents or books containing sayings and doings of Christ, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from the same books. That Luke wrote his Gospel certainly after 70, and probably in 80, and Matthew and Mark wrote their's before the fall of Jerusalem. That one proof of Mark's Gospel being the earliest is that he omits accounts of manifestations of Christ after the Resurrection, and has less of the supernatural element introduced than any of the other Gospels. As for the fourth Gospel, it is exceeding unlikely that John wrote it, and it was later than Luke's."

As to its accuracy, Dr. Abbott says :—" If the fourth Gospel is historically accurate, then (on the supposition of the identity of these two narratives) the three synoptic Gospels are historically inaccurate. But if the synoptic narrative is historically accurate, the narrative of the fourth Gospel must be considered rather a new dramatic version than an independent historical account."

page 5

In another part of his article it is pointed out that it was not till the end of the second century that John's Gospel was authoritatively quoted as the work of John.

Other critics go much further than Dr. Abbott, the author of "Supernatural Religion," says ("Supernatural Religion," p. 246 Vol II.) :—" We may now briefly sum up the results of our examination of the evidence for the synoptic Gospels. After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels, with the exception of the third, during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus, Only once during the whole of that period do we find even a tradition that any of our Evangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that tradition, so far from favouring our synoptics is fatal to the claims of the first and second." This refers to the tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. (See "Campbell on the Gospels," p. 3. Campbell was Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen.)

As to the fourth Gospel, the same author says, (Supernatural Religion, p. 476, Vol. II.) :—

"We have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of evidence during a century and a half after the events recorded in the fourth Gospel that it was composed by the son of Zebedee, there is, on the contrary, the strongest reason for believing that he did not write it."

At the very threshold of this enquiry, therefore, we are met with this difficulty—that the authors of the Gospels, the four witnesses that are called are unknown—that what any of them wrote we do not know, for who wrote the Gospels is more matter of conjecture than of absolute proof. Can then a reasonable man believe everything extraordinary on such testimony? Can the evidence of the Gospels be weighed against the concurrent testimony of all the ages?

But let this be waived. Let us assume—a great assumption—that the Gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear. We must remember that from the orthodox standpoint the Gospels are believed to have been dictated by the Deity. We would therefore expect to find in them a greater harmony than would be found in the writings of men who had not had such guidance. If, however, we find that not only the accounts disagree, but that they are irreconcileable what are we to conclude? Suppose you were a juryman called on to decide a case on the evidence, and four witnesses were called to prove to you any ordinary occurrence, nothing violating the uniformity of nature, what would you require? Would you not expect that in the main parts of the story there Would be agreement? For example, let the question be that a certain man cut down a tree on his neighbour's land; there are four witnesses called; one says the tree was cut down in the morning, another that it was in the afternoon, one when it was dark, page 6 and another when the sun was shining. Then one said there was one person present, another that more than one were present; in fact, that no two of them agreed in detailing the occurrence—would you not conclude that their testimony was not reliable? If this would happen about no unusual occurrence, what shall be said when the subject of enquiry is one that contradicts past experience? I am afraid that many people read and re-read the accounts given in the Gospels, of Christ's Resurrection, and fail to see wherein they disagree. Let me bring before you some of their points of divergence, and let me here state that I assume Christ died. Had I time I might show that if the Gospel narratives are accepted as true this is not clearly proved. Let this point however also be waived.

If we take the time when the visit to the Sepulchre was paid, and the discovery that Jesus's body was not there, we find a great difference.

Matthew says—In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week.

Now the end of the Jewish Sabbath was Saturday afternoon—at any rate sometime between 12 noon and 6 in the evening.

Mark says—And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary, etc., had bought spices to anoint him.

In Luke the women are said to have got spices before the Sabbath. This does not contradict Mark. The probability is, there-fore, the spices were obtained on what we would term the Friday.

Mark then continues—" And very early on the first day of the week they came unto the Sepulchre at the rising of the sun."

Mark then makes the visit on Sunday morning at sunrise.

Luke says—Now upon the first day of the week very early in the morning they came unto the Sepulchre.

Luke and Mark agree.

John says—The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene when it was yet dark.

Here, then, about the time of the visit there are three accounts—which one is to be believed?

Then take the names of those who went to the Sepulchre, they whose testimony we are to believe—for the writers of the Gospel are not stating what they themselves saw—save John, perhaps.

Matthew says—Two women—Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

Mark says—Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome (three women).

Luke says it was—Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and the other women—(several women).

John says it was Mary Magdalene alone—(one woman). page 7 There is, therefore, no agreement as to who went to the Sepulchre. Let us take what they saw :—

Matthew says—There was a great earthquake, and the women coming to the Sepulchre saw an angel from Heaven come and roll back the stone from the door of the Sepulchre and sit on it—and that his countenance was like lightning, his raiment white as snow, and he struck such terror into the keepers that they were rendered insensible, they became as dead men.

Mark, Luke, and John all agree that the stone had been rolled away when the women came to the Sepulchre, and none of them mention an earthquake, or the terror of the keepers.

Matthew says—The women saw the angel sitting on the stone at the door of the Sepulchre, and this angel spoke to the two women.

Mark says—The women saw nobody outside the Sepulchre—but inside the Sepulchre they saw not an angel, but a young man draped in a long white garment Sitting on the right side of the Sepulchre.

Luke says—The women saw nobody outside and when they went inside they saw no one, and they were much perplexed. In the midst of their perplexity Two Men stood by them in shining garments.

John says—Mary saw nothing on her first visit, but simply that the stone was taken away.

Here, then, you have four accounts all differing as to what the women saw, when they went to the Sepulchre.

Matthew's account—One angel sitting on the stone.

Mark's—A young man was sitting inside.

Luke's—Two men standing inside.

John's—No one out or in—on the first visit, on the second Two Angels inside, but in different positions from the two men mentioned in Luke.

Let us see what the writers of the Gospel say the women heard :—

Matthew says—The angel spoke to the women, saying : Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus which is crucified. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there ye shall see him; lo I have told you.

Mark-The young man said : Be not affrighted, ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified, he is risen; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there ye shall see him, as he said unto you.

Luke—The two men in shining garments said: Why page 8 seek ye the living amongst the dead? He is not here, he is risen; remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying : The Son of Man must be delivered in to the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

John says—That before Mary Magdalene went to the Apostles nothing was seen or heard, but on her second visit to the Sepulchre she looked in and saw two angels in white, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. The conversation that took place was only this : The angels say—Woman why weepest thou?

She said unto them—Because they have taken away my Lord.

So far, then, as to what took place between the women and the persons they saw at the Sepulchre there is no agreement.

In Matthew and Mark the one angel, and the young man tell the women that Christ has gone to Galilee, and that the disciples will see him there. Luke's only reference to Galilee is that of a prophecy having been made there, and in John no such conversation takes place, but on the contrary, John goes on to state that Mary turned round and saw a man that she believed to be the gardener, but who when he said "Mary" she recognised to be Jesus.

Taking the next part of the narrative, what did the women do?

Matthew says—They departed quickly with fear and great joy, and did run to bring the disciples word.

Mark says—They went out quickly and fled from the Sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed, neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid.

Luke says—They returned from the Sepulchre and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.

John says—Mary Magdalene ran and came to Peter and John, and told them that Jesus had been removed from the Sepulchre.

Here, then, there is disagreement. Mathew and Luke agree in saying the women at once told the disciples. Mark says the women told no one, and John states that only Peter and John were told.

What next occurred?

Matthew says—That on the road from the Sepulchre the women saw Jesus and worshipped him, and that he told them to tell the disciples to go into Galilee, and that the disciples "went away unto Galilee, unto a mountain where Jesus had appointed them," and when they saw him they worshipped him; but some doubted.

Mark says—That after the women had fled from the Sepulchre Jesus appeared to one of them, to Mary page 9 Magdalene, but when she told this to the disciples they did not believe her. Then that he appeared to two disciples when they were walking into the country, and also to the eleven as they sat at meat in Jerusalem, and that as soon as he had finished speaking to the disciples he was received into heaven and sat on the right hand of God.

Luke states that on the report being brought to the disciples, Peter ran to the Sepulchre, and saw nothing save the linen clothes. Two disciples going to Emmaus were overtaken by a man whom they did not recognise, and after eating with him he vanished out of their sight. This they believed to be Jesus, and returning to Jerusalem to tell the eleven, Jesus appeared to the eleven in Jerusalem, and that he led them out to Bethany, and was then carried up to Heaven, and never seen again.

John says that Peter and himself went to the Sepulchre. John arrived first, looked in, saw the linen clothes lying, but did not enter. Peter went in, saw the linen clothes wrapped in a bundle. John then went in, and they both returned, seeing neither man nor angel. Mary Magdalene then looked in, saw the angels, and after conversation with them turned round, saw a man that she thought was the gardener, but on his saying Mary she called him Master. That on the same day, when the disciples were assembled together, Jesus came in their midst, how it is not said. The doors were shut, and if he was clothed in his earthly body, then he came through the shut door. Then, that eight days after this, Jesus appeared to the disciples again. A third time he is seen at the Sea of Tiberias by Peter, Thomas, and some others. Nothing is said of the ascension.

In fact, in no detail is there any agreement as to what happened after the apostles were told of the Resurrection. One thing more I must note. I have shown that, according to Matthew, the women were present when the stone was rolled away. The angel was seen coming from Heaven, rolling away the stone, and sitting on it. How comes it that; if Christ rose with his body, that it is not stated, either in Matthew or in any of the Gospels, that anyone saw him walk out of the tomb? There does not seem to have been any eye-witnesses of the actual Resurrection. The angel invites the women to enter the Sepulchre, not to see Jesus, hut to behold an empty tomb. But there are still further disagreements. According to Luke, Jesus ascends to Heaven from Bethany on the day of his resurrection. According to Mark he ascends on the same day from Jerusalem. According to Matthew he meets his disciples once only, and that is on a mountain in Galilee. According to John there is no ascension, but he meets them thrice—twice in Jerusalem and once at the Sea of Tiberias.

If we put the appearances in a tabulated form we have, according to Matthew, two appearances— page 10
1.To the women;
2.TO the Eleven in Galilee.
According to mark, three—
1.To Mary Magdalene;
2.TO the two disciples;
3.To the disciples; at meat;
According to Luke, three—
1.To Cleopas and his companion;
2.To Peter;
3.To the Eleven and others.
According to john—
1.To Mary Magdalene;
2.To the disciples without Thomes;
3.To the disciples Thomes;
4.To several disciples on the Tiberias Lake.

And if we refer to Acts, we find yet another account—quite a different one too—of what occurred after this visit to the Sepulchre. The writer of Acts says he was seen alive forty days, and then that, at the end of that period, the ascension took place. I ask every unbiassed person if he can believe any story on such testimony as this? But that is not all. None of the writers of the Gospels says plainly—I saw Christ after his crucifixion. No doubt it may be inferred that some of the writers were amongst the disciples when it is said Christ appeared to the disciples, but none of them say they saw Christ. I have said the writers of the Gospels do not say they write from actual personal observation. They report what others saw, and hence what they had been told. Is it not surprising that the witness who seems to have been most favoured with the appearances—to whom Christ first appeared and oftenest—was Mary Magdalene? a lady that had been deranged, or to use the unscientific language of Mark, who had been possessed of seven devils. Now-a-days, if a person who has been of unsound mind says he saw a vision—that a person reported to be dead, believed to be dead, appeared to him and spoke to him—he would be at once placed in a lunatic asylum. If you peruse the certificates granted by doctors, and filed in our asylum here, you will find that delusional insanity is very prevalent, and that if any person, apparently otherwise sane, says he saw a vision, or spoke with a dead man, that is sufficient ground to warrant the doctors certifying he was insane. The account given in the Acts directly contradicts that mentioned in all the Gospels. I have read many works in which the attempt has been made to reconcile the Gospels and the Acts. I ask you to read the Gospel narratives, and then the attempts at reconciling them that have been made, and you will be compelled to say that the narratives are so conflicting that you could not credit the happening of even a common occurrence on such testimony. Can it be believed that four or five historians, pretending to give an honest account of the same story, nay, being inspired by page 11 Deity, and thus guided in writing their narratives, could thus differ in their accounts? Nay, more, could anyone imagine that if the ascension had been known to the disciples, neither Matthew nor John mention it, and that Mark says it occurred from Jerusalem and Luke from Bethany. As to St. Paul's testimony. So far as the account of his conversion, given in the Acts, is concerned, it cannot be said that there is any evidence of Christ's Resurrection. Paul believed he saw Christ. He had what we would term a vision. The persons who were with him on his journey did not see what Paul saw. Paul's vision was subjective, not objective, and therefore, so far as Paul's testimony is concerned, there is no proof of Christ's Resurrection. Paul's own account appears in the First Epistle of Corinthians, and it differs from that of all the Evangelists, and from that recorded in the Acts. According to Paul Christ rose on the third day, he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, then by 500 brethren at once, then by James, then by all the apostles, and, lastly, by St. Paul. You will observe in this account not one word of the appearances to the women or to Mary Magdalene, no mention of the talk with the two disciples. And, then, who were the twelve? Judas was surely not amongst the disciples at the time of this Resurrection. Judas, according to Matthew, hanged himself before Christ was crucified. Had he been also raised from the dead, or what? The appearances to James and to the five hundred are new, and as to the appearance to Paul, this cannot have been prior to the ascension. Instead, therefore, of Paul's narrative strengthening the stories as told in the Gospels, it weakens them. How comes it that none of the writers of the Gospels recorded the appearance to James nor to the five hundred? Why this silence if they knew of these appearances? James does not mention it, nor any of the apostles. Peter states the fact of the Resurrection generally. Nor need I stop to point out that, in Paul's opinion, all the appearances are alike. The subjective appearance that he thought he witnessed is not differently described from that which he says the five hundred saw.

And here I might leave the inconsistencies, the discrepancies, the irreconcileable differences that the various stories show without further remark. It is, however, of some importance in viewing a history, to remember the age in which it was written. The historian may have been a man unconsciously biassed by the spirit of the times in Which he lived. For example, if we find him recording an occurrence which seems rare, if not improbable, we may well ask what Were the beliefs of the time. If we read of able judges in the reign of the Tudors or the Stuarts, stating their belief in witches, we express no very great surprise, because we know that in these times a belief in witchcraft was almost universal. Nor do we feel surprised that in the olden days wise men believed the earth was flat, The wise even were not in advance of their time. Was then a Resurrection from the dead rare? Let us remember that Christ's page 12 was not the only Resurrection from the dead recorded. Matthew says :—

"The graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his Resurrrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Surely this was a most wonderful thing;—quite as wonderful as Christ's Resurrection. Persons who had been dead for some time got out of their graves and went to Jerusalem. What became of them afterwards is not stated. Did they die a second time? How long did they survive—or did they go to heaven? But Resurrections from the dead were not confined even to these.

Luke records the Resurrection from the dead of the son of the widow of Nain, and of the daughter of a Ruler of the Synagogue—of Jairus. John records how Lazarus was raised from the dead. Mark records only the Resurrection of Jairus' daughter, and Matthew also records it, and those of the "saints" I have before mentioned. In the Old Testament we have recorded two ascensions Enoch's and Elijah's. Both are supposed to have gone to heaven Without dying. And as far as Elijah's power to work miracles is concerned, we find it stated that he raised from the dead the son of the widow woman with whom he boarded. Nor did Resurrections from the dead end with Christ's Resurrection. Augustine in his City of God mentions several. I quote what he says, as translated by the author of "Supernatural Religion." (For the orginal see Dombart's edition, Vol. II., p. 504, Lipsiae, 1863. This edition is in the Otago University Library).

"Andurus is the name of an estate, where there is a church, and in it a shrine dedicated to the martyr Stephen. A certain little boy was playing in the court, when unruly bullocks drawing a waggon crushed him with the wheel, and immediately he lay in the agonies of death. Then his mother raised him up, and placed him at the shrine, and he not only came to life again, but had manifestly received no injury. A certain religious woman, who lived in a neighbouring property, called Caspalianus, being dangerously ill and her life despaired of, her tunic was carried to the same shrine, but before it was brought back she had expired. Nevertheless, her relations covered the body with this tunic, and she received back the spirit and was made whole. At Hippo, a certain man named Bassus, a Syrian, was praying at the shrine of the same martyr for his daughter who was sick and in great peri 1, and he had brought her dress with him; when lo ! some of his household came running to announce to him that she was dead. But as he was engaged in prayer, they were stopped by his friends, who prevented their telling him, lest he should give way to his grief in public. When he returned to his house, which already resounded with the wailing of his household, he cast over the body of his daughter her mantle which he had with him, and immediately she was restored to life. page 13 Again, in the same city, the son of a certain man among us named Irenæus, a collector of taxes, became sick and died. As the dead body lay, and they were preparing with wailing and lamentation to bury it, one of his Mends consoling him, suggested that the body should be anointed with oil from the same martyr. This was done and the child came to life again. In the same way a man amongst us, named Cleusinus, formerly a tribune, laid the body of his child, who had died from sickness, on a memorial of the martyr, which is in his villa in the suburb, and after he had prayed, with many tears, he took up the child living."

We have no more evidence for the Resurrection of Christ than we have for those who were raised prior to, and since Christ's death. What becoures of this statement then, that if Christ's Resurrection be proved Christianity is proved?

The Resurrection of Christ was not unique, nor does the story of his ascension stand alone? Elijah seems to have gone up to heaven with quite as much eclat as Christ. If then neither Christ's Resurrection nor his ascension was unique; if neither stands alone in history, can we conclude—even if we believe both—that Christ was God? The jump that he would be asked to take, to come to such a conclusion, would be a large one. How can such a "miracle" prove that what appeared to be a man was God? And if Christ was not God, how is Christianity the Divine system its defenders assert it to be. I go so far as to say that were it proved—conclusively proved that Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, which means disappeared out of sight to those on earth, for I cannot interpret the phrase otherwise—and that such a Resurrection and ascension were recorded of no one else—still that could not be evidence of Christ's Deity. Of what could it be proof save of the fact itself? No inference could be drawn save perhaps that it was wonderful. How do we know how Deity manifests himself? How are we told anything of Deity? Grant that a man once dead is restored to life, and vanishes in the sky out of sight, would that prove the man was God or the doctrine of the Trinity? What right would we have to draw any inferences from the fact? We might say it was unusual, and that there was something peculiar about that man that was not present about ordinary men, but what more could we say? Even if the man had said, if I ascend through the sky, this will prove all I said was true, would that be any evidence that what he said was true? Would an ascent through the sky prove aught save so far as going up into the sky was concerned, the man had powers that his fellowmen did not possess. This story of the Resurrection and ascension however does not stand alone. It is one of a series, and it is told in a way that were we to accept it as true, we would be forced to accept as also true, the stories of witches, of fairies, of ghosts, of Resurrections, &c., with which the literature of a byegone time abounds. I would like to know what became of the bodies. Can we really believe that page 14 Elijah's body and Christ's body, their flesh, their bones, went up to heaven? Were their composition changed? If so, how?

But it has been said, though the narratives in the Gospels may seem conflicting, and though there were other Resurrections, how do you explain the belief of the early Christians? I do not desire to shirk such an enquiry. Let me first of all state that the belief of Paul and of the early Christians was that of a bodily Resurrection. In the Gospels also the Resurrection of the just is spoken of, and hence it is that when Matthew records the rising 'of the saints he is particular to state that their bodies rose, and they 'went into Jerusalem. This belief in the Resurrection of the body is now almost dead in the Christian Church of to-day; a few still believe in it no doubt, but the mass believe not in a bodily but a spiritual Resurrection. It is not now believed by many that the soul rests in a sort of torpid state until the last day, and that then the body gathered from the elements will be re-made, and the soul enter it. The popular belief amongst Christian sects is that the soul at once reaps the rewards of its deeds. In early Christian times the belief in the Resurrection of the body was all but universal amongst the followers of Christ. And Christ's Resurrection was to them therefore the earnest of their Resurrection. It is thus Paul argues in the Epistle of the Corinthians. To Paul the Resurrection was the fact on which the whole of Christian preaching rested, and his argument was this :—

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no Resurrection of the dead? But if there be no Resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen? And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. I. Cor. xv. 12, 13, 14.

The proof of Christ's Resurrection was that there was a Resurection of the dead.

To those, then, who believed in the resurrection of the dead, who from their youth had been trained to believe that Enoch and Elijah had both ascended to heaven without dying, and who also believed that people once dead could be restored to life, Christ's Resurrection does not seem very wonderful. It is true that, not with standing what I might term the strong public opinion in favour of resurrections, there were even in that credulous age some doubters. Matthew records that on Christ appearing to the disciples on the mountain in Galilee "some doubted." (Matthew xxviii. 17.) But is the fact that a creed has many votaries a proof of its truth. Christianity is not even yet the religion that has the most adherents, and that form of Christianity that can count the most millions has still its miracles. The apparitions at Knock, the Virgin and a little lamb carrying the Cross, the cures of Lourdes, are believed in by pious Catholics. It is no evidence of the truth of any occurrence that some people believe that it happened. Good people, pious page 15 people believe in Buddhism. Able men are Mahomedans, and every phase of Christian belief has its votaries. And what shall be said of modern spiritualism? Hundreds, thousands, nay, perhaps millions, believe that spirits visit the earth, and are seen by men and women. And if it comes to be a mere question of evidence there can be produced testimony for spiritualistic phenomena far more reliable than can be produced for Christ's Resurrection or for Biblical miracles. How, then, can belief be a test of truth? Men have died for what they believed to be true, but did that prove they were right? To say, then, that Christianity is a great fact does not help the defenders of Christianity a bit. Buddhism, Mahomedanism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Brahmanism, the Hebrew faith, and Spiritualism, are all great facts. Is the existence of an "ism" a proof of its truth? "Four hundred and seventy millions of our race live and die in the tenets of Buddhism." (Arnold's "Light of Asia," preface.) Yes, to quote Arnold's "Light of Asia" again—"To Gautama has been given this stupendous conquest of humanity; and though he discountenanced ritual, and declared himself, even when on the threshold of Nirvana, to be only what all other men might become, the love and gratitude of Asia, disobeying his mandate, have given him fervent worship, Forests of flowers are daily laid upon his stainless shrines, and countless millions of lips daily repeat the formula,' I take refuge in Buddha.'"

I have now briefly dealt with the alleged Resurrection of Christ, and I submit I have shown that, as reasonable men and women, we cannot say it has been proved. I have also shown that if proved, Christianity as the system of religion granted by Deity to men would not be proved. But has it not lessons for us? When we see how many myths men have believed in, in the past, how in the name of religion, and led by their emotions, men have committed such huge crimes as history records, is there not need of us, if we disbelieve the popular creed, coming boldly forth and saying so? By continued iteration and reiteration men may be trained to believe anything. Hardly anyone now contends that a belief in a falsity can do much good to a man. That stage of the controversy we have left behind us. Falsehood can do humanity no good. Men cannot be made better, or more moral by believing a lie. If, then, it is truth alone that can help mankind, why should we be afraid or ashamed to criticise the popular beliefs, and, if they cannot stand the brunt of criticism to discard them. If we do so we will throw overboard the Resurrection of Christ. But do we thereby lose any influence that Christ shed on humanity? Not at all. Jesus Christ was a religious Re-former—he hated formalism. I fancy if he were to enter some of the Christian Churches of to-day and saw the genuflexions, the bowings, the posturings, and heard the prayers, he would be in-clined to do what he is said to have done in the temple when he drove out the money changers. He was a freethinker. The creed of the past had no authority for him. His creed was short, shorter page 16 far, than the Apostles' creed, and he had neither thirty-nine articles nor Shorter Catechisms, nor Syllabus. To us, if he was a man he is ever a great example. Make him Deity, and his influence is weakened, for we can never be expected to do what Deity did. Throw a halo of mystery round his life and death, and you detract from the man. But let us contemplate Jesus Christ as a Jewish Reformer—as a man—who went about doing good, and he becomes one whose life has its lesson for us. To many the belief that Christ was Deity has been of much comfort, but which, I ask, is the grander conception of humanity? That which can contemplate the great men of the past as men not gods—or that which says the world's heroes were either gods or inspired by God. If we could say-Behold the man, look at his life, look at the influence it has shed on the world, would not we be able to stimulate a purer morality a higher life, than if we were to say he was a god, and to ask men to believe about him things for which we have no evidence. Let us also believe that the world is progressing, that the golden days are not behind us, but in front of us—and that we need not be scrutinising the past to find out its creeds—and to treat these as our jailers. No let us remember:—

New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth.
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires; we ourselves must pilgrims be.
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea;
Nor attempt the Future's portal with the Past's blood-rusted key.

"Woodifield, Jolly & Co., Atmospheric Printing Works, Octagon.