But, in

it have to account for the subsequent disappearance of the risen Jesus from the scene of action. the first place, I entirely repudiate this obligation, and decline the unsatisfactory task of conceiving imaginary explanations. In the next place I would remind those who urge the objection in question that precisely an equal obligation lies upon those who, like Mr Hutton, accept the miraculous resurrection from the dead; for I cannot conceive for a moment that he will put forward or rest in the explanation given in the Gospels and the Acts of a visible ascension into heaven-i.e., into the clouds of that sky beyond which in popular fancy heaven was believed to lie.

II.

Mr Hutton argues with much earnestness that the various predictions which Christ is said to have uttered in the course of his preaching, coupled with their precision, their complete fulfilment, and the prima facie unlikelihood of that fulfilment, display an amount and character of foreknowledge which could only have been superhuman. Let us examine this argument in two or three of the more significant and weighty instances specified, and see how far his confidence and his inference are justified.

First. Take Christ's alleged prophecies of his own. resurrection. Mr Hutton accepts all these as genuine, and thinks that even rationalistic critics are disposed

to regard them as such.1 My impression had always been just the reverse,-viz., that the difficulties connected with these prophecies were so grave and obvious as to render the notion of their having really proceeded from the mouth of Christ inadmissible by any who do not hold the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Gospels. These, of course, maintain that all their statements must be absolutely correct, and that there must exist an explanation of every difficulty, irreconcilability, and contradiction, however apparently insurmountable. But Mr Hutton is not one of these.

The first point that has to be noticed with regard to our Lord's predictions of his resurrection is that, though repeated more than once in each of the Synoptical Gospels,2 they simply record the anticipated fact in the most cursory way and without the slightest detail" and the third day he shall rise again; whereas the prophecy of his crucifixion with which

1 "The more frankly we admit that the second Gospel has no ending at all, the first a very abrupt and hurried one, not at all in keeping with the later tradition, and both the third and fourth most fragmentary accounts of the evidence of the resurrection-the less can it be maintained that the Gospels were afterwards so retouched as to make the prophecies accord with the subsequent faith of the Church. I do not think that anything could be weightier testimony to the early preparation and complete freedom from dogmatic purpose of the first and second Gospels than the absence from them of even those details as to the resurrection which had become already for the Church of St Paul's time the very alphabet of the Christian faith."-Contemporary Review, p. 224.

2 Matthew xvi. 21; xx. 18, 19; Mark viii. 31; ix. 30; x. 34; Luke xviii. 32-34.

those words are mixed up, though an incomparably less important and astonishing occurrence, contains the minutest particulars. It is difficult for this peculiarity not to suggest the inference that the words we have quoted were made either by tradition or by the Evangelist, as seemingly appropriate, and needed in order to complete an account which, at the period when the Church was organized and the record committed to paper, might appear unfinished without them. This, however, is merely a surmise-though one not easy to avoid.

The second point is that in the only recorded prediction of the Resurrection, in which details are condescended to-viz., that in Matt. xii. 40-the details are incorrect, and the prophecy was not fulfilled ;- inasmuch as Christ was not "three days and three nights in the earth," but only one day and two nights. The prediction, therefore, if really uttered by our Lord, would be an instance of error, not of foreknowledge. But as it stands, and as the analogy of Jonah is purely fanciful, critics have had no hesitation in pronouncing the passage in question to be clearly ungenuine; and I apprehend that Mr Hutton would make no scruple in agreeing with them. Indeed, a reference to Luke xi. 29-32, showing what is almost certainly the true version of Christ's discourse on the occasion in question, seems to make the critic's conclusion quite irresistible.

But the third point, which Mr Hutton does not even allude to, but which appears to my mind decisive

against the genuineness of the predictions in question (at least in any thing like the precision and definite form in which they are recorded 1), is the indisputable fact that they were wholly unknown to the disciples. Those who are said to have heard them repeatedly, and on whom they must have made a most startling, and one would imagine, indelible impression, either never did hear them, or heard them absolutely without notice or attention, or entirely disbelieved and disregarded them, or forgot them totally and at once. If one conclusion from the records be more certain than another it is that Christ's most intimate friends and disciples, even the Twelve, looked upon his crucifixion as the termination of his career, the prostration and crushing of all their hopes, the end of all things, as far as their faith and future were concerned. They not only had no expectation of their Lord's resurrection: they had plainly never dreamed of such a thing, the bare idea of it appears never to have crossed their minds, the rumour of the occurrence, when reported to them, "seemed to them as idle tales;" nay, they had the greatest difficulty in realising the fact even when Jesus appeared to them. Now, is it credible— is it even conceivable-that this should have been their state of mind if the resurrection had been repeatedly foretold to them by their beloved Master

1 I can quite understand that Jesus must often have spoken of his approaching end, and may have had intimations enough that it would probably be a violent one, even without preternatural foresight,—and this Mr Hutton seems to admit,—but scarcely that he could have specified the particular details.

and specifically as the sequel of the crucifixion? Could the previous announcement of so astounding an event have failed to create the most intense excitement at the time, and the most vivid expectation after the crucifixion had already three days previously so impressively recalled those (alleged) predictions of his sufferings and death, with which the prophecy of his rising from the dead was, according to the Evangelists, so inextricably mingled? I confess it appears to me simply inconceivable.1 If Christ did so utter himself, wishing thereby to prepare the minds of his disciples, the least that can be said is that he entirely failed in his purpose.2

It is needless to treat of the prophecy of the crucifixion in its details, nor of that as to the treachery of Judas, nor of the universal publication of the deed of the woman who anointed Jesus with the alabaster-box of ointment; because Mr Hutton, though obviously himself much impressed, declines to lay great stress upon them, admitting that it is at least arguable that the latter may have caused its own fulfilment, and the two first may not fairly be attributed to a reasonable amount of ordinary insight and foresight, coupled with the added speciality of detail which the disciples or the Evangelists would not unnaturally have given to

1 The incongruity appears to have struck two at least of the Evangelists, if we may trust to their attempts at an explanation. See Luke xviii. 34, and Mark ix. 32.

2 See "Creed of Christendom," ch. viii. I must apologize for referring to my own writings; but I know not where the whole argument can be found so concisely stated, and not overstated.