are not spoken suddenly; serpents are not taken up with impunity, except by snake charmers; poison destroys the lives of all, when taken in sufficient quantity; and the sick are not healed by the use of any name. The above gift of power is said to have been made to the Apostles, who, after all the "wonderful things that Jesus did," and "which, if written, the world itself could not contain the books" (John xxi. 25), did not believe in him, for "he upbraided them with their unbelief......because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen" (Mark xvi. 14). This seems extraordinary, that, after seeing so much, they were not convinced. Perhaps his followers estimated his magic as not a bit better than other wandering Essene magicians. So, in order to induce them to believe that he had actually died on the cross (literally gibbet), and had been re-animated, he is said to have promised them power to perform miracles. And this power was not only to be given to them, but to all who believe, and not only during their lifetime, but for ever. "These signs shall follow them that believe......and lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Thus no limitation is placed upon the promise. Also he told them that, if they had as much faith as a grain of mustard seed, they should " say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you......by prayer and fasting" (Matt. xvii. 20, 21).

What a boon to engineers and contractors—no more derrick-cranes, trollies, patent excavators, nor costly labour! All that is required, according to the Matthew writer, is to carry out three simple conditions :-(1) To believe in the name of Jesus; (2) to fast; and (3) to pray. The text, however, is slightly vague, and does not give any idea as to the exact amount of faith (or, rather, credulity) that could be contained in a grain of mustard seed, nor the time required for fasting sufficiently, nor the exact portion of the day to be given up to prayer. But the John and the Mark Gospels come to our assistance, and tell us that the above conditions are not absolutely essential, but that simple belief, with the mention of a name, is all that is necessary: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do......and

whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do..............if ye will ask anything in my name, I will do it" (John xiv. 12, 13). "All things are possible to him that believeth" (Mark ix. 23). So that it is quite evident that the promise is almost absolute, and the conditions easy; yet whoever heard, either in history or from his personal observation, of a single genuine case where these promises have been fulfilled, and where anyone has removed a single hill, let alone mountains, or performed any other impossible feat in the above manner? Though, judging from the number of credulous people in the world in every age, the only condition required by the two latter Gospels has been amply carried out.

We will now examine the legend of the MIRACULOUS STAR. The Matthew writer says (chapter ii.) that certain magi or magicians of Persia, having noticed a new star in the heavens, which they knew denoted the birth of an important person-a king-were so interested in the matter as to leave their homes and their country to follow the star to Jerusalem; that they were sent for by Herod on their arrival, "who was troubled" about it, and cross-questioned them as to where the babe would be born, asking them to return from Bethlehem and report to him where it was to be found. The star then reappeared and directed them to Bethlehem, and "stood over [the house] where the infant was "; the magicians then entered, "and fell down and worshipped him," offering gifts-gold, frankincense, and myrrh--which it was customary for them to offer to the new-born sun at the termination of the solstice on the morning now known as "Christmas."

Now (1) it would have taken these magicians about two years to travel from Persia over deserts and lofty mountains to Jerusalem; Ispahan, the capital, being about 1,500 miles off. So that Mary and Joseph must have been waiting about this stable all this time with the child, who must at the end of their journey have been nearly two years old, still "swathed in swaddling clothes" and "lying in a manger"! (2) These magicians were not worshippers of the Hebrew God Yahuh, and, therefore, would not have taken the trouble to leave their homes and their country to travel all that distance, which could only have been done at night when the star was visible, simply because they saw

a star in the heavens which was new to them; and, because new, they concluded that a king was born somewhere; and then, seeing the star move, followed it to the place where the baby king was to be found. To have done this, the star must have been close to the earth, or they could not have known that it moved; for everyone knows that, with ordinary stars, the distance off is such that, if you walk a mile or two, it still appears to be in the same position. (3) Had such an extraordinary phenomenon appeared as a star sufficiently close to the earth (say two or three hundred yards) as to be seen moving in a certain direction, it could not have escaped the notice of the public in those days of astrology, and crowds would have come to see the sight and follow it as well; but we hear nothing of these crowds. (4) We should have seen some record of such an unusual occurrence in the writings of some of the historians of the time-Philo, Josephus, Justin of Tiberias, etc. (5) The magicians, instead of being led straight to Bethlehem, by which Herod would have known nothing of the birth, and the massacre of innocent children would have been prevented, were led to Jerusalem, where Herod was said to be. This part of the legend has evidently been inserted in order to introduce the massacre prophecy " and the lamentations heard in Ramah." (6) To avoid Herod, the babe was taken to Egypt, says the writer of Matthew, where he remained till the death of Herod, when an angel of the Lord told Joseph to take his family into the land of Israel; but Joseph, hearing that Herod's son Archelaus was reigning in the place of his father, was afraid to proceed, and went to Nazareth, where he dwelt (of course, that might be fulfilled as was prophesied !). Now, "Luke" gives a different version, and says that Jesus was taken as a baby by his parents to the Temple at Jerusalem, there to be presented at the purification of his mother (on the thirtyfifth day), right under the very nose of Herod (had he really been living), who would certainly have seized him; for surely the crowds who must have followed this babe, who was known to have had such a miraculous birth, would have proclaimed him in Jerusalem! (7) The Luke writer omits all mention of a star, magicians, going to live in Egypt, etc.; and says that, after the purification, Joseph and family "returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth; and the child

66

66

RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION.

255

grew and waxed strong," etc. This account included the whole of the infancy of Jesus, but excludes the above. And this writer professes to give a "complete account,” to write "accurately," and to arrange events "in order," so that Theophilus "might know the certainty" of what is therein recorded. He tells us that a large multitude of angels singing hymns appeared to some shepherds at night, and, out of curiosity, they visited the babe. (8) "Luke "" tells us that, at the presentation, the babe was revealed to Simeon and an old woman called Anna by the Holy Spirit. Surely this babe had been advertised well enough for everyone to have known all about him, without the fact having to be revealed supernaturally. And, instead of crowds, who would be naturally interested in this child of miraculous birth, only a few weeks ago surrounding the Temple door, and trying to obtain admission, we hear of two people only-one a very old woman! Had this birth taken place in the extraordinary manner it is said to have done, the news of it would have spread all over the country, and it would have been impossible for Jesus to have lived in Nazareth for thirty years and then make his debut as an unknown teacher, as the writer of John says in ix. 29, where the chief men of Jerusalem said of him : But, as for this man, we know not whence he is"!

66

"A

The narrators of the Gospels differ considerably in their accounts of the RESURRECTION, which can only be explained by the fact that it was necessary for the later ones to correct, and endeavour to reconcile with common sense, the mistakes and absurdities of the earlier ones. In the number of women who came to the tomb, the John Gospel gives "one"; the Mark, "three "; and the Luke, "a large number." The same discrepancy exists with regard to the number of angels at the tomb; the Mark Gospel says, young man clothed in white "; the Luke, "three men in shining garments"; while the John Gospel gives an entirely different account (xx.). The Peter Gospel tells us that the soldiers and the centurion, when watching at the sepulchre where lay the body of Christ, "saw three men stepping forth from the tomb, and two of them supported the third, and a cross followed them, and the head of the two reached to heaven, but the head of the one that was led by them overtowered above the heavens." After witnessing this

wonderful sight, the centurion and his men went to Pilate, and, having related what they had seen, declared that "he was the son of God."

The probability is that Jesus was taken down from the gibbet alive, but in an unconscious condition, and laid in a tomb, from which he quietly walked away when the soldiers (if there were any there) were asleep. The only evidence forthcoming to support the assertion is that of Thomas, who would not be convinced unless he could see Jesus and put his finger into the wounds, as related by the writer of "John." This Gospel was apparently introduced for the purpose of correcting the errors which the Synoptic writers had fallen into. The people were evidently doubting the whole story, and some proof must therefore be procured if possible. If Thomas could not be satisfied, his dissatisfaction would have a great effect upon all other doubters. He is made to say, therefore, "My Lord and my God (xx. 28). If the story had an atom of truth in it, why was it omitted by the other three inspired Gospels? Gibbon tells us that "at this time the resurrection of the dead was a common event, and the miracle was frequently performed on necessary occasions by great fasting and supplication....... A noble Grecian philosopher, however, promised Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, that, if he could be gratified by the sight of a single person who had been actually raised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Christian religion." The prelate, however anxious for the conversion of his friend, thought proper to decline, as Jesus did to the Jews, this fair and reasonable challenge.

We are informed in Acts (xvii. 8) that "Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead," not that he did suffer and rise again, which would require proof. Again, in 1 Cor. xx. : "He rose again according to the scriptures i.e., the O. T.; but there is nothing whatever to be found there about rising on the third day, or of subsequent ASCENSION into the sky. The "Matthew" and "John Gospels do not even mention the Ascension. The "Mark" Gospel says that "Jesus was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God" (xvi. 9). We are not told that anyone saw him ascend; and this pretence to a knowledge of the exact position he occupied after arriving safely at the "throne" exposes the legendary character of the