But there are other reasons for the rejection of this endeavour of rationalism to destroy the Gospel. If we are to pay any attention to the story told in the New Testament, we find that there was no "fixed idea" in the minds of the Apostles as to a resurrection, and the "fixed idea" is one of the three mental conditions required to enable even the most credulous to see visions and mistake them for realities. Again, those possessed by this "fixed idea" always see what they expect to see. When our Lord appeared, those who saw Him are represented as either not knowing Him or being slow to recognise their Master. Now, no "idea" of a resurrection body that was not an exact reproduction of the body that had been buried was familiar to the Jews. If the excited fancy of the Apostles and women had pictured the risen Christ, they would most assuredly have imagined Him to be in appearance exactly as He had been before the Passion. The fact that our Lord was not recognised immediately by those who saw Him-and yet the reality of His Resurrection was forced upon them is a strong proof that the Resurrection was a reality, for which no “fixed idea" had prepared His disciples. We who know that the body is "changed" in the resurrection can quite understand how those who were still in the "natural body" might fail to recognise One Who had put on the "spiritual body" of the other world. But the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, involving change, a change in its nature, was

so far from being a "fixed idea" that it was not even known to the most enlightened of the Jews before the Resurrection of Christ and the preaching of St. Paul. The theory of visions may well be dismissed as itself being an hallucination, originating in the "fixed idea" that anything beyond the power of the natural reason of man to explain must be against reason, and therefore impossible.

The other theories that attempt to account for a belief in the Resurrection of our Lord are now not often put forward, but it may be well just to glance at them. The first theory supposes that our Lord did not really die upon the Cross, but that He fainted and was taken down from the Cross-everyone supposing Him to be dead. His body was rapidly embalmed and placed in a tomb, the entrance to which was blocked by a great mass of rock. A seal was placed on the stone, and some soldiers were appointed to guard the sepulchre in order to hinder anyone attempting to carry away the body. In the sepulchre our Lord-it is said-recovered from His swoon, and in spite of having been drained of His blood by the hours on the Cross, managed to escape from the sealed tomb and elude the guards. This theory does not explain how it became possible that our Lord should have appeared dead to all who were concerned with the taking down of His body from the Cross and carrying It to burial, and yet have been able to recover strength in such a miraculous way as to make it possible for Him to escape from the tomb.

Nor are we told what became of Jesus Christ during the rest of His life, or how it was that after His reported Ascension there is no trace of Him to be found on earth. We should also require some explanation why His disciples suddenly deserted Him and proceeded to invent the story of His Resurrection, and how it was that anyone of such a lofty character as that of Jesus Christ connived at their falsehoods, by so effectually concealing Himself. Again, the motive which induced the Apostles to invent the story of His Resurrection and Ascension must have been a strong one, for they certainly had to endure persecution and even death on account of it. These and other difficulties lie on the surface of the story that our Lord did not really die, but merely swooned and then recovered.

The theory that the Apostles stole away the body of our Lord is also one beset with difficulties. It was, however, the only tale put forward at the time by those who were anxious to deny the Resurrection. We read that the Jews gave "money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we slept." As the watch had been set on purpose to hinder any from stealing the body, it is difficult to conceive that the Apostles, not hitherto noted for their courage, came by night (in the full light of the Paschal moon) and, braving the watch, succeeded in rolling away the stone and carrying off their Master's

1 St. Matt. xxviii. 12, 13.

body. Is it likely that if they had done this no confession would ever have been made by any of the persons concerned in this fraud? Can we suppose that men who could write such epistles as those of St. Peter and St. John were capable of so gross an imposture as to pretend Christ had risen from the dead, if they were all the while conscious of having carried off His dead body? Nor can we evade the difficulty by supposing that the dead Christ was carried away by some persons in order to deceive the Apostles and make them think that Jesus Christ had arisen. None but their enemies would have practised such a deception upon the Apostles, and we may be sure that after the Apostles had preached the Resurrection these enemies would have been only too glad to produce the dead Christ and overwhelm them with mockery and contempt.

As a matter of fact, no theory has ever been put forward that does not, bristle with impossibilities. It is, however, sometimes said that the whole Gospel story is a late invention, and that it would be of the greatest interest to know what the chief priests and others really said about the story of the Resurrection, instead of what the Evangelists say they said. In reply to this we may safely say that if the chief priests and others who were interested in denying the Resurrection had brought forward any other theory than that the Evangelists mention, we should certainly have heard of it. We possess the writings of the early Apologists

for Christianity, and the fact that in combating the opposition of the Jews and Gentiles they make no mention of any theories, other than those we are familiar with, put forward to account for the belief in the Resurrection of our Lord, is a sufficient proof that no such theories were current at the time. Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and the rest would not have hoped to make converts by insisting upon the Resurrection if they were aware that it had been shown to be an imposture. Therefore, whether we accept or reject the story given by the Evangelists, we may be quite sure that no other story was put forward, while the fact of our Lord's Resurrection was everywhere insisted upon by His disciples. The best witness to the truth of the Christian faith is to be found in its influence upon the world. In the long run it is always true that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit-that imposture and hallucination cannot produce a zeal for truth and righteousness. The fact remains, plain and unalterable, "The Stone which the builders refused is become"whether we like it or no-“the Head-stone of the corner." All we can say is, "This is the Lord's doing ; it is marvellous in our eyes. "1

It is not the purpose of this volume even to touch on the bearing of the Resurrection of our Lord upon Christian life and hope, but it is well once again to draw attention to the fact that what revelation there is as to the future life concerns not so much the soul alone