enabled intelligently to explain to them in their own tongue the meaning of the lessons given. Her pen was often employed on different subjects, for the improvement of her scholars. Such was her zeal and tact in imparting instruction, that after some time she formed a select mixed class on each of the stations where we resided. Most, if not all, the members were either Class-leaders or Local-preachers, who became, by the instruction they received, efficient workers. King George and Queen Charlotte were connected with this class, both at Lifuka and Nukualofa, and were taught many lessons by her. In addition to reading, writing and arithmetic, the class was instructed in geography and the elements of astronomy. They were taught to draw maps, till the outlines of Palestine, and other Bible lands, were well understood and readily traced by them. The productions of the different countries of the globe, their inhabitants and their physical character, were all rendered familiar to them by lessons written out in the form of question and answer, which they took great delight in copying and learning.

On one occasion when we were detained for some days at a distant island by a contrary wind, the crew erected for themselves upon the beach a temporary hut formed of branches and leaves of the cocoa-nut tree, while we were sheltered on board the canoe close by. She sought to interest and benefit the crew during the evening. With the help of cocoa-nuts, oranges, etc., made to revolve around the lamp by means of strings, she explained to her wondering pupils the solar system, the cause of day and night, of the seasons, and of eclipses of the sun and moon. Her scholars never tired of learning. They were also instructed as to the laws of gravitation, the centrifugal and centripetal forces, etc. Thus were opened to them, views of the greatness, power and wisdom of the Creator which filled them with adoring wonder and reverential joy. The large paper globes made by the late Mr. Pocock, of Bristol, when inflated with air, were very serviceable in her geographical lessons. Her schools were a great success. We shall quote the testimony of an impartial visiter as to their efficiency and order. Commander Wilkes, U.S.N., says:

"I went to the Mission House at Tonga and received a hearty welcome from Mrs. Tucker, whom I found exceedingly intelligent. She has for some time been the principal instructress of both old and young. I can myself vouch for the unexpected proficiency of some of her scholars, in speaking English. I feel much indebted to her and her husband for the information they gave. Here I was introduced to a great chief, who, to my surprise, addressed me in tolerably good English. He is a zealous convert-and to Mrs. Tucker is chiefly due the credit of teaching him. He has sole charge of their large school of three hundred scholars and it, in order and regularity, equals, if it does not exceed, any in our own country."

(To be concluded.)

199

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST.

BY THE REV. JABEZ MARRAT.

In an article in the "Contemporary Review," by Mr. James Fitzjames Stephen, we find the following words:

"The Gospel according to St. Matthew does not expressly mention the Ascension, but it contains a passage that seems to imply that it took place on a mountain in Galilee. Mark mentions the fact very shortly, and says nothing as to the place. Luke says that it occurred at Bethany. John says nothing about it. The account in the Acts implies that it occurred at Mount Olivet. I do not say that these accounts are inconsistent. A few obvious questions might clear up the whole matter. On the other hand, they might show that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke had access to two entirely different traditions really contradicting each other. How this was we can never know. It is and must for ever remain doubtful."

In reply to the above, we may confidently affirm, that the more thorough the examination of the different accounts of the Ascension, the deeper will be the conviction of their harmony and consistency. If it could be shown that one Evangelist assigns Galilee and another Judæa as the scene of the Ascension, the testimony to that event would be seriously weakened. The hypothesis of contradictory traditions has the tendency to make the Gospel narratives of " none effect," to bring down the rising form and to dissipate the enwrapping cloud. The writer of the sentences just quoted, evidently disposed to question the credibility of the Ascension, adduces the silence of some and the varying language of other evangelical records, as affording argument against it. But there is sufficient reason for asserting, in answer to implied or expressed denial, that Christ did ascend into heaven. If He did not leave the earth, in the manner described by Luke in the Gospel and in the Acts, He did not appear alive to His disciples after His crucifixion; or at the close of the forty days He either died or concealed Himself from the eyes of men.

Christ rose from the dead. This is a fact mortised into the substance of evangelical history, which cannot be got rid of by the pretence that, notwithstanding all His disciples alleged to the contrary, His body was still in the sepulchre. Had it been there, the priests and scribes could by bringing it forward have silenced the men who stood up in Jerusalem declaring themselves witnesses of His resurrection. The embalmed corpse would have shown them to be guilty of imposture. Peter and his companions would have been confounded. But if the body of Christ was not in the tomb beneath the palms and pomegranates, what had become of it? The sceptic gains nothing by saying that the disciples stole it while the Roman sentinels slept. If they were asleep, it was a soldier's sleep, and would have been broken by a footfall, or the rustling of a garment against the foliage. But even if the disciples had got within the ring of spears and shields without making the slightest noise, the attempt to displace

the slab or boulder at the door of the sepulchre would have occasioned a disturbance that must have startled the sleepers and brought them to their feet in military order. The disciples must have known that it would be vain for them to think of stealing the body, unless they were prepared for a contest with the Roman soldiers; but fishermen with no weapons, excepting perhaps one or two old swords, would never have dreamt of being a match for veterans who had power to awe the world. Nor had they any motive urging them to this. They had not been sufficiently impressed by Christ's predictions of His own resurrection, to see that it was necessary to the maintenance of His Messianic claims. But had they stolen the body they must have contemplated, not only His vindication, but their own credentials as the founders of an enlarged, if not a new system of faith. Had they done that, there would have been the monstrous phenomenon of a religion, which immeasurably surpasses every other in its enforcement of truth and righteousness, having its origin in a lie.

In his essay, Mr. Stephen intimates that he would like to have questioned the witnesses. All that he desiderates was done virtually, if not formally. If evidence to invalidate the testimony of the Apostles could have been obtained, it would have been produced when they were first arraigned before the Sanhedrim, and when, in explanation of “the good deed done to the impotent man," Peter said, "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole." If the elders were too confident in their ability to put down the Apostles by the weight of their authority to search out evidence that would have shown them to be either deluded fanatics or designing impostors, Saul of Tarsus would certainly have found the proof if it had existed. Christianity never had an enemy more acute or more determined. As "an Hebrew of the Hebrews," animated to enthusiasm by Judaic memories and hopes, and intent on conserving the ancient lines of belief and practice, he had far greater interest in the demolition of Christianity than has Mr. Stephen. It had no ancestral glories by which to overcome his repugnance to its facts and doctrines. His father had portrayed no group of Christians corresponding in benevolence of heart and beauty of character to the men of "the Clapham sect." It had not been his lot to see how genius irradiating a nation, and philanthropy busying itself with the well-being of the world, may be associated with a simple trust in Christ for salvation. To Saul there was nothing attractive, but much that was repellent in the religion that had taken for its nucleus the person of the Nazarene. Yet he could find no means by which to dispute the reality of Christ's resurrection. The opposing parties had no resort but to an unsustained negative; while on the side of the Apostles, were "many infallible proofs;" and the time came when Saul with a mind clear as an orb of crystal and singularly

fitted for sifting evidence and determining its value, decided in favour of the resurrection of Christ. To him the demonstration of it was perfect, and he based on it, not only his own veracity as a teacher of Christian doctrine, but also the hope of immortality:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."

Satisfied that the body of Christ did not remain in the sepulchre, and that it was not taken thence by the disciples, we ask if the Ascension can be ignored by the supposition that he died at the end of the forty days. Resurrection does not necessarily imply freedom from the repetition of death. Lazarus rose at the Master's bidding, but his second life was not one of unbroken continuance on the earth; nor was he, like Elijah, speeded to heaven on wheels of flame. Again he had to die, and again the burial clothes were folded about him. But when Jesus rose it was to die no more. The Apostles and faithful women had not to lament over Him as one who had ceased to live. They had not to open a sepulchre in the rock, or go to the apothecary for embalming spices, or to look with tearful eyes on the pallid features of a dead Christ. Had He died, however careful His friends might have been to avoid mentioning His death in their sermons, their Gospels and Epistles, the secret would not have been kept by every one acquainted with it. Impulsive Peter would not always have commanded his tongue, and loving Mary would not always have concealed her grief. So far, however, from there being any proof of Christ's disappearance by death, it would be in vain to search through all the tradition that is now afloat, and through all the libraries in the world, for any narrative giving account of a later death than that on Calvary, or later burial than that in Joseph's garden.

Nor was there any cavern or thicket in which Jesus might hide Himself at the end of the forty days. It was not possible for Him to make His disciples believe that He had gone to heaven, while He was still on earth. Men who attempt to tear the supernatural element out of His history eulogize the purity of His character and acknowledge Him as morally the princeliest of men. How then is it to be imagined that He would stoop to trickery and practical falsehood? But even if His truth and righteousness would not have been impugned by such a movement, it is difficult to see how He could have vanished beyond the reach of discovery. If He had gone far away to Africa or Europe, some one would probably have seen and recognised Him, as He followed in the track of the caravan or sat on the deck of the ship. If He had remained in the Holy Land, it is all but certain that some wanderer from Jerusalem or the Galilean

lake, would have found Him. Unless He had become invisible, eyes must have seen Him and tongues spoken of Him. If, therefore, He did not die or conceal Himself in any part of the earth, there is no way of accounting for His disappearance but by the fact of His ascension to heaven.

The resur

The reality of the Ascension is not to be doubted because some of the Evangelists do not mention it and others mention it but briefly. The primary purpose for which the Gospels were written was not to meet the objections of Jews or heathens, but to supply believers with a record of events on which to ground their hopes of salvation. Even though John's Gospel may have been issued in refutation of a specific error, it was an error which had risen with men who claimed to be part of the Christian Church. In writing for those who had already accepted Christianity, it was not needful to give elaborate proofs of the Ascension. rection of Christ being well attested, His Ascension came almost as a natural sequence. Besides the primitive belief in Christ was belief in a Person not on earth but in heaven. Every Apostolic discourse and every confession of faith asserted or implied that He had gone up into heaven; and that He was there in His bodily presence as the Representative of mankind, “a Prince and a Saviour." The Church with its faith, its hopes and its spiritual endowments, was a monument of the Ascension. Hence it was not necessary for the Evangelists to give such prominence to it as to other incidents in our Lord's history, and without raising any suspicion in the minds of their readers, they could either omit it altogether, or introduce it briefly as a suitable close to their narrative.

We now come to alleged discrepancy in the statements of the Evangelists: "The Gospel according to St. Matthew does not expressly mention the Ascension; but it contains a passage that seems to imply that it took place on a mountain in Galilee." To this we reply,―There is nothing in St. Matthew's Gospel to give the impression that Christ rose from a mountain in Galilee. Why He went into Galilee we are not told, but doubtless His heart clung to the quiet scenes in which He had spent the earlier part of His public ministry. He was not less human after than before His resurrection, and He may have been influenced by a natural desire to look once more on the lake, the hills, the fields, the vineyards, the grassy glades on which the sycamores threw their shadows. To Him there would be a special charm in those objects, seeing that they were so associated with the memory of days when the basis of His kingdom was laid in His teaching and the call of His disciples. We know not all the incidents of that last visit to Galilee, but we have the appearance of Christ on the beach, the great draught of fishes, and the thrice-repeated inquiry, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?" We have also the statement of Matthew, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him,