same Christ who suffered on the cross.

[Sidenote: Not an Invention.]

[Sidenote: An Eye-witness Story.]

It seems impossible that the Resurrection could have been an invention
or that the account of it could be a work of the imagination. The last
is almost as great a miracle as the Resurrection itself. In detail, in
naturalness, even in the presence of difficulties and hindrances to easy
belief of the story, the narrative seems that of an eye-witness. No
reasoning can bring faith, however, to one who denies the miraculous. As
a fact, the Resurrection is incapable of naturalistic explanation. To
those who deny the miraculous I can only again point out how Huxley cuts
out the _a priori_ argument from Hume as worthless. As quoted in his
biography, Huxley says: "We are not justified in the _a priori_
assertion that the order of nature, as experience has revealed it to us,
can not change. The assumption is illegitimate because it involves the
whole point in dispute."

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Ascent into Heaven.]

[Sidenote: The Ascension.]

[Sidenote: Nature not Wholly Love.]

[Sidenote: Evil and Good.]