cre of the infants by Herod; second, the star of Bethlehem; third, the darkness at the time of the crucifixion, etc.

"The first is referred to by Macrobius, a heathen historian, in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the universal belief in the fact.

"The second is mentioned by Chalcidus, a Platonic philosopher, who attests the facts in almost the same words as the Gospel.

"The third (the darkness) is mentioned by Phlegon of Trallium, a pagan who lived in the middle of the second century; i. e., about the year of our Lord 150."

As to Macrobius, who lived in the fifth century, one would suppose that he was a poor witness of events which transpired some four hundred years before he was born. And again, a legend precisely like that told of the massacre of the infants by Herod was believed to have taken place 1200 years A. D., when a tyrant sought the life of the child Chrishna, the atoning saviour of the Hindoos.

Chalcidus, who was born in the second century (scarcely contemporary with Jesus or his apostles), speaks, in his "Comments on the Timaeus of Plato," of a star which presaged neither disease nor death, but the descent of a god among men, which was verified by Chaldean astronomers, who hastened to present gifts to the child-god. But what proof have we that Chalcidus referred to events which attended the birth of Jesus? The Father is aware that the unlearned will suppose that the passage quoted could refer only to the events spoken of by the evangelists. They are not presumed to know that hundreds of years before Christ was born, and among many nations, prophecies were written of stars which should appear at the birth of heroes, gods, and demi-gods, whose births, with attendant wonders, heathen historians afterwards recorded as having occurred in exact fulfilment of

prophecy; that stars appeared; that wise men hastened to bow before the infant prodigies, and to present their gifts in token of adoration; that those saviours of the ancient world were born of virgins, and came to save the world and atone for sin. "Faber, an English writer, in his history of idolatry, tells us that Zoroaster prophetically declared that a virgin should conceive and bear a son, and that a star would appear blazing at mid-day to signalize the occurrence. 'When you behold the star,' said he to his followers, 'follow it whithersoever it leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering to him gifts with profound humility. He is indeed the Almighty Word which created the heavens. He is indeed the Lord and everlasting King.'"*

So of Chrishna (1200 years B. C.), who, according to the Hindoo Bible, was born of a virgin, was visited by shepherds, wise men, and angels, whose life was threatened, as was that of Jesus, by a tyrant, who commanded all of the first-born to be put to death; who was baptized in the river Ganges, was anointed by women, and who had his beloved disciple. He taught by parables, preached a notable sermon, was honored by a triumphal reception by the crowds, who strewed branches before him; taught doctrines of peace and purity, was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples. See Appendix (B). The parallel might be extended and numerous other cases cited, did space permit, of miraculous occurrences attendant on the birth of "god-men," who lived and died long before Jesus was born. Does the Father then claim that the Platonist, Chalcidus, referred to the star of Bethlehem, when heathen records abound in accounts of the appearance, under like circumstances, of the same wonders as are recorded by the evangelists; all in attestation of like events (the birth of gods), and presaging to humanity the same deliverances?

*See "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours," by Kersey Graves.

Let us now consult the writings of one to whom the literary world does deference. I quote from Gibbon's Rise and Decline of the Roman Empire.

"During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrines which they preached were confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated portion of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this marvellous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened in the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature—earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses-which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. But the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular deflect of light which followed the murder of Cæsar, when, during the greatest part of the year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendor. This season of obscurity, which surely cannot be compared with the preternatural darkness of the

ΙΟ

Passion, has been already celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age."

With regard to the passage from Phlegon, cited by the Father, and referring to the eclipse said to have taken place at the time of the crucifixion, Gibbon in a note remarks: "It has been wisely abandoned." But Phlegon, it will be remembered, was not the contemporary of Jesus nor of the apostles. Neither was Julian, nor any of the other authors called by the Father to testify to the prodigies which were said to have attended the birth and death of Jesus.

Lambert.-"Why do you reject the works of the evangelists and admit the works of Josephus?"

We do not reject the works of the evangelists in an unqualified sense. They were anonymous productions, written or collated, with perhaps one exception, by some authors whose names they did not originally bear. The highest Catholic authorities tell us, as we have shown, that they do not prove themselves. They record prodigies which, in themselves, are incredible. Where Josephus does likewise we do not receive his statements as true. But that he wrote the works accredited to him has never, as far as I know, been questioned. We do not say that miracles have never been wrought, only that they have not been proved. Says Renan: "None of the miracles with which ancient histories are filled occurred under scientific conditions. Observation, never once contradicted, teaches us that miracles occur only in periods. and countries in which they are believed in, and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle was ever performed before an assembly of men capable of establishing the miraculous character of an act. Neither men of the people nor men of the world are competent for that. Great precautions and a long habit of scientific research are requisite. In our days have we not seen nearly all men the dupes of

gross prestiges or puerile illusions? Marvellous acts attested by every inhabitant of small towns have become, under at more severe scrutiny, acts of felony. It is certain that no contemporaneous miracle bears examination; is it not probable that the miracles of the past, all of which were performed in popular assemblages, would also present to us, were it possible for us to criticise them in detail, their share of illusion?

"It is not, therefore, in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of constant experience, that we banish miracle from history. We do not say 'miracle is impossible; we say, 'there has been hitherto no miracle proved.' Let a thaumaturgist (believer in wonders) present himself to-morrow with testimony sufficiently important to merit our attention; let him announce that he is able, I will suppose, to raise the dead; and what would be done? A commission composed of physiologists, physicians, chemists, persons experienced in historical criticism, would be appointed. This commission would choose the corpse, make certain that death was real, designate the hall in which the. experiment should be made, and regulate the whole system of precautions necessary to leave no room for doubt. If, under such conditions, the resurrection should be performed, a probability almost equal to certainty would be attained. However, as an experiment ought always to be capable of being repeated, as one ought to be capable of doing again what one has done once, and as in the matter of miracles there can be no question of easy or difficult, the thaumaturgist would be invited to reproduce his marvellous act under other circumstances, upon other bodies, in another medium. If the miracle succeeds each time, two things will be proven: first, that supernatural acts do come to pass in the world; second, that the power to perform them belongs or is delegated to certain persons. But who does not see that no miracle was ever performed under such con