The Psychic Life of Jesus,
The Psychic Life of Jesus,by the Rev. G. Maurice Elliott, author of "Spiritualism in the Old Testament"
[Dedication] To all who seriously try to understand what they read.
Jesus is reported to have said, "He that believeth on me the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do," and that "signs", such as the healing of the sick, would follow them that believe.
Jesus healed the sick. It was one of his "works". The Church, while professing to believe in Jesus, does not heal the sick, does not do his "works".
But, according to Jesus, if the Church "believed" the sick would be healed. He said so. The healing of the sick was to be a "sign" of "belief".
How comes it then that a Church, with the New Testament in hand, makes no attempt, as a Body, to do the works that Jesus did?
The reason is surely this: For centuries the Church has regarded Jesus as a "miraculous" person who performed "miracles". This belief has made it almost impossible for the Church to believe that Jesus really meant what he said. She admits that the disciples performed miracles of healing, and that there were "signs and wonders" in the Early Church. But she attributes these miracle-working powers either to the exceptional gifts or the exceptional faith of these early disciples, or, she regards these miracle-working powers as functioning only during the "Dispensation of 'signs and wonders'", which she would liken to the bell-ringing period prior to divine service in Church. When the service begins the bells cease to ring. When the Church is "established" the "signs and wonders" cease to be performed.
What is the truth about it all?
Harnack, Principal Cairns and Dr. Glover have given us the facts.
Harnack writes: "The Church now had its priests, its altars, its sacraments, and its Holy Book.... But it no longer possessed the spirit and the power of the spirit."
Principal Cairns writes: "And the miracles of the Spirit gradually ceased, because by compromise with the world the Church got out of touch with the pure grace of God. It no longer possessed the strong, unconventional faith of the first generation."
Dr. Glover writes: "The ministry of the Spirit, the ministry of 'gifts' was succeeded by the ministry of Office with its lower ideals of the practical and expedient."
That was it! That is it!
Miracles ceased when the Church became unworthy of them.
Miracles are unclassified phenomena. They are not unnatural. They are not supernatural. They are supernormal. Yesterday's miracles are today's natural laws. The most natural laws are spiritual laws, for Man is spirit.
Jesus came to reveal God to Man, and Man to himself.
Jesus taught men that they could be as he, and do the works that he did, if only they would think as he thought, trust as he trusted, pray as he prayed.
The Church in ascribing the miracles of Jesus to his Godhead has made a fatal mistake. She has divorced Jesus from the rest of Humanity. Had she ascribed his miracles to his perfect manhood she might then have conceived the possibility of men being able to do at least some of the works that he did.
This book is a humble attempt to show that all the so-called miracles of Jesus were performed in complete accordance with LAW -- sometimes Natural Law, sometimes Psychical Law, sometimes Spiritual Law, sometimes all three, but always in accordance with LAW.
There is much that the Church has taught men about Jesus that they cannot understand. But men are beginning to understand what Jesus taught them about themselves, about the power of thought, the power of trust, the power of prayer, and they are beginning to realize that these powers are God-given for the healing of the sick in body, mind and spirit. And they are exercising these powers; they are doing the works that Jesus did; "signs" are following them because they believe.
The Psychic Life of Jesus
Rejected by the Church, denied by Peter, betrayed by Judas, deserted by all the Apostles, arrested by Church guards and temple police, Jesus was condemned, crucified and buried.
The eleven deserters hid themselves in the Upper Room for fear of the Jews. They were in the depths of despondency. They had expected Jesus to lead them in battle against the hated Romans. He had failed to them. All was now lost.
Did it ever a teacher have a more ignorant and dull-witted set of disciples? In spite of all he had told them, and all that they had seen, they did not believe that he would rise from the "dead".
Fortunately, there were two members of the Jewish Council who secretly believed in Jesus, though they feared to support him. Joseph of Arimathaea asked Pilate for the dead body. Nicodemus brought a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes to embalm it. Otherwise the body might have been thrown in a pit or left to the vultures.
Joseph carried the body to a new tomb which he had prepared for himself. And the women from Galilee saw where the body was laid.
Very early on the Sunday -- "while it was yet dark" - Mary Magdalene hastened to the Upper Room. She had already been to the tomb, and she told the eleven deserters that the stone had been rolled away.
Then other women, Salome, Mary (mother of James the Less) and Joanna (wife of Herod's steward), who had been to the tomb, came to the Upper Room and told the disciples what they had seen. They said that the stone had been rolled away, and that the body of Jesus was not in the tomb. A "young man in a white robe" (Matthew says, "an angel") had told them that Jesus had risen. He had bidden them tell the disciples that they would see Jesus in Galilee.
To the eleven disciples this story of the women seemed sheer nonsense. They would not believe it! But Peter and John raced off to the sepulchre. John was first to reach the tomb. He glanced in and saw the bandages lying on the ground, but did not go inside.
Peter went inside the tomb and did not merely glance at the bandages. He riveted his gaze upon them. Why? what were those bandages? Coffins were not in use.
The dead body was wrapped in grave-clothes which were linen bandages -- the "winding-sheet". These were wrapped round and round from the feet up to the shoulder. The upper surface of the shoulders, the neck and the face were left bare. And a napkin was folded around the crown of the head. (It is important to know these details.)
Between each fold of the bandages myrrh and aloes were sprinkled, and Nicodemus had brought enough of these spices to cover the whole body, and the floor of the tomb as well -- which means that the bandages would be heavily laden with these unguents.
What so astonished Peter was that the bandages had not been unwrapped from the body. The body had presumably exhaled itself out of them without disturbing either them or their fastenings. Being convinced by these phenomena that Jesus had "risen" from the dead, Peter and John returned to their hiding-place, but Mary stood sobbing outside the tomb.
Now, no one who has outgrown the old idea of "miracle" can believe such a story as this unless he is familiar with the fact of dematerialisation, unless he knows that today, in London and elsewhere, not only can bodies be dematerialised, but clothes as well.
Why was the body of Jesus dematerialised? For at least two reasons:
(a) To confound his enemies. They would hear that he had risen and appeared to many, and would be unable to produce the body as evidence against the testimony, and they would be haunted by the Old Testament prophecy, "Thou wilt not suffer thy loyal one to be left in the grave" (Moffatt's translation); (b) To fulfil his own "prediction". The high priests and Pharisees gathered round Pilate and said, "We remember, sir, that when this impostor was alive he said, 'I will rise after three days.' Give orders, then, for the tomb to be sealed and guarded." And the tomb was sealed and guarded by four soldiers.
The Modernists, having given up belief in "miracle", regard the whole story as an invention by the early Church for polemical reasons. Some state quite frankly, "The body decayed in the tomb." Others think that his disciples may well have removed it.
The Report of the "Commission on Church Doctrine" admits, of course, the fact of his rising, but not the fact of the "empty tomb". It regards the story of the empty tomb as the symbol of the fact. In other words, the body of Jesus may have decayed in a natural way.
The majority (we are not told how many) of the Commission accepts the traditional explanation that Jesus rose "in his physical body from death and the tomb", but they are obliged to admit that "other explanations were suggested", and, of course, allowed.
I quite agree that, unless the body dematerialised, it must either have decayed in the tomb or been taken away.
But Spiritualists know that spirit operators can cause a body to dematerialise in a few minutes -- sometimes even in a flash. So they have no difficulty in believing the story.
Mary stood sobbing outside the tomb. Then she stooped down and looked in, and saw two angels (spirit messengers) in white sitting one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.
They saw her and asked, "Woman, why are you sobbing? Who are you looking for?" She answered: "They have taken away my Master, and I do not know where they have laid him."
Turning round, she saw a man who looked like the gardener, and asked him if he had removed the body.
Why did she not recognise Jesus? Why did she mistake him for the gardener?
The Christian scholar who is not also a Spiritualist can give no satisfactory answers to the questions. For example, one great orthodox scholar writes, "It is idle to speculate on the nature of the change in his appearance, as the subject is beyond our comprehension." Not very enlightening, is it?
To the multitudes of thinking persons the whole subject is "beyond their comprehension". They therefore either remain agnostic, or they accept the Modernist belief that "the body decayed in the tomb, or had been removed," and that the story of the "empty tomb" was invented by the early Church.
The only persons who can believe the story are the Spiritualists, and they have a reason for the faith that is in them. Their "reason" is knowledge. They know that when the "dead" materialise, their facial appearance often resembles that of the person from whom they have drawn most of the materialising power.
And if the "power" is strong, the materialised form may be as solid and substantial as the human body. But if the power is weak the materialised form is far less substantial.
Jesus evidently drew from the gardener "power" to materialise and show himself to Mary. He "resembled" the gardener. But he was able to produce a voice which so resembled his own that when he said "Mary" she at once recognised him.
Now, seriously-minded persons ask serious questions for serious reasons. And one of the many questions I would like to ask the Traditionalists is this: If Jesus rose from the tomb in his original physical body, where did he obtain clothes? He did not even take the linen cloths with him!
What clothes was he wearing when Mary mistook him for the gardener? Where did he get them from? "Beyond our comprehension!" say the Traditionalists. Exactly! But not beyond the comprehension of Spiritualists.
Why not? Because they have seen clothes materialise as well as bodies. So that part of the Resurrection story does not worry them.
"Do not cling to me!" said Jesus to Mary. Why not? If Jesus had risen in his physical body, surely he would have encouraged Mary to hold him firmly and to report the fact to his disciples. What better evidence!
But it was not his physical body. That had been dematerialised. It was a weak materialisation built up with the aid of "power" drawn mainly from the gardener. Jesus knew, as Spiritualists know, that a weak materialisation may at any moment fall to pieces. So he begged Mary, for her own sake, not to cling to him.
How do the orthodox commentators explained the words, "Do not cling to me"?
The latest Commentary on the New Testament tells us that "the meaning is twofold:
(a) Do not hold me back from My passage to the Father, when I can send the Spirit, nor delay to carry out your proper task. Each has higher work to do.
(b) Do not cling to Me, as if things were to be as when I was on earth; I go to My Father, and the approach to Me must be spiritual worship."
Poor Mary! Why did the loving Jesus exasperate her sorrow in this inhuman way? But, of course, he didn't; it is unthinkable.
When Jesus said, "I am not yet ascended to my Father" he meant that Mary must not be too disappointed at his not wishing her to cling to him because there would be other occasions when she could. It is as if he had said to her (with an assuring smile of love), "I don't want you to cling to me just now. I have not yet gone away, have I?" The important word to Mary was "yet".
And that little word spoken with a smile of love would have told her that there would be other opportunities of showing her devotion to him; "I am not yet ascended." He remained on earth for forty days.
We are told that if everything that Jesus said and did were to be written down in detail the world itself could not hold the written records. And, surely, one of the things that he did was to fulfill his promise to Mary!
Jesus said to Mary, "Touch me not." A few minutes later, "other women" fell at his feet and "clasped" them. The Greek says "seized hold of his feet". But Jesus did not say to them, "Touch me not." Why was that?
The materialised body in which he was manifesting was evidently now stronger, more substantial than when Mary sought to "touch" him. The "conditions" were better. There was more "power". There were more persons from whom power could be drawn. The materialisation was more complete. The women "recognised" him. Mary did not.
Spiritualists will be interested to read that these materialisations took place "while it was still dark".
Some of the soldiers who had guarded the tomb went to the high priests and "reported all that had happened". What did they report? How much had they seen?
They did not, of course, go like lambs to the slaughter and tell the high priest that, while they slept, the huge stone door had been removed, the bandages on the body unwound, fold by fold, the body stolen, and the bandages rewound, fold on fold, and left in exactly the same condition and position as before.
They must have witnessed at least some of the amazing phenomena at the sepulchre, and have told the high priests so. We read that they were in no way censured for their reprehensible neglect of duty. Instead, they were given a considerable sum of money to propagate a lie, namely, that "his disciples came by night and stole the body while we were asleep".
No lie could have been weaker in its effect, for obviously his disciples would never have preached, suffered, and "died" for their own gigantic fraud.
The fact was that the priests could not produce the body, and were at their wits' end to know what to do and say.
Now back to the Upper Room, where the disciples were "mourning and weeping". Mary had just burst in with the news, "I have seen the Lord. He has spoken to me. He called me by my name, 'Mary'." But the disciples did not believe her.
Then came the "other women" and told how they too had seen Jesus and clasped his feet. But "their words seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not."
I conjecture that it was at this time that Peter felt compelled to reveal his secret. He too had seen Jesus, and he could not bear to hear his fellow-apostles ridicule the testimony of the women. So he frankly confessed that he too had seen Jesus alive from the "dead".
When had he seen him? We are not told. What did Jesus say to him? Not a word is recorded. I think the interview was too sacred, too delicate, too personal for Peter to make it public. Remember, it was the first time that Peter had met Jesus since his denial. Need more be said? But his testimony convinced the unbelieving apostles.
And when, a few moments later two disciples - Cleopas and another -- came in with their wondrous story of what had happened on the road to Emmaus, they were greeted with the joyful cry, "Jesus is risen! It is a fact! He has been seen by Peter." The two disciples then told what they too had seen.
And what they had seen can only be understood by Spiritualists, as I shall show.
Here is their story: While on the road to Emmaus, they were talking together about the stupendous events of the past week when a stranger approached and journeyed with them. His appearance did not resemble that of Jesus, and they therefore did not recognise him. The materialisation was imperfect or weak.
"What are you discussing so intently?" he asked. Cleopas answered: "You must indeed be an utter stranger in Jerusalem if you do not know what has been happening there."
When they reached Emmaus it was getting dark, and they persuaded the stranger to stay at their house. And at supper he took bread, blessed it, broke it and handed it to them. They then recognised him.
The "conditions" were better indoors than "on the road". There was far less light and much more "power", and the materialised form was stronger. All this can be quite well understood by Spiritualists. Their experiences of the process of materialisation at séances have made them familiar with "conditions", "power", weak and strong materialised forms.
On the road to Emmaus the two disciples had been telling the stranger of the empty tomb, and what Peter had told them about the condition and position of the "bandages", which showed that the body had exhaled from them, and how puzzled they all were.
Jesus did not attempt to explain to them the process of "dematerialisation". He knew that a demonstration of it would be far more convincing. So at supper he just "vanished from them".
The Greek here is most interesting and might have been written by a psychic scientist. It evidently reports faithfully what the two disciples declared they saw.
It does not say "he vanished out of their sight". Nor does it say "he became invisible to them". It says "he became invisible from them", and it means that he gradually faded from them, gradually dematerialised from them.
They witnessed it, and hurried back to the Upper Room to tell the apostles -- especially Peter -- exactly what they had seen. This gave Peter the key to the problem of the undisturbed bandages, and the "humped-up" napkin.
I said that the report, in the Greek, might have been written by a psychic scientist. Well, compare it with the report of Katie King's famous demonstration of dematerialisation. She was fully "materialised" in a room sixteen feet square, and then allowed three gas-burners to be turned on to their full extent. She remained recognisable for one second only (after the light was turned on) for she immediately began to melt away until nothing of her was left and "we were left staring at the spot on which she had stood)". She "became invisible from them".
It was dark outside, and there would have been only a dim light in the Upper Room (for the disciples were in hiding) when the two entered. They at once began to tell of their amazing experience, and, while they were speaking, ("the doors being shut") Jesus materialised in their midst.
They were all (except Thomas, who was not present) terrified, imagining it was a ghost they saw. But Jesus said to them, "Why are you so afraid and unbelieving? Look at my hands and feet. See the nail prints. It is I. Feel me and see; a ghost has not flesh and bones as you see I have."
It was too good to be true. "They could not believe for sheer joy." So to calm them and convince them, Jesus asked for food, and ate some broiled fish.
"The mystery is wholly beyond our comprehension, because it is wholly beyond our experience," says one of our great commentators. But is it?
Ernest Oaten tells us in his priceless little book, "That Reminds Me", that he has seen a "materialised" spirit (a spirit is a person!) eat food, and that after the person had dematerialised there was no trace of the food.
Dr. Abraham Wallace tells us, in his "Jesus of Nazareth", that at his home circle the "dead" wife of one of the sitters materialised, "clad in robes of such snowy and dazzling whiteness as forcibly to remind us of the 'shining garments' of those other glorified spirits who, eighteen hundred years ago, stood within the sepulchre.
"She took from the table a plate of biscuits and cakes and handed them round, and 'did eat before us' a small piece of cake, and drank some milk."
I have only given two cases of "materialised" persons who have partaken of food. There have been quite a number of such cases. And it is these modern cases which make it possible for the modern reasoning and questioning mind to believe that Jesus "ate a piece of broiled fish" when in a "materialised" body.
Once again, it is the Spiritualist who is saving the Bible and Christianity from destruction at the hands of bigoted scholars and scientists who refuse to face the facts of psychic science.
When Jesus materialised again in the Upper Room, Thomas the doubter was present. What did Jesus mean when he said to him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are they who have not seen me and have believed."
He meant that the nine disciples who had believed Peter's testimony were happier than unbelieving Thomas. He meant that Thomas would have been a happier man had he but believed the testimony of ten of his most intimate and trusted companions, instead of insisting on seeing the nail-prints.
Jesus did not, of course, mean that those who had seen him were less blessed than those who had not seen him. Such an interpretation of his words plays havoc with their context, and is wholly forced and unnatural.
Jesus knew that there would have been no religion without external, objective psychical phenomena, without seeing and hearing. All religion is revelation.
Jesus knew that Israel's religion was founded on, and kept alive by, objective revelations received by those in whom the psychical faculty was developed, and who saw and heard and spoke to God's "ministering spirits".
Jesus knew that his own religion was rooted and grounded in objective manifestations, in "signs and wonders", which were seen.
And he would never have dreamed of saying that those who had not seen were more blessed than those who had seen. He was referring, as the context shows, to the nine apostles who had not seen but had believed the testimony of Peter. They had not seen, but had believed.
Thomas had seen Jesus perform "signs and wonders". He had himself performed some. So had all the apostles.
It was bad enough for the eleven apostles to disbelieve the testimony of the women. But it was far worse for Thomas to disbelieve the testimony of his ten intimate and trusted friends.
So Jesus rebuked them all -- especially Thomas. And well they deserved it!
Jesus "materialised" many times after his crucifixion. Paul mentions a few of the instances: "He appeared to Peter, to the eleven, to five hundred disciples at once, to James, to all the apostles, and to me also." Luke says, "With abundant proofs he showed himself to them alive after his death."
Yes, for nearly six weeks Jesus showed himself, under different conditions, until he was satisfied that his disciples were fully and firmly convinced that he was still living.
And what a training he gave them in the various "forms" of manifestation that are possible to a discarnate person!
They had received overwhelming proof that he was alive by his "appearances" in the Upper Room at Jerusalem.
Jesus now wished them to go to Galilee, where he promised to meet them. They had been away from their homes for about six months, and Jesus had evidently told them to return to their trades as it was necessary for them to earn their living.
On one occasion in Galilee, seven of them had spent the night fishing on the lake and had caught nothing. In the dawn they saw on the shore a stranger who called out to them, "Lads, have you found any fish?" "No," they answered. So he told them to throw their net on the other side of the boat and they would find.
His words puzzled them. Their boat was 100 yards from the shore! How could this stranger know that fishes were on the other side of the boat? However, they threw the net on the other side, and could not haul it in for the mass of fish.
None of the disciples had recognised in the form or voice of the stranger that it was Jesus who had called to them.
But John, recalling the "draught of fishes" of earlier days, when Jesus was in the fishing boat, felt that the stranger must be Jesus and told Peter so.
When they had dragged their netful of fish to the land, they saw a charcoal fire burning, with fish cooking on it, and some bread.
The stranger said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have caught, and come and have breakfast." Then follows the writer's comment, "Not one of the disciples dared to ask him who he was; they knew it was the Lord." What an extraordinary sentence! Why, if he perfectly resembled Jesus in appearance and voice, should they even wish to ask who he was?
Once again, it was evidently a case of imperfect or incomplete materialisation.
The word translated "ask" in the sentence "None ... dared to ask him" means to "search out" or "examine". It is the same word as that used in the sentence, "Into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter search out who in it is worthy" and "Search out carefully the young child" (Herod to the "wise men").
It means that, although the "appearance" of the stranger did not much resemble Jesus, his disciples were convinced by this second "draught of fishes" and no doubt by the stranger's manner too, that it was their beloved leader.
I think there was also something else that helped to convince them. In the Upper Room the disciples had given Jesus a fish supper. On the shore he "returned the compliment" by preparing a fish breakfast for them. And would they not have said to one another, "Just like him, isn't it?" There was no need to cross-question him.
There was a hill in Galilee to which Jesus, when he was in the flesh, used to retire for rest and prayer. Matthew refers to it as "The hill".
The disciples went to this hill because Jesus had promised to meet them again there. And we are told that "when they saw him they bowed low before him, and some doubted." The Greek can equally well mean "and all doubted".
But why did any doubt? The eleven disciples had seen him in a perfectly materialised form in the Upper Room. Seven of them had breakfasted with him on the shore. Why should they have "doubted" on the hill? It may have been that the "materialisation" was far from perfect.
It is generally believed that this was the occasion on which Jesus "appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once". In any case, it is pretty evident that the "materialised" form did not altogether "resemble" Jesus. Hence the doubt in the disciples' minds.
To the student of psychic science, these various accounts of the post-crucifixion "materialisations" are absorbingly interesting. They confirm in detail what happens today when those on the Other Side try to show themselves in "materialised" form. Given good "conditions" and plenty of "power", the materialised form is quite solid and recognizable.
But where "conditions" are not good, the form is less solid and less recognizable. When it is dark, results are better -- as they were with the "materialisations" of Jesus. Materialisations -- ancient and modern -- are dependent upon the same immutable psychic laws.
After Jesus had manifested on the hill, the apostles returned to Jerusalem.
The final manifestation of Jesus was to his disciples on the Mount of Olives, where he was "received up into heaven" and where "a cloud received him out of their sight". The Greek says "a cloud withdrew him from their sight".
What kind of a "cloud" was it? Where is heaven? Traditionalists do not ask such questions as these. The whole of the life story of Jesus is for them miraculous and "beyond their comprehension".
But well-informed modern thinkers do ask such questions. They want to know. For today no intelligent persons believe in "miracle". No intelligent persons believe that "heaven is above the clouds".
Today no intelligent persons fear the frown of God in their search for truth. They no longer fear to "doubt". They know that "there lives more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds". And they no longer fear to differ from bishop, priest and church. They know only too well how fallible are men and systems. They know, too, that the Bible is by no means infallible.
They know that Paul, claiming the highest inspiration -- "the word of the Lord" -- was quite wrong when he informed his readers that, before their "death", some of them would "be caught up in the clouds and meet the Lord in the air". They were not "caught up". They did not "meet the Lord in the air". The Lord was not in the air.
Today, all serious students of the Bible claim the right to question, if need be, every part of it, because their sole object is to try and understand what they read.
They therefore ask, "What kind of cloud was it that 'withdrew' the 'materialised' body in which Jesus manifested on the Mount?"
Psychic science alone can give an intelligent and satisfying answer to that question.
It tells them that at the beginning of the process of "materialisation" a luminous cloud is often seen. This "cloud" increases in size until it reaches the proportions of a man, and from it emerges, or is evolved, a materialised body.
It tells them that when the body dematerialises the process is reversed. And, as the body dissipates, the luminous cloud envelops it until, at last, the body is completely resolved into the clouds. Sometimes it is the feet which are the first to dematerialise, and this gives the impression that the body is being levitated, or beginning to float in the air. The luminous cloud grows larger and larger as the rest of the body dematerialises. This gives the impression that the body is being "withdrawn" into the "cloud".
Psychic science interprets the phenomena of the resurrection and subsequent appearances and disappearances of Jesus as clear cases of materialisation and dematerialisation. These phenomena thus become intelligible, and the Gospel story is no longer "beyond our comprehension".
Without the knowledge which psychic science has given us, the Gospel story is utterly incomprehensible, a mass of inconsistencies, and is quietly "turned down" by the vast majority of modern reasoning persons.
F.W.H. Myers wrote, "We predict that, in consequence of the new evidence, all reasonable men and women, a century hence, will believe in the Resurrection of Christ; whereas, in default of the new evidence, no reasoning man a century hence will believe it." Myers "passed on" some thirty-seven years ago. His prediction shows every sign of coming true.
My task is finished. I have done my best in these pages to show that Jesus came not only to give us a full of revelation of God, but also to give us a full of revelation of the powers inherent in ourselves. The works that he did he would have us do, and greater works.
His "signs and wonders" were part of his works. His faith in prayer and his "prayer of faith" were part of his works -- the preparatory process. And he has assured us that if we will but attend to the "preparatory process" we shall do the works that he did. "These 'signs' shall follow them that believe."