Professor Hackett: "The language seems to show that the first Christians had distinctly revolved the question, whether the Saviour's resurrection was real or not, and had assured themselves of its reality by evidence which did not admit in their minds of the shadow of a doubt." We do not see how the evidence could have been made more satisfactory to us. No valid objections have ever been urged against it. Professor Lewis refers to the testimony before us in the following

strain: "What can be more truthful than the manner of narration, and what more incredible than that it should have been so told by men who knew that it was all a lying picture, whose most minute and tender touches would, on such a supposition, be the grossest of all mendacities? To think of such a story, and so told, by men who had stolen their Master's lifeless body, and knew that it was lying concealed somewhere, a decomposing corpse! To think of such truthful simplicity, such enthusiasm, such earnestness, such courage, such elevated thought, such holy emotion, such a heavenly life of love, such martyr deaths coming from such a source! — of so much unearthly vitality, in short, proceeding

from a mouldering death; so much spiritual splendor from the darkness of a hopeless grave; so much heavenly truth, or truth that seems so heavenly, from known lies, So revolting to any pure conscience, so alien to all elevated hope, so inconsistent with any moral heroism, so utterly destructive of any martyr spirit, of any soul-sustaining faith! Incredible, most incredible!" 1

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

HAVING now completed our survey of the records of Christ's miracles, we submit a few thoughts on the testimony which they afford.

The number of witnesses is ample. The testimony would be scarcely more convincing were this number greater. Several of the miracles (six) are related by two of the evangelists, a still larger number (twelve) by three of them, and two, at least, by four of them. Moreover, such is the character of these miracles, so many traits of moral likeness do they exhibit, that whoever admits the reality of those recorded by two or three of the evan

1 The Divine Human in the Scriptures, pp. 303, 304.

gelists will have no hesitation in admitting the reality of all the rest. But Mark and Luke, it may be said, were not witnesses of the events which they describe. Perhaps not; yet their narratives give evidence of being no more than accurate records of testimony delivered by immediate witnesses. They were familiar with the personal attendants of Jesus, and had listened with deep interest and reverence to their accounts of his mighty works. Luke declares that his 'gospel is but a careful and orderly statement of what the eyewitnesses and servants of the word had reported; and the pages of Mark, to say nothing of early tradition, prove that he is giving the testimony of one who knew by direct observation whereof he affirmed. Besides, the miracles of Jesus were not wrought in a corner. They were performed in open day, and often in public places. In every instance several witnesses were present, and therefore neither Mark nor Luke could have the slightest difficulty in ascertaining from more than one eye-witness the particulars of each miracle.

The integrity of these witnesses is also above suspicion. No trace of a sinister pur

ence.

pose appears in their writings. They put on record the humble origin, the mysterious temptation, and the hard sayings of Jesus. They describe his agony in the garden, his faintness under the cross, and his dreadful cry at the withdrawal of his Father's presAnd they utter no word in explanation or in extenuation of such facts. It was clearly no part of their aim to make a hero of their Master, to eulogize his character, his works, or his words. A sacred reverence for his person pervades their narratives, and they venture neither to praise, to expound, nor to criticize his teachings. So, too, they put on record their own mistakes and follies and sins, their prejudice, ambition, unbelief. Very distinct, yet by no means flattering, is the portrait which they have sketched of themselves; yet so intent were they on the one purpose of their writing, viz.: to embalm the precious words of Jesus and the leading events of his ministry, that they seem never to bring themselves to notice, except in so far as this was necessary in giving a history of Christ. Besides, what motive could lead deceivers and impostors, while endeavoring to foist a spurious revelation on mankind, to make the moral

character of their religion so pure, the life which it enjoins so holy, the sanctions enforcing love and mercy so terrible? Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Or what advantage could they hope to reap in this life, or in that which is to come, by such falsehood, arraying themselves against kindred and friends, God and honesty, to honor a blasphemer or enthusiast who had died ignominiously? The integrity of the evangelists cannot be questioned or denied by any sane

man.

Furthermore, the powers of observation and memory possessed by these witnesses were excellent. For they narrate with singular clearness and vividness. The events which they describe seem often to be taking place before our eyes. The persons whom they introduce speak out their characters and live in our presence. And the words which they record are in keeping with the various speakers and circumstances. Every clause tells. Narratives so brief could not well be more graphic. They are too abrupt, concise, and full of thought to be fictitious; too natural and lifelike to be legends. The writers do not waver, hesitate, or modify, as if uncertain