went in and out among them, from the baptism of John unto that same day when "he was taken up" from them (Acts i: 21, 22), and Paul describes the Saviour as one whom "God had raised from the dead, and set at his own right hand in the heavenly places" (Eph. vi: 21), while John puts on record his words to Mary Magdalene: "Go to my brethren, and say to them: "I ascend to my Father and your Father and my God and your God." But it is needless to seek for evidence on this point, since no one at the present day will be so inconsistent as to deny the ascension of Christ while conceding the fact of his resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead, according to his prediction, he also, beyond any doubt, ascended into heaven, and "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

12. To the Apostle Paul. In proof of this we have the testimony of Paul himself: "Last of all he was seen of me also" (I. Cor. xv: 8, cf. ix: 1; Acts xix: 17, 27; xxii: 14; also xxii: 18). Such, doubtless, was the appearance of Christ to this apostle as to afford decisive evidence of his being in reality Jesus of Nazareth. Yet his body was already glorified; it seems to us, therefore, that Paul's testimony goes to prove that our spiritual bodies" hereafter will bear some perceptible likeness to our present bodies. If so, they may facilitate the recognition of earthly friends in the world to come.

66

In view of the records already considered, it is not surprising that Luke asserts that he "showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs" to his chosen disciples, "during forty days appearing to them." Says 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.

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 Evangelists 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 eye-witnesses 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. 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.

They were

The integrity of these witnesses is also above suspicion. No trace of a sinister purpose 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 presence. And 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 criticise 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 life-like to be legends. The writers do not waver, hesitate or modify, as if uncertain about the precise fact; but they speak freely, positively and to the point, as men who know the certainty of what they affirm. No writers in any age have given better evidence of careful observation and distinct recollection. When they wrote these memoirs of Jesus their mental vision seems to have been perfectly clear, without the slightest mist or haze. "It is found indispensable," says Greenleaf," as a test of truth, and to the proper administration of justice, that every living witness should, if possible, be subjected to the ordeal of a

cross-examination, that it may appear-what were his powers of perception, his opportunities for observation, his attentiveness in observing, the strength of his recollection and his disposition to speak the truth." So far as it is possible to test the character of witnesses by scrutinizing and comparing their written testimony in regard to the same events, the Evangelists have been thus tested by friends and foes, and no witnesses have been found worthy of higher confidence.

"In its

Again: The phenomena which they attest were sensible. They speak of what could be heard, or seen, or tasted, or handled. They set forth those events, and as a rule those only, which fell under the notice of their senses. They propose no philosophy of miracles or of history; they undertake no explanation of spiritual powers or processes; they answer no curious questions of the speculative reason. grand, child-like, and holy simplicity, the narrative passes by such questions of the intellect, just as a child moves among the riddles of nature and of life, as if they existed not." The special task of the evangelists was to report the words and acts of Jesus, with their manifest consequences, and this task they performed in the fittest manner conceivable. It is also worthy of notice, that when the evidence of a particular sense was requisite in order to verify any miracle, opportunity was never wanting to apply that sense. In this way were tested the wine at Cana, the bread for the multitudes, and the risen body of Christ.

Once more, their testimony as to these phenomena is positive. The style of the Evangelists indicates certain knowledge. It seems to say, with modest yet serene confidence: “We have not followed cunningly devised fables," but "that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, declare we unto you." They do not write as men who are uncertain whether they know the facts or not. They "do not write as men who are fearful that their statements will be discredited, and therefore anxious to confirm them by heaping up evidence." They bear themselves as intelligent witnesses, whose duty is to state facts of which they are distinctly cognizant, and no more. They never

venture beyond the sphere of vivid into that of dim recollection or uncertain conjectures. No philosophical reflections, no special pleadings, no gushes of emotion or flashes of indig nation, no eulogies or apologies, mar the simplicity of the gospel narrative. With clearness, brevity and dignity, do they relate the events of our Saviour's ministry as facts too certain to be called in question by any honest mind, and too important to be exalted by any effort of human speech. Especially is this true of their accounts of the miracles wrought by Christ.

Again The testimony of the Evangelists is independent. They rarely, if ever, copy from one another. Indeed, the differences are so marked as to forbid the hypothesis of even a common traditional source, on which any two of them were dependent. They are rather such as might be expected in case several witnesses of the same events were to describe them fully as presented to their observation. In the course of our study there has been frequent occasion to notice this feature of the gospel narrative. Wherever the same miracle has been described by different Evangelists, the originality of each writer has been apparent. In all the minor details, as well as in the phraseology, there has been ample evidence of freedom and freshness. The bearing of this fact upon the value of these records as testimony is obvious. It makes each of them a separate witness, and the weight of their united voice irresistible. It shows the impossibility of mistake or collusion.

Their testimony, as we have seen, is also in substance harmonious. There is just such an agreement about essentials as might be anticipated in the evidence of persons who were accurately describing real events, each from his own point of view. The harmony is not verbal or formal, but substantial, pertaining to the main facts and moral features of the transaction, while the diversity is circumstantial, and never of such a kind as to evince ignorance or prejudice. The union of these two characteristics in the sacred narrative is partially explained by admitting the occurrence of the miracles which they relate, and fully, we may add, by supposing the mental