Scripture if he could have found them, just as he has selected from heathen miracles the reputed healing of a blind man by Vespasian in Alexandria. As he has not done so, we infer that he saw none such among the records. They would fail of comparison in some essential respect. Either the antecedents of the person said to be healed were wholly unknown, or his actual condition of body, when he came from a distance to a place where no one knew him, was not understood; or the cure was one which it was within the power of a sympathetic imagination to mitigate, or to cure completely.

It is quite plain to the most casual inquirer into this subject that, in such a case as we are now speaking of, the most extraordinary facilities exist for imposition and credulity to build up an apparently very strong case, which had no possible existence in the case of the miracles of Scripture.

When Christ raised the widow's son at Nain, or Lazarus at Bethany, all the people of those towns knew all the circumstances of the widow's son and of Lazarus. So when Peter raised Tabitha at Joppa, or healed Eneas at Lydda, the people of Joppa and Lydda knew all about them (Acts ix. 33-42). And such was the character of all the more prominent miracles of Scripture. The worker of the miracle came to the place where the subject of the miracle dwelt, and where all his antecedents and circumstances were thoroughly known, and there performed the cure. The person cured remained there with all those who had known him before and

after the cure. The most complete means existed of ascertaining if there had been any deception, or fraud, or mistake on the part of the worker or subject of the miracle. But all this is changed when we come to a case where people from every part of a country, far and near, come to a place to be healed. Most of them are, and must be, utterly unknown at the place by the parties to whom they may specially address themselves, and by the persons by whom they are surrounded. Most of them probably come to be healed of something; but they may exaggerate their case most materially. In a place and a time when to be healed was a triumph to an influential cause, it is quite possible that some did not come to be healed but to appear to have been healed by the wonder-working power of the place. Such things have been; and the circumstance that many came from a distance to persons by whom they were utterly unknown, but by whom a miracle would be most rapturously hailed, would afford the utmost facility to cases of the kind. And it is for these reasons that we say that the individual and alleged miracles at the tomb of the Abbé Paris come altogether short. They cannot be ranked as miracle. They were within the power of the spontaneous agencies of nature, or they did not, from the circumstances of the case, receive sufficient attestation. To all this it must be added that they were utterly rejected as miraculous by the Jesuits and their adherents, and that the belief in them so utterly failed that in no long time subsequent the Jansenist party

was utterly put down. We do not think the Jansenist party to have been exempt from that pernicious doctrine of Rome, that the end justifies the means. They had what seemed to them a most important end to gain. It is quite possible that Jansenist piety may have mingled up a little fraud in the composition of their miracle. At all events, the French Church declined to accept the alleged works at the tomb as miracle, and so gives the most powerful confirmation to all that we have said about them.

Having disposed of Mill's comparison of the miracles of Scripture with those of the modern Church of Rome, we now proceed to his next objection, to the credibility of the Gospel miracles. It is this: that the eye-witnesses to those miracles were "moved by a union of the strongest motives which can inspire human beings to persuade, first themselves, and then others, that what they had seen was a miracle" (239).

We would wish much that Mill had told us what were the motives which could urge the apostles and other eye-witnesses to persuade themselves, contrary to fact, that certain works which either their Master or they are alleged to have performed, were miracles. He has, however, done nothing of the kind. He has made a strong general assertion, but has not attempted to substantiate it. We will then make bold to say that the direct opposite to Mill's statement is the actual state of things, and that the eye-witnesses of whom he speaks were urged by a union of the very strongest motives which could influence them to scrutinize most jealously the character of the works they witnessed, and not to admit them to be miracles. unless they had the fullest and amplest means of knowing them to be such. We say, moreover, that such were the circumstances of those eye-witnesses that, even if they were fully persuaded of the reality of the miracles, they had still the very strongest temptations that can actuate the human mind to keep their convictions to themselves, and not to go forward in the face of the world to give that testimony which they certainly gave. It was only the most thorough conviction of the reality and truth of the miracles, united to a deep sense of consequent responsibility to God and an honest mind, which could make them take the course which they did. We do not deny-we do not want to deny-that with such conviction and feeling, they had a personal interest in their own faith, and a personal interest in persuading others of its truth. But their interest all lay in another life. The basis and stay of that interest all rested upon the truth of the miracles. If they were not true, they had the strongest reasons for rejecting them whether as regards this life or that which is to come.

The only possible worldly object which can be supposed to have influenced Jesus Christ and His apostles to induce belief in His claims-supposing those claims not to have been well foundedwas the ambition of setting up a religion of which they should be the heads. We do not deny that such a motive has much power

with some minds, but we do say that of all the people in the world the idea of setting up a religion could least have entered into the minds of Christ and His first followers, if they really had not supernatural power working with them. It is priests, philosophers, statesmen, who conceive such projects, and conceive them because they would conduce to their worldly advantage, and because they have, from their circumstances and their position, some fair prospect of inducing belief in that which they propound. But the notion of an illiterate young carpenter, with no knowledge beyond his trade, and no skill beyond that of plane and compass, going forth at the head of a dozen illiterate men who had no knowledge beyond that required for collecting taxes, or catching fish in the Sea of Galilee, for the purpose of making war against all the established religions of the world, and changing the faith of mankind, is of all ideas the most supremely absurd. To entertain any hope of succeeding-supposing the claim to miraculous power unfounded -they must have been a parcel of silly, half-crazy enthusiasts! Cervantes' picture of Don Quixote going forth with Sancho Panza to redress the wrongs of man and woman, with no other means than his own lean horse and his ancient spear, does not present so utterly ridiculous an idea as the carpenter of Nazareth at the head of his publicans and fishermen going forth on a religious crusade against priesthoods, and philosophers, and peoples, and established systems, with no other reliance than upon a supernatural aid which really was not present. Cervantes does not send forth his hero on his mission until he is fairly mad, and the only attendant he can procure for him is a very simple dependent who had looked up to his master as the wisest of men, and whose greed, coupled with most astonishing ignorance, led him to expect some substantial benefit in this world for following him through the mountains of Spain. And yet, even Sancho, despite his supposed worldly interest, soon looks upon his master as half mad; and most assuredly, if the knight had been slain in any of the encounters he met with, we should never have seen the squire donning his armour and mounting his horse, and going forth to persuade the Spanish mind to that which his master had failed to persuade it to.

The comparison may appear light, but it is not so. We say that if Jesus Christ was really devoid of miraculous power, He must have been as crazy as Don Quixote in attempting what He did. We say that if He had no power beyond that of a carpenter, His apostles must have been as simple and ignorant as Sancho Panza to attend Him in His peregrinations. We say that as surely as the famous squire soon began to suspect the rhapsodies of his master, so the fishermen and others who attended Christ would very soon begin to suspect that the idea of Messiahship was a craze. We say that with the same certainty that Cervantes' squire would have returned to his village without taking up the profession of knighthood if his master had been slain by the wings of the windmill, so

would the apostles have returned to and remained at their old occupations on their Master's crucifixion if He were only a mad enthusiast. We say that if His claims to supernatural power were as unfounded as those of Cervantes' knight to be the divinely appointed redresser of all wrongs, He would have failed as completely to impress the human mind with faith in His claims as Don Quixote failed to impress that of Spain in Cervantes' famous romance. Supposing the miracles of Jesus Christ not to have been really wrought, or to have been only ordinary works within the power of man or nature to perform, let us ask ourselves what possible motives they could have had to persuade themselves to the contrary? What motives could they have had in this life? None, unless it is a motive to a line of conduct to gain thereby persecution, poverty, or death! What motives could they have had in a future life? None; but the very strongest the other way. They could not hope that advocating the cause of a deceiver could win them anything good in a life to come.

If, indeed, their Master's claims were true-and to be true they must have rested on the reality of that miraculous power to which they bore witness-in that case we fully admit, nay, we must strongly insist, that they had the strongest motives both to believe in Him themselves and to persuade others to do the same. But those motives had reference to another life. Here they were to expect their Master's treatment. In the life to come, indeed, glorious visions were opened out to them. A new heavens and a new earth were their expectation. An everlasting life was their faith, in which to enjoy their portion with Christ. A sense of duty, a sense of love for God and for the souls of their fellows, would lead them to propagate their own faith. But all this rested absolutely upon the reality of that miraculous power to which they bore witness. If it were real, they had the strongest motives to be its bold and constant witnesses. If it were not real,-if there were the smallest grounds for rejecting it-none were so deeply interested as they in discovering its falsehood. And yet these were the men who bore a lifelong testimony to the miracles of Christ.

HENRY CONSTABLE.

MAN'S ONLY HOPE OF IMMORTALITY.

An Exposition of Christ's Argument Against the Sadducees.

BY WILLIAM GLEN MONCRIEFF.

THE NARRATIVE.

THE conversation, or discussion, between our Lord and the Sadducees is recorded by the first three Evangelists only, and while the respective narrations are substantially the same, slight

variations may be detected in the reports. The most important differences from Luke are appended to his text, quoted below, in order to present the historic incident in its complete form by a collated exhibition of the whole particulars.

:

Luke xx. 27-38-" There came to Him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked Him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. (Matt. xx. 28-"Whose wife shall she be of the seven ?" Mark xii. 23-"Whose wife shall she be of them ?") And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage. (Matt. xxii. 29"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Mark xii. 24—" Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scripture, neither the power of God?") But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. (Matt. xxii. 30-"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Mark xii. 25-"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.") Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him." (Matt. xxii. 31—" But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you, by God, saying (v. 32), I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Mark xii. 26-same as Matt., except that instead of " touching the resurrection of the dead," it is-"touching the dead, that they rise." Ver. 27-He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living ye therefore do greatly err.")

For the sake of distinctness and perspicuity, let us divide the narrative under the following heads: first, The Sadducees and their opinions; second, The question they proposed to our Lord; and third, His reply to their question, which was partly (1) authoritative, and partly (2) argumentative.