their histories; and the author of each of the four Gospels asserted most positively that he had personally witnessed most of the miracles, and in many instances names, places, and minute details are given, and prominent people are mentioned as having been connected with the miracles.

Why did not Tacitus and Josephus deny the miracles as recorded in the four Gospels if the record was untrue?

John himself was alive at the time Josephus and Tacitus wrote. Is it likely that they would have wanted a controversy with John over the question as to the actual performance of the miracles?

Possibly John could have brought forward as witnesses the son of the widow of Nain and the daughter of Jairus themselves. They would not have been as old as John, who is said to have lived until A.D. 100 and, according to tradition at least, was the only one of the twelve who died a natural death.

The bold announcement in these biographies that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he had wrought miracles that no one but an omnipotent God could perform, and that a new religion superseding all other religions of the world was presented to the people and claimed their undivided allegiance

was a startling and daring challenge to all humanity and was recognized as such by Jews and pagans.

The leaders of the Jewish and pagan religions attempted to destroy the Christian religion in the only way possible. They refused to call attention to the chief evidence of the divinity of its Founder -his miracles. They refused even to deny the miracles, because they knew that by denying them they would multiply a thousandfold the evidence of their genuineness.

Instead of denying the miracles, Josephus says that Jesus "was a doer of wonderful works." ("Antiquities," Book XVIII., Chapter III.) This testimony of Josephus corroborates the record very strongly.

6. The question whether Jesus Christ wrought miracles is one of fact simply, but the evidence should be stronger than that necessary to prove an ordinary fact.

Perhaps the most plausible and powerful argument ever hurled against miracles was made by Hume. His argument is as follows:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be im

agined. . . . It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life, because that has never been observed in any age or country. The consequence is that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish; or, briefly, it is contrary to experience that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience that testimony should be false.

Viewed in its strongest light, this argument of Hume simply lays down a very stringent rule as to the quantum of evidence necessary to prove a miracle. He says that the falsity of the evidence must be more miraculous than the miracle itself: (1) Because a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; (2) because a miracle is contrary to experi

ence.

It may be readily admitted that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature and contrary to human experience, and yet the evidence in favor of miracles may be plenary and sufficient. If one should say that a man of his own power had performed a miracle, no sensible person would believe the assertion; but we are not talking about a man. The allegation in the record is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, he who created and established the

laws of nature and, therefore, possessed the power to change or to violate such laws, performed the miracles attributed to him and that he did these

things of his own power.

"All things were

(John v. 21.)

made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." (John i. 3.)

The question whether miracles were performed by Jesus Christ, as alleged in the record, is one of fact simply. Owing to the fact that a miracle is contrary to nature, the evidence to establish such fact should be clear, strong, cogent, and convincing.

er.

The burden of the issue is upon those who assert that Jesus Christ wrought miracles, and the evidence necessary to meet this burden should be stronger than what is required to prove an ordinary fact. A miracle is unnatural, unreasonable, improbable, and also impossible except through divine powTherefore it was that Jesus, replying to the direct question as to his Messiahship asked by John the Baptist, based his claim upon his miracles and boldly asserted that he wrought the miracles of his own power. Standing in the presence of the leading Jews of the world, who were even then seeking to kill him because he had healed an impotent man at the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem,

where he had gone to attend the feast, he defiantly declared that he was the Son of God and that he even raised the dead of his own will. (John v. I-22.)

As a striking proof of the truth of the narratives of the miracles, it is recorded that the miracles wrought by Jesus did not always convince the people who actually witnessed them.

"But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him." (John xii. 37.)

It is undoubtedly true that the writer of the record tried to convince his readers of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Let us suppose, then, that the miracles attributed to Jesus in the record never happened and that the record of them is a fabrication. Is it reasonable that his biographers, after having declared that Jesus based his claim to divinity so largely on the fact of his miracles, would have admitted that the performance of many miracles had failed to convince those who had actually witnessed them? The author of a fictitious Christ would never have made such an admission.

John tells us that the miracles were recorded for the express purpose of thereby inducing those who