directly affect the substance of their teaching. The philosophy of Buddhism would remain unimpaired if the miracles of the Buddha were erased. Personal details of the life of Gautama do not form a veritable part of the Buddhist creed. Mahommed might be stripped of his miracles without losing the leadership of Western Asia. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an essential part of the doctrine of His followers through which they multiplied, suffered and conquered. "If Christ be not risen we are of all men most miserable." The Jew gave an intellectual assent to the belief in a future life, but that doctrine had not entered into the living blood of his creed. In the case of Christianity there is not the slightest doubt that a number of men and women believed that they had seen Christ alive after His death, and they succeeded in weaving their own belief into the mental texture of the new discipleship. They abandoned the Jewish Sabbath in favour of the first day of the week, a day of rest and rejoicing, a perpetual monument to the resurrection of their Lord. If the resurrection can be historically accepted, then in Christianity we have an argument for the miraculous. Whatever may have been the anticipation of some great event on the third day, the facts of Christ's actual death would have done much to shatter that hope. His growing weakness, His unbroken suffering, His cry at His desertion, would check the anticipation of a reappearance. He Whom they had regarded as more than mortal had succumbed more quickly than the two malefactors crucified with Him. A stronger vitality

had prolonged their suffering. He soon gave up the unequal battle with death, and yielded His spirit into His Father's hands. Was this a proof of eternal life manifested through Him? If their confidence survived this ordeal, surely it must have been founded upon the fact that those who credited His prophecy about Himself already knew Him to be supernaturally endowed, and that they had been the actual witnesses of His miracles. That and that alone would have enabled them to triumph over the disillusionment of the Cross. But how far did this expectation survive? It is one thing to behold the Master hand touch disease or re-awaken life, another for that Master Himself to fade a victim into the shadow of death. Though He might be the source of life for others, how could He restore life to Himself if it were once taken from Him. There was little hope of that. Were the testimony of His resurrection based upon an empty tomb, or a vision of angels, it would hardly have survived. But those repeated appearances Significance of

Resurrection. under widely differing circumstances accumulate a weight of evidence which it is impossible to ignore. In addition to that we have the witness of S. Paul himself, perhaps the most valuable of all, though his testimony is chiefly second-hand. Historically, his position has remained unchallenged, and there is hardly any controversy as to the general facts of his life and teaching.

A violent enemy of Christianity, he was arrested by a remarkable circumstance upon one of his

of S. Paul.

a

punitive journeys, and convinced of his mistake. The fact of his conversion cannot be denied, even if we put down his vision to a physical cause. Possibly the process of conversion may have been more extended than the period of crisis represents. He may have realised the truth of the creed which he persecuted, but such a disturbing conviction would for the moment only increase his hostility to it. Then came something, call it what we please, sunstroke or Witness epileptic seizure. The subjective impression was so strong that we may subordinate the machinery and concentrate upon the objective fact. He could not afford to make mistake. Apart from the irony of the situation, if he had suffered himself to be deceived, there was the heavy personal loss in sacrificing his own position amongst his countrymen to become the advocate of an obscure sect whose future at that time was extremely doubtful. After the vision he showed much deliberation before ranging himself amongst the followers of the Jesus Whom he had persecuted. He put his impressions at Damascus to a severe test. He retired into Arabia for reflection. He conversed with Christian leaders who were naturally reserved with him. He had the fullest opportunity for investigating the evidence for the Resurrection by a close examination of living witnesses and by the most complete enquiry into the circumstances. He was no hysterical woman, but a thinker of the school of Gamaliel, a casuist and a cross-examiner. Any weakness in the case would not have escaped him.

M

He obtained details which have not found a place in the Gospels. He gives a version of the Last Supper and of the Resurrection not to be found elsewhere. When he wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians it was only some twenty years after the event, and there were many then living who could have challenged or corrected his statements; but upon their truth he pledged his whole life. If therefore Jesus Christ did appear in forms one or more to His disciples after His death and conversed with them, the greatest of all miracles must have occurred, and the rest of the miracles are brought within the area of credibility subject to such critical examination as the unusual character of a miracle always demands. That this belief was abroad was beyond doubt. The early Church accepted the story with unwavering fidelity. The removal of His body by stealth, followed by the invention of Christ's numerous appearances, would have been known to a considerable number of persons who had no possible object in perpetuating a fraudulent story. What advantage was there in founding a new sect with nothing to offer to its followers but unpopularity, weariness, suffering and death? Yet they clung to Him as their present Lord even though they realised that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom, and that the awe of a separated existence had passed like a chill between them and Him. As the clouds of mystery gather about Him, and He finally passes out of their sight, they are still watching those clouded heavens for His return.

Even if we establish the probability of the miracu

Jesus' estimate

of Miracles.

lous we have still to ask ourselves what was the testimony of the miracles to the teaching of Jesus. He certainly treated them as matters of exceptional occurrence. Perhaps He intended to reserve them for such a crisis in His own life, or in the lives of His disciples, as would admit of no other solution. If the miracles were mere wonder-working He would have relied constantly upon their evidence. But He only regarded them as a supplementary attestation to His work. "Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." And if this fails, and only then, "believe Me for the very works' sake." They were to arrest attention, to give secondary evidence. But He took every opportunity of discouraging their exhibition. He brusquely reproves the Jewish doctor, Nicodemus, for hailing Him as a God-sent Teacher on account of the miracles. He tells him that it is to those who have experienced a complete spiritual change, been twice born, that the message comes, and the kingdom grows visible. "Even the devils are subject unto us, exclaimed the disciples returning from their missionary tour. "Rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven," replied their Master. The miracles were not intended to overcome scepticism. For "He did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief." They were to confirm the faith of those who had already accepted Him. "Except

ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe," He exclaimed with a sigh of impatience. The miracle was an incident of power, an influence which naturally belonged to One who lived in two worlds.