grip which He had upon them. After His death, and all hope of pecuniary reward had fled, there could not remain any interest in the results of His teachings, as the law here contemplates, such as would tend to destroy the credibility of these witnesses. The same answer is given to the claim that the Gospel narratives are forgeries. Concerning this Dr.

Blake has well said:

"The utter lack of motive does not admit of the supposition of forgery. If the writers were forgers, they were bad men. But bad men certainly would not, could not forge books so utterly foreign to their characters as the books of the New Testament. No man can have any possible motive to do wrong, and in the very act deliberately condemn himself by setting forth principles which would fix ignominy upon him for all time. If the Bible is a forgery, the forgers have written their own sentences of condemnation. A good man would least of all have reason for attempting to palm off upon men spurious writings as genuine. If he should write a volume, and it were received with universal favor, he would have no good motive for denying it; least of all for assigning it to some one not its author. In neither case can a claim of forgery, as applied to the authorship of the books of the New Testament, be supportetd by sufficient motive.

Then we must claim that the names appended to the books are not fictitious."

It may be added in conclusion, on this point, that the burden of proof is upon the critic, to show by a preponderance of the evidence, that the names are not genuine and that the books are forgeries.

Lastly, we assume that the objector has raised the question of want of credibility, basing it upon the grounds that the witnesses are discredited by circumstances which render their statements improbable. The four Gospel writers all testify of things which were out of the ordinary or natural realm of life. They testify of the raising of the dead by their Leader, of His resurrection and ascension, as well as other things commonly called miracles, and the objector insists that the witnesses are not to be believed because they testify of impossible things. But what is a miracle? Webster defines it as: "Specifically, an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things; a supernatural event." Since it is a matter of judgment as to what is and what is not "contrary to the established constitution and course of things," the failure to understand what Jesus did may be a want of knowledge of what actually constitutes an

"established course of things." No one has been able to satisfactorily define electricity. And yet who will deny its existence as a fact? A witness could not explain its mysteries, but he could testify that it lighted cities and moved vast machinery. What court would refuse the testimony of a competent electrician regarding the power of that mysterious thing simply because he could not define the thing itself?

Again, any good farmer could testify as to the quality of the soil in a particular farm. Suppose one such were on the witness stand, and his testimony were objected to upon the ground that he could not tell where the earth came from? Would any court disqualify him because he could not tell? He might be able to explain the accepted nebular hypothesis of the world's creation, and state that geologists hold that the space now occupied by the solar system was once filled by ancient fire mist; that some power set it revolving, and that as its speed became accelerated a rim was detached, and then another, and so on, each rim breaking up and its parts forming a ball which continued to revolve in the same direction; that this process kept up until all the planets of the system were detached; that the earth finally became cool enough to contain

life, and that man finally was created as the most complete type of animal life. After he had finished this recital, suppose the opposing counsel should ask him where that fire-mist came from, and who set it in motion? Would an expert farmer be disqualified to testify as to the character of the soil, i. e., as to whether it was clay or sand or whether it would grow good wheat or corn, or even testifying that it was soil at all simply because he could not tell the origin of the fire-mist and who set it in motion?

So far as man is concerned this earth is a miracle, because its formation is a mystery, impenetrable to him, and he cannot tell whether or not it was according to the "established constitution and course of things." Its formation is beyond the ken of men, to say nothing about being beyond their power of duplication. But that will not prevent their testifying to the fact that it is here. In other words, it is of supernatural origin, the same as the making of the loaves and fishes which fed the multitude. Both were facts concerning which men could testify, and no discredit attaches to any witness because he could not explain the modus operandi.

These are credible witnesses, and to discredit them places the burden of proof upon those who oppose them, to show that the mir acles to which they testify were impossible of performance by Jesus.

DIVISION III.

SEVEREST TESTS OF CREDIBILITY-PREDICTION AND FULFILLMENT SUGGEST THE

SUPERNATURAL

In the last division we referred to the severe tests of credibility of the witnesses due to the nature of their testimony. There may be nothing beyond the ordinary in a witness who tells a consistent story of what he has seen and heard. But we must take cognizance of one who goes far beyond that and tells of things which are to take place hundreds of years in the future, whose predictions are fulfilled to the minutest detail. As was previously stated, to attempt to foretell what is to take place hundreds of years in advance, is a very critical position in which to place any witness. This will be appreciated most by those who have made a study of the law of evidence and who have seen it applied in the trial of cases.

However, we are not surprised by the predictions made by masters of the subject concerning which they testify. It all depends on the character of the witness. We may be ig