No miracle hitherto performed by Jesus was so stupendous in its character, and had so greatly excited the Jewish mind, both for good and evil, as the resurrection of Lazarus. We cannot wonder at what Bayle (Diet., s. v. Spinoza) relates of the leader of modern infidelity, Spinoza : On m'a assure, qu'il disait a ses amis, que s'il efit pu se persuader la resurrection de Lazare, auroit brise en pieces tout son systeme, auroit embrasse sans repugnance la foi ordinaire des Chretiens.' fact, if this miracle can be proved, it establishes on an indestructible basis the divine power and mission of our Lord. No thoughtful man could resist such evidence. Therefore, as might be anti. cipate.d, the enemies of Christianity have exhausted philosophy and fancy alike in their efforts to over throw its authenticity. The coarse assertions of Woolston are not now worth notice ; they were dis posed of long since by Lardner (Vindication, in Works, vol. x., ed. 1838). The rationalistic views of Paulus (Hritiseh. Konimentar.) and Gabler (Yournal fiir Auserl. Theol. Lit., iii. 235) have been successfully refuted by Strauss (Leheit 9esze; see also Kuinoel, in John xi.); and the mythologi cal dreams of the latter have been dissipated by a host of later German writers, and the reality of the story triumphantly established (see especially Neander, Das Leben Yens Christi ; Stier, and Olshausen, ad loc.) The views of Paulus have just been revived in the lively romance of M. E. Renan, entitled Vie de Yesus. He confesses that there is an appearance of circumstantiality in the narrative of this miracle which distinguishes it from others. He says, indeed, that at this distance of time, and with one version of it only, it is impos sible absolutely to decide whether all is fiction, or whether there is a basis of truth ; yet he proceeds, Il est done vraisemblable que le prodige dont il s'agit fut pas un de ces miracles completement legendaires et dont personne n'est responsable.
d'autres termes, nous pensons qu'il se passa Bethanie quelque chose qui fret regar& comme une resurrection' (p. 36o). Renan's account is, that the friends of Jesus, anxious to give sceptical Jews some convincing proof of his divine mission, took advantage of the sickness of Lazarus, laid him in the family tomb, led Jesus to the sepulchre imme diately on his arrival at Bethany ; and then, when he expressed a wish to see the corpse of his friend, the stone was removed, and Lazarus rose ! All thought it vvas a miracle, Jesus himself was deceived. The pious fraud of the devoted family was success ful. Such is the monstrous opinion advanced with all seriousness by this philosophical French critic.
Nothing could be more unlikely; in more direct antagonism to the whole circumstances of the narrative. If there be any truth in the words of John, such a fraud was impossible. There is a precision and minuteness of detail, conversational, psychological, and topographical, in the story, which separates it entirely from the domain of legend. The evangelist is evidently telling what he saw and heard, and what left an indelible im press on his mind. Every sentence of the narrative demands, and will amply repay, a thoughtful study ; and such a study cannot fail to carry with it the conviction of its reality. We note the simple message of the sisters to Jesus concerning their sick brother, He whom thou lovest is sick.' Christ's deliberate delay that he might work out the glory of God (ver. 4). The way in which he tells his disciples
of Lazarus' death ; their misunderstanding of his meaning at first, and their passionate expression of sorrow at last, Let us also go, that we may die with him ' (16). The great concourse of people to condole with the sisters, as was the custom of the Jews (Lightfoot, ad loc.; Trench, llfirac/es, p. 399). The meeting of Jesus and the sisters ; each of the latter giving utterance to the feeling which had filled both their minds, and formed the subject of their united lamentations during the four days," Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died ' (vers. 21, 32). Christ's vvords of comfort and hope, which the sisters cannot fully comprehend (vers. 23-27). The outward manifestations of grief on the part of the crowd that had gathered round them, so characteristic of Eastern customs (33). The approach to and description of the tomb (38). The painful remonstrance of Martha, practical Martha (cf. Luke x. 4o), Lord, by this time he stinketh,' which must have been literally true, unless we suppose a continuous miracle in opera tion from the moment of death ; for in the East decomposition sets in in a few hours (cf. Au gustine, Hilary, Tertullian, and others, cited by Trench, p. 413). Then, finally, the account of the resurrection—so simple, and yet so grand. One almost thinks he sees it. If ever there was a narrative of fads, this is onc. The publicity of the miracle made deception impossible. In the East a death is known to, and excites, the whole community in such a village as Bethany. We may well suppose, too, that the entire popula tion saw the miracle performed. A large number from the neighbouring city were there also (John xi. 19)—learned, fanatical, sceptical men —prepared to scrutinize evety act of Jesus, and expose any at tempt at deception. It ought not to be forgotten that the word yezvs, ol'IovScaot, with John, designates the chiefs of the Yewish people, the members of the Sanhedrim—the dominant and learned party who were characterised by bitter hostility to Jesus (i. 19 ; vii. 12, 13 ; V111. 22; 1X. 22 [JEWS] ; Alford, in /oc. ; Bleek, Beitriige ; Trench, Miracles, pp. 400, 411). The momentous effects of the miracle, too, tend to show its reality. The moment the report of it was carried to Jerusalem, a meeting of the Sanhedrim was summoned. The members of that august council assembled in alarm. What do we?' was the question they addressed to each other, for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him' (John xi. 46-48). They determined that Jesus should die (ver. 53). He knew their plans, and he retired for a time front the holy city (ver. 54). On his return to Bethany, the rebuke be gave to Judas for his unseemly attack on the de voted Mary, when she anointed him at the supper, was the immediate cause of the betrayal ( John. xii. 4-8. with Matt. xxvi. 8-14 ; Alford, in loc.) The fame of the miracle spread through the surmund ing country ; and the popular ovation at the tri umphal entry into Jerusalem was another of its results, which fully justified the excitement and alarm created among the Pharisees, and led them to remark to each other, Perceive ye how ye pre vail nothing ? Behold, the world is gone after him' (John xii. 19). The miracle causing such a sensa tion must have been a reality. Any attempt at fraud could not have escaped detection and exposure.