age of the Church the patron and model of death-bed conversion.

The objection, far more commonly than any other raised against our thesis by Protestants, is this: Magdalene had been possessed by devils; and our thesis understands this statement as expressing, that she had led a life of sin. But no one, say these Protestants, is described in Scripture as possessed by devils, who is freely yielding his will to their solicitation; but one only who is in such sense their slave, as to be irresponsible for the actions done under their influence. Now we are not aware that any Protestants have attempted to prove this allegation; and we are confident that if they did, they would find proof impossible. Nor, indeed, are Protestants quite unanimous on the matter. Thus Mr. Burgon, who is honourably distinguished for his singularly careful study of the Gospels, gives very strong testimony on our side. He is so far from maintaining confidently the identity of Magdalene with the peccatrix, that on the contrary he will only call such a "conjecture possibly correct:" and yet, when he speaks of Magdalene, he says that by Luke viii. 2, "it is probably meant that she had been a person of most unholy life, in whom many evil spirits had once taken up their habitation."* In like manner Lange and Olshausen, to be presently cited. All these three writers refer to the parable of our Lord, which we shall immediately mention. Hengstenberg, who is also of course on the same side, draws attention to this parable, which is simply decisive. He says it is the only Scriptural instance, besides that of Magdalene, in which a sevenfold demoniacal possession is narrated. It is that recorded in Matt. xii. 43-45 and Luke xi. 24-26, concerning the man, who is cleansed from one evil spirit, but afterwards possessed by seven others; and under the name of demoniacal possession, it throughout undeniably includes habits of sin freely acquired.

For instance, Alford is one of those who raise against our present thesis the objection which we are here considering.t Let us observe then his commentary on this other sevenfold demoniacal possession. "The direct meaning of the parable," he says (in Matt. xii. 43), describes, under the figure of this sevenfold (or rather eightfold) possession, "the desperate infatuation of the Jews after our Lord's Ascension, their bitter hostility to the Church......their joining in the impieties of Julian." "Another important fulfilment of the prophetic

"Plain Commentary on the Gospels," in locum.

+"What is stated" in Luke viii. 2, he says, "makes the notion exceedingly improbable" that Magdalene was the peccatrix (in locum).

parable," he presently adds, is found when "the religious lives of men shroud themselves......in formality and hypocrisy, till utter emptiness of faith and spirituality has prepared them for that second fearful invasion of the Evil One, which is indeed worse than the first." He considers then this eightfold demoniacal possession to exist,-not specially where men have lost all liberty of will,-but on the contrary where, yielding to the temptation of devils, they perform a series of acts free and most detestable. Lange again is by no means confident that the peccatrix is Magdalene. Still he thinks ("Life of Christ," English translation, vol. ii. p. 133) that Luke viii. 2 probably describes Magdalene as having been "rescued from the heavy curse of sin "; and in his commentary on Matt. xii. 43 he says that the fuller demoniacal possession signifies "a voluntary and damnable self-surrender to Satan by a wicked life." Olshausen too (on Luke vii. 36) thinks it "improbable" that the peccatrix was Magdalene; and yet (on Luke viii. 2) considers that Magdalene's "powers and capacities seem to have been surrendered to the ministrations of darkness."

In truth, if the received Catholic view be accepted in its integrity, no words could more aptly apply to the peccatrix, than those of Luke viii. 2. Mary of Bethany had apparently been brought up in innocence and virtue; and at all events, from her circumstances, was entirely exempt from those temptations to sin, which are presented by poverty and distress. Yet she came to lead publicly in some city the life of an abandoned woman. Nothing is more easily credible, than that a course so singularly depraved was occasioned by the agency of evil spirits; who inhabited her, who solicited her from within to acts of sin, and to whose prompting she freely surrendered her will. He Whom she was led by grace so tenderly to love, not only declared her forgiven, but expelled the evil spirits and delivered her from their solicitations.*

A second objection has been urged against us,-which forcibly illustrates how impossible it is to travel long in company with the most pious Protestants, without coming across some display of unintentional profaneness, which shocks and revolts one. The objection is thus expressed by Professor Plumptre: "It is unlikely that such an one as the sinner' would at once have been received as the chosen companion of Joanna and Salome,

* It may be added in this place, for the want of a more convenient one, that by identifying both the peccatrix and Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, we answer readily another question asked by some Protestants. "How," they inquire, "could the peccatrix have been in circumstances, which fitted her for ministering to Christ from her substance?" (Luke viii. 3.) Very easily, if she belonged to the comparatively wealthy family of Martha and Lazarus,

and have gone from town to town with them and the disciples " (p. 257). Good God! Certain holy women were travelling in company with our Lord, as He preached the Gospel from city to city, seeking everywhere the most abandoned sinners, and inviting them to repentance, faith and love. Yet a sinner thus converted, and that with a display of evangelical virtues hitherto unparalleled,-who had been commended by the Omniscient for her signal faith and love-is not good enough forsooth to consort with these singular missionaries. Were they Pharisees then and not Christians at all? We will venture to affirm, that Joanna and the rest would have had far more misgivings whether they were fit company for her, than whether she was fit company for them.

Another consideration must not be omitted from our argument. The peccatrix, from the very nature of the case, was now to shape out for herself a totally new plan of life. Would she, who had thus forced herself into the presence of her Beloved, willingly lose sight of Him? Would she willingly endure the darkness of His absence, if she could sun herself in the light, of His presence? There were holy women already travelling with Him; and it is quite incredible that she should not have joined herself to their company. Moreover S. Luke must have seen his reader's inevitable perception of that probability, when he immediately proceeds to recount that Mary Magdalene, "from whom seven devils had gone out," did that very thing, which the converted peccatrix almost certainly would have done.

Our first thesis was, that-putting aside those texts which mention Magdalene-the peccatrix is pointed out in Scripture as identical with Mary of Bethany. Our second has been thatputting aside those texts which mention Mary of Bethany-the peccatrix is pointed out in Scripture as identical with Magdalene. Our third shall be the supplemental one, that-putting aside that passage which mentions the peccatrix-Mary of Bethany is pointed out in Scripture as identical with Mary Magdalene. We admit that the grounds for that thesis are less irresistible, than for the other two; and we will begin therefore by mentioning, that the assertion to which it points has already been shown to be in the highest degree probable. If Mary of Bethany is identical with the peccatrix, and she with Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany is of course identical with Mary Magdalene. Our present thesis further states, that there are direct grounds in Scripture for holding this identity, apart altogether from the middle term of the peccatrix.

"The village of Bethany and its neighbourhood were, at all events at a later period of our Lord's ministry, a frequent retreat to Him from the controversies and tumults of Jeru

salem. See John xviii. 2; Luke xxi. 37; xxii. 39." (Plumptre, p. 79.) In that village dwelt one family especially dear to Him (John xi. 5). One of them especially, Mary, had already been signalized (Luke x. 42) as "having chosen that best part which shall not be taken from her: " who, while Martha was engaged in serving, sat at His feet listening to His word, or lavished costly ointment in His honour. It is incredible that she, who so hung on His every word, with whose family He was so intimately bound up, whose own brother He had so recently raised from the dead, should have stayed behind at Bethany, when Jerusalem, the scene of His Passion, was so close at hand. And it is hardly less incredible that she should have remained, throughout her Lord's suffering, at a distance (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, 41), when others stood close to the Cross (John xix. 25). Moreover, as Hengstenberg points out (p. 18), "she had already presymbolized our Lord's burial" (Matt. xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8; John xii. 7); and all the three Evangelists, who mention her anointing Him at Bethany at all, dwell on this particular aspect of her action. Was she likely then to give up His actual entombment to the hands of others? to those other two sitting opposite the sepulchre (Matt. xxvii. 61) while she went away? Yet this she did, unless she were Magdalene.

Then again the fact of her brother's resuscitation must have brought her into special sympathy with her Lord's Resurrection. Yet there is no trace, in any one of the Gospels, of any place whatever being assigned to her in reference to that mystery, unless she were Magdalene. Nor of course should we omit the corroborative fact, that at all events her name, like Magdalene's, was "Mary." Moreover, in this case the probability is entirely on one side. We are not aware of any single consideration which has been even alleged, as tending to render improbable the identity of these two Maries: all which Protestants have attempted, is to show that there is no sufficient evidence of the fact.

As to our three theses, taken independently of each other, our own appreciation of the ground on which they respectively rest would be as follows. We should say that the third is very decidedly more probable than its contradictory; that the second reaches so high a degree of probability, as to render its contradictory quite improbable; and that our first thesis is almost certain, so paradoxical is the notion that John xi. 2 can refer to a future action. But it would of course be most unfair to treat the theses as though they were in fact mutually independent; for (as we have just pointed out) each one of them is distinctly and importantly corroborated by the union of the other two.

Then there is further to be taken into account what we may call the negative evidence of Scripture. Consider the holy woman there designated as the converted peccatrix; consider the holy woman there designated as Mary Magdalene; consider the holy woman there designated as Mary of Bethany. In no one catalogue of the holy women throughout the Gospels do two or more persons appear together on the scene, bearing any of these designations. Yet had there really been three corresponding persons,-all three would possess characters so pronounced and elevated, that one would think they must have received prominent mention.

This leads us to a further consideration, which must not be omitted, although it will weigh differently with different people. Is not the interior character ascribed to the three so similar as to indicate identity? Mr. Isaac Williams draws this out very forcibly, as regards Magdalene and Mary of Bethany; though in his second edition he speaks less decidedly than in his first. We italicise one or two clauses.

When we have formed, unconsciously, a picture of Mary Magdalene in our minds, we find that it extremely resembles that which we have unconsciously been forming, at the same time, of the sister of Lazarus. If any one, judging from the circumstances recorded in the Gospels, were to give an accurate description of what he supposed to be the character of either of these, it would be, in great measure, a character of the other also; with this difference, perhaps, that with Mary Magdalene we connect something more of penitential sorrow; with the other, that calmness of piety which belongs to one that had always "chosen that good part which shall not be taken away from her.” And yet perhaps it may be shown, that there is not sufficient reason for even this supposed discrepancy, either in their histories or their characters.

The few circumstances recorded of St. Mary Magdalene are such as to excite in us an exceeding interest; we behold her standing among the nearest to our Saviour's Cross, sitting the last at His grave at night, and coming the first there in the early morning; and, more than all, the circumstances of our Lord's interview with her rivet our strongest attention and emotions. So eminent among those holy women for her devoted service; and eminent even among those holy women, in the favour and acceptance of her Lord. Now, in the previous history, we have circumstances recorded of an equal and similar interest in Mary, the sister of Lazarus. The same attachment to our Lord; the same favour expressed towards her. And the occasions on which they are mentioned bring out the same points of disposition in both. both the same calm, yet intense devotedness of character; in both a disposition retiring and contemplative; and yet in both, at the same time, earnest and unshrinking. We have here Mary Magdalene sitting by the sepulchre, and withdrawing from the busier company of her friends, the Galilean women, who had gone to prepare spices to do honour to their Lord. We have, on another occasion, Mary, the sister of Martha, sitting at Christ's feet to hear

In