The _Jews_--that is to say the Scribes and Pharisees--did this, by ascribing them to the Evil One. And though this was a very strange expedient, as their effect was obviously good, and not evil, they had really no alternative. The common people were much impressed by the miracles, and were anxious to welcome Christ as their Messiah;[357] yet the Pharisees decided that such a man as this--so unlike what they expected--could not possibly be their Messiah. They had then to explain away the miracles somehow. And since they denied that they were worked by God, they were bound to ascribe them to the Devil, for these were the only supernatural powers they believed in; though of course both of these had subordinate angels under them. But we may ask, would the Jews have adopted such an expedient had there been any possibility of denying that the miracles occurred? Yet that they did adopt it can scarcely be disputed. It is positively asserted in each of the first three Gospels;[358] and Christians are not likely to have reported such a horrible suggestion as that their Master was an agent of the Evil One, unless it had been made. [Footnote 357: John 6. 15; Mark 11. 10.] [Footnote 358: Matt. 9. 34; 12. 24; Mark 3. 22; Luke 11. 15.] The _Gentiles_ on the other hand, believed in a variety of gods, many of whom were favourable to mankind, and could be invoked by _magic_; so they could consistently ascribe the miracles to some of these lesser deities; or, in popular language, to magic. And we have abundant evidence that they did so. As we have seen, it is expressly asserted by Justin, who in consequence preferred the argument from prophecy; and Irenæus did the same, and for avowedly the same reason.[359] [Footnote 359: Bk. ii. 32.] Moreover, _Celsus_, the most important opponent of Christianity in the second century, also adopted this view. His works are now lost, but Origen in answering him frequently and positively asserts it; saying that he often spoke of the miracles as _works of sorcery_.[360] And though Celsus lived some years after the time in question, it is most unlikely, if the early opponents of Christianity had denied that the miracles occurred, that its later opponents should have given up this strong line of defence, and have adopted the far weaker one that they did occur, but were due to magic. We are quite justified, then, in saying that Christ's miracles were not disputed at the time, and considering their alleged publicity, this is a strong additional argument in their favour. [Footnote 360: Origen cont. Cels., i. 38; ii. 48.] (4.) _The silence of classical writers._