that he had just entered Capernaum when the request for aid met him; (3.) that the petitioner was a centurion; (4.) that Jesus was disposed to go to the centurion's house and heal his servant; (5.) that the centurion objected to his going, for two reasons, (6.) one of which indicated deep humility, "I am not worthy," etc., (7.) and the other strong faith, "speak the word only," etc.; (8.) that to explain his faith he made use of a very apt and natural illustration; (9.) that Jesus yielded without remonstrance to his objection; (10.) that he observed his faith with wonder; (11.) that he commended his faith without speaking of his humility; (12.) that in commending his faith he compared it with what he had found in Israel; and (13.) that according to his faith, his servant was healed even from a distance.

These are numerous and striking points of agreement, and they can never be explained on any hypothesis but that of historical truth. It is also worthy of notice that the character of the centurion is essentially the same in both narratives, though his humility is set forth more distinctly by Luke. The bearing of Christ is likewise the same in both narra

tives. His promptness in complying with the request for aid, his wonder at the singular faith of the petitioner, and his emphatic approval of that faith, are striking features of the event, common, to both records. This agreement as to the bearing of Jesus and of the centurion is very forcible when the dif ferences of detail between the evangelists are borne in mind.

It

The miracle before us illustrates the power of intercession for others, and the promptness of God in answering prayer, when the moral conditions permit an immediate answer. also exhibits Christ as the image of the invisible God, unrestricted by space, omnipotent, gracious, the Saviour of Gentile as well as Jew.

(c) The naturalistic interpretation assumes that Jesus was either asked by the centurion to give a prescription merely, which could be easily applied by a servant, or else to send one of his disciples to see and cure the patient. Paulus advocates the latter view, but is shown to be in error by Strauss. The closing verse of Luke's narrative sets aside the hypothesis of a gradual recovery. Christ's wonder at the centurion's faith is equally

fatal to that hypothesis. To suppose a military officer illustrating his belief that Christ need not go himself since he had sufficient authority over his disciples to send one of them to the sick man with medicine ! And then to suppose Jesus astonished at so great faith in his authority as a master or skill as a leech!

(d) The mythical interpretation has been given in our notice of the healing of the nobleman's son. For Strauss labors hard to show that the narratives before us are merely different versions of the story recorded by John iv. 46-54. By making these three narratives relate to the same event, and by marking distinctly the points of disagreement, he undertakes to destroy their historical character and pave the way for his mythical theory of their origin. We have We have already shown that two distinct miracles are described, thus answering his negative criticism; it is therefore unnecessary for us to assail his positive view. When the narratives are shown to be unhistorical, it will be time enough to show that they cannot be mythical.

CHAPTER II.

HEALING CHRONIC DISEASES.

THESE diseases may be pronounced for the most part incurable by human skill. If they were healed at all by Christ, it must have been miraculously. Yet it will be wise to judge every instance of healing by itself, though all may have certain features in common.

§ I. Healing a Paralytic in Capernaum. Matt. ix. 1-8; Mark ii. 1-12; and Luke v. 17-26.

(a) These narratives are in no respect contradictory. A chronological disagreement between the first evangelist and the other two has indeed been alleged, but not established; for Matthew and Mark, surely, do not profess to give the events of our Saviour's life in the order of time. Says Westcott: "An inspired order is the correlative of an inspired abridgment;" and further on: "The examination of a few chapters of the synop

1 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 344.

1

tical gospels will leave little doubt that temporal sequence was not the standard of their arrangement." If this remark is true of all the synoptical gospels, it is preeminently true of the first. We are therefore persuaded that some of the events recounted by Matthew prior to his narrative of the miracle before us, took place in reality after it. This is probably true of the Sermon on the Mount.

Again, the accounts which Mark and Luke give of this miracle, or rather of the events preliminary to it, are said to be very different from that of Matthew. Admitting the difference, we deny any discrepancy. The first gospel says that "they brought to Jesus a paralytic, lying on a bed;" the third says the same, but notes also the fact that, owing to a great crowd, they had to take the sick man "upon the house, and let him down with the bed through the tiles ;" and the second says the same, adding only this, that the paralytic was "borne of four," and that they "made a hole through the roof in order to let him down." Surely addition and explanation are not contradiction; and here is no ground whatever for impeaching the truth of these narratives.

Again, Matthew calls the couch on which