Marcus, qui tam ipsius quam patris nomen exprimit.

66

(2.) A difference as to the place of the miracle. This is a more perplexing difficulty. Matthew and Mark speak of Christ as performing the cure when he was going out of the city; but Luke connects his account of it with a notice of Christ's drawing near to the city. On this point Calvin remarks: “I conjecture that when Christ was approaching the city the blind man cried out; but as he was not heard, by reason of the noise, he seated himself by the way which led out of the city, and was there at length heard by Jesus." Ellicott favors this hypothesis, with a slight modification, viz: "that the one who is mentioned at our Lord's entry into Jericho as having learnt from the crowd who it was that was coming into the city, was not healed then, but in company with another sufferer, when our Lord was leaving the city." Dr. Hackett suggests that it is not inconsistent with the sacred narrative to suppose that the blind man made his first appeal to the Saviour as the latter entered the city, but for some reason was not at first answered. Jesus remained in the city until the next morning. The

blind man, therefore, stationed himself at the gate through which the Saviour was to pass on leaving the city, and renewed his application to him. All difficulty is removed, if in Luke xviii. 38, we suppose the words, on the morrow, to be understood-"And [on the morrow] he cried," etc. So many events are passed over by the evangelists that such ellipses must often be supplied. Maldonatus, Bengel, and Trench adopt substantially the same view of the order of events, and we cannot but regard it as on the whole satisfactory.

It has also been suggested, though with less probability, "that Jesus remained some days at least in Jericho, where he would naturally visit points of interest in the vicinity; as, for example, the fountain of Elisha, a mile or more distant. The miracle therefore may have been wrought, not when he was finally leaving Jericho for Jerusalem, but when he was occasionally going out of and returning to Jericho."1

Others still have urged that the verb ἐγγίζειν, employed by Luke, may signify to be near, (see Septuag. 1 Kings xxi. 2; Deut. xxi. 3; Jer. xxiii.

1 Robinson's Harmony, p. 206.

23; Ruth ii. 20; 2 Sam. xix. 42.) Dr. Robinson appears to favor this method of harmonizing the accounts; yet we cannot think it so probable as the one first named.

The remaining differences are such as prove the independence of the several narratives, without giving any trouble to the harmonist.

(b) Their points of agreement are essential. For they unite in affirming, (1.) that the miracle was wrought at Jericho; (2.) that it consisted in a removal of blindness; (3.) that the persons cured, (assuming that there were two,) were sitting by the wayside as Jesus passed by; (4.) that a large number of people accompanied Jesus; (5.) that the blind men heard from this crowd that the Saviour was passing; (6.) that they cried aloud to him for mercy; (7.) that in doing this they called him "the Son of David"; (8.) that they were rebuked by some of the crowd for thus crying out; (9.) that this rebuke led them to cry yet more earnestly, repeating the same words; (10.) that Jesus hearing them stood still in the way, and (11.) called them to himself; (12.) that when they were come to him Jesus inquired what they wished him to do, and (13.) they replied by asking for a restoration

of their sight; (14.) that he gave them on the spot what they desired, and (15.) that they at once followed him.

In so many distinct and leading features do all the narratives agree; yet with the exception of a few brief sentences, very striking and easy to remember, they exhibit differences of style so marked as to prove their independence of one another. Each one of them must therefore be regarded as bearing witness to all the facts just enumerated; and their united testimony is a "threefold cord not easily broken." And be it observed, that they describe events of the natural world, not of the spiritual; what could be seen or heard, and not objects super-sensual or imaginary.

We forbear describing the efforts of Paulus and Strauss to escape the force of this testimony; for here as elsewhere their arguments may be resolved into bold assumption and shallow criticism: the former, Paulus, closing his eyes firmly against the plain sense of the text; and the latter, Strauss, no less firmly against the whole spirit and style of the gospels.

CHAPTER IV.

THE HEALING OF DEMONIACS.

APART from the Bible we are aware of no evidence sufficient to justify us in affirming the reality of demoniacal possessions. But the gospels appear to furnish this evidence. And, according to their prima facie import, demoniacs were in some way distinguishable from persons simply afflicted with bodily or mental disease. But they nowhere formally describe the symptoms or effects of spiritual possession. If these effects are mentioned at all, it is but incidentally and briefly, so that we are unable to determine whether they were in all respects evident to sense and reliable, or not.

Moreover, aside from inspiration, which we do not wish here to assume as a basis of argument, although we may properly appeal to it as an explanation of certain features of the gospel history, the evangelists were credible witnesses of sensible phenomena, as the words and conduct of Jesus and the demoniacs; but of nothing more. Hence our belief in the re