been to explain his going to them on the sea. It cannot therefore be said that Mark intended to suggest that Jesus took his way over the sea, according to his custom, and without any special motive for this act in the condition of his disciples. Besides, it requires some imagination to find such a view in the clause, "and would have passed by them." This may doubtless doubtless be explained, with Alexander, as nearly equivalent to the expression," he was about to pass by them," the verbee being used in the sense of an English auxiliary; or it may have been affirmed of Christ more humano, a desire being attributed to him which would have led a man to act as he acted. To all appearance he was going by the ship, when the cry of his disciples led him to speak. It was his purpose to give them an opportunity of requesting his aid, instead of bestowing it unsought. So, likewise, on another occasion, we are told that "he made as though he would go further," although he was prevailed upon by the urgent request of two disciples to abide with them for a time.

One cannot fail to remark that the bearing of Peter on this occasion was in perfect har

mony with his character, as revealed by the whole evangelical record. Confident, impetuous, demonstrative, and perhaps extravagant, he was at the same time artless, confiding, energetic, and sound at the core. How could the four evangelists have united in their delineation of his character, without drawing from life?

Others have objected to the miracle before us on the ground of its being unnecessary. It seems to have been performed, they say, merely for the sake of showing what the Lord could do. But this surely is a mistake. The disciples were not only rowing against the wind, but also tortured by fear, and exposed to peril; and Jesus came in the most direct way to their relief. Besides, the presence of natural evil was not alone sufficient to call forth the miraculous agency of Christ. There must also be the prospect of removing moral or spiritual evil, and this appears to have been in all cases the predominant motive. It might, therefore, sometimes happen that the spiritual and natural conditions for miraculous action existed in very different degrees. Much depended on the hearts of those with reference to whose good the work was to be

performed; and the moral reasons for a miracle might be very strong when the natural were comparatively weak.

Whether the miracle of walking on the sea consisted in a suspension of the law of gravity for the body of Jesus, or in counterworking the force of gravity by Divine power, or in making the water solid under his feet, we cannot say; it is perhaps sufficient to affirm that it was wrought by virtue of his sovereign control of the realm of nature. The remarks of Trench on this point are wholly unsatisfactory: "It was the will of Christ which bore him triumphantly over those waters; even as it was to have been the will of Peter, that will indeed made in the highest degree energetic by faith on the Son of God, which should, in the same manner, have enabled him to walk on the great deep, and, though with partial and transient failure, did so enable him." We had always supposed that it was the power of Christ, and not the will of Peter, which enabled this disciple, so long as he had faith, to walk on the waters. Yet Alford seems to echo the opinion of Trench, when he says of Peter's act: "It contains one

1 Miracles, p. 231.

of the most pointed and striking revelations which we have of the nature and analogy of faith; and a notable example of the power of the spiritual state of man over the inferior laws of matter, so often brought forward by our Lord (see Matt. xvii. 20, 21)." If this is so, if the force of gravity can be neutralized, and mountains be cast into the sea, by the energy of a believer's will, it may also be true, that "a remnant of his (original) power survives to man in the well-attested fact (!) that his body is lighter when awake than sleeping." Mark the proof of this unqualified statement: "It was noticed long ago by Pliny," and "every nurse that has carried a child can bear witness to the fact."2 One is reminded by this evidence of the man who, when asked his weight, replied: "Commonly, it is about one hundred and fifty pounds, but when mad I weigh a ton!"3 But, seriously, it would have been wiser for the learned dean to have tested the matter by more

1 Greek Testament. Note on Matthew xiv. 28. It is the second clause of the passage quoted above to which we specially object.

2 Miracles, p. 232.

3 After Whipple. Quoted from memory.

accurate scales. The cause of truth may be deeply injured by such unguarded statements.

§ VI. Judgment of the fruitless fig-tree. Matt. xxi. 18-22; Mark xi. 12-14; 20–26.

On the narratives of this miracle we re mark,

(a) That they involve no contradiction. It has indeed been said that Matthew asserts an instant drying up of the doomed tree, seen by the disciples at the moment and on the spot, while Mark allows a whole day for the process, stating explicitly that the disciples first saw it "dried up from the roots" on the morrow.

But the word rendered "presently," in Matthew, need not be pressed to signify the very moment after the sentence of Christ. The sap may have instantly ceased to flow, yet the leaves may not have been perfectly dried up for hours. It will also be observed that the language of Matthew as to the time when the disciples first noticed the tree as withered, is indefinite, and therefore quite consistent with that of Mark. The other differences are of too little importance to require attention at this point.