so incurable a disease as leprosy. Hence, if John's account had been invented to offset and surpass the miracle of Naaman's cleansing, not a fever, but leprosy, or some other disease as difficult to remove as this, would have been subjected to the healing word of Christ.

(3.) The relations of the narrative. It is a portion of the fourth gospel, homogeneous with all other portions. The blow which assails its truth assails the truth of the whole gospel, nay of all the gospels. This is but faintly denied by those who defend the mythical hypothesis. But the style and contents of the gospels are utterly opposed to this hypothesis. In proof of this statement, we venture to quote a few sentences from Greenleaf on the "Testimony of the Evangelists." Speaking of "internal marks of truth in the narratives of the evangelists," he says: "Among these may be mentioned the nakedness of the narratives, the absence of all parade by the writers, about their own integrity, of all anxiety to be believed, or to impress others with a good opinion of themselves or their cause, of all marks of wonder, or of desire to excite astonishment at the greatness of the events they record, and of all appearance of design to exalt their Master. On the contrary, there is apparently the most perfect indifference on their part, whether they are believed or not; or rather, the evident consciousness that they were recording events well known to all, in their own country and times, and undoubtedly to be believed, like any other matter of public history, by readers in all other countries and ages. It is worthy, too, of especial observation, that though the evangelists record the unparalleled sufferings and cruel death of their beloved Lord, and this, tool by the hands and with the consenting voices of those on whom he had conferred the greatest benefits, and their own persecutions and dangers, yet they have bestowed no epithets of harshness, or even of just censure, on the authors of all this wickedness, but have everywhere left the plain and unincumbered narrative to speak for itself, and the reader to pronounce his own sentence of condemation; like true witnesses, who have nothing to gain or to lose by the event of the cause, they state the facts, and leave them to their fate. Their sim

plicity and artlessness, also, should not pass unnoticed in readily stating even those things most disparaging to themselves. Their want of faith in their master, their dulness of apprehension of his teachings, their strifes for preeminence, their inclination to call fire from heaven upon their enemies, their desertion of their Lord in the hour of extreme peril; these, and many other incidents tending directly to their own dishonor, are nevertheless set down with all the directness and sincerity of truth, as by men writing under the deepest sense of responsibility to God."

It would be easy to select many other paragraphs from his essay on the" Testimony of the Four Evangelists," no less pertinent and powerful than the one now read, but it will be wiser for us to request our readers to examine the essay for themselves. We must not, however, omit to add that the period which elapsed between the death of Christ and the publication of the gospels was far too brief for the invention of so extensive and homogeneous a cycle of myths. Without insisting upon the utter absurdity of tracing narratives so artless in style, so perfect in morality, so godlike in aim, and blending so harmoniously with the whole life. and teaching of Jesus, to the inventive genius of the early Christians, the growth of such legends must be a work of time. The first germs of them could hardly have been originated before the death of Christ's immediate disciples. And surely it must take a long time for the development of the earliest germs of such narratives, as we find in the gospels, to their full maturity. They could not have been brought by any human agency into their present forms, without many revisions and reädjustments. The reasons now alleged do plainly forbid the application of the mythical hypothesis to the gospels as a whole, and to the passage before us in particular.

In conclusion, we submit the following remarks on the record of John. (1) The events related might be known by observation. The journey, the dialogues, the departure of fever, might fall under the notice of the senses. Even faith, as bearing fruit in life, is a proper matter of observation. (2) The

events related were public. All was done in open day; had it been otherwise, we may be sure that the writer of this gospel, according to his general practice, would have told us. (3) The events related were likely to attract attention. The father, who applied to Christ, was a man of some consequence, being in the service of Herod Antipas, and Jesus himself had drawn upon him the eyes of many by his mighty works in Jerusalem. Besides, in view of the son's cure, this whole family believed on Christ - a fact adapted to make the miracle an object of deeper interest. (4) John, the writer of this account, was at home in the neighborhood, and soon after this event dwelt for some time with Jesus in Capernaum. He had, therefore, beyond any reasonable doubt, the privilege of famil iar intercourse with the nobleman and his family, as well as with Christ. (5) The miracle related agrees in character with all others wrought by Christ, and with the declared object of his mission. For it served the two-fold purpose of revealing his spirit and of ratifying his authority. It had a message of its own in addition to its endorsement of the words of Jesus. (6) The bearing of Christ, his seeming repulse of the nobleman, and his subsequent compliance with his request, agree with his bearing on other occasions. It was almost a custom with him to test the faith of such as wished his aid, to expose its weakness or verify its greatness, and when imperfect yet sincere, to strengthen it by the gracious exercise of his power. But when there was no faith, yea, rather, morbid, wonderseeking curiosity, without moral root, when the faith generated by miracles would have been "unbelief in the form of belief" (Luthardt, Joh. i. 365), he refused to perform any mighty work. Such an act would have been casting pearls before swine. And so, the real harmony (emerging from apparent discrepancy) between our Saviour's course with the nobleman (possibly Chuza, Luke viii: 3) and his course with the Scribes and Pharisees who would see a sign (Math. xi: 38-46, xvi: 1-4) is manifest but undesigned, and therefore an evidence of the truth of the gospel.

But we pass on to the accounts of another miracle, viz:

The healing of Peter's wife's mother, Math. viii: 14-17, Mark i: 29-34, and Luke iv: 38-41. The different records of this miracle furnish a good illustration of the manner in which several independent witnesses of an event sustain one another. The particulars given by each separate witness are found to be consistent, when not identical with those given by all the rest. This remark will be verified as we proceed. We invite attention to the following points.

(1) The house in which the miracle was wrought is called by Matthew "the house of Peter," by Mark, "the house of Simon and Andrew," and by Luke, "the house of Simon." Here it may be observed as a slight note of independence, that two of the evangelists give to Peter his early name, Simon, while one of them makes use of his later name, Peter. A similar note may be found in the circumstance that two of them call the house Peter's, while one, and that one Mark, speaks of it as the house of Simon and Andrew. As property it may have belonged equally to the two brothers, but Peter, who was the leading personality generally, may have been especially prominent in this case, because the house was occupied by his own family; by his mother-in-law, at least, and probably by his wife also. Yet it is by no means certain that the brothers were owners of the house (the genitive does not require us to suppose this); it may have belonged to the parents of Peter's wife and have been merely the house of the two brothers while Jesus abode in Capernaum; but on this hypothesis also, though still the residence of both the brothers, it might have been such by virtue of Peter's connection with the family, and so would have been called by the disciples. generally, Peter's house. Bruno Bauer professes to see a contradiction between the statement that Peter and Andrew were householders in Capernaum, and the words of John (i: 45), that Bethsaida was the city of Andrew and Peter. We should as soon think of getting a sight of the single hair from an angel's head, exhibited twenty years by a priest who could never make out to see it himself, as of catching a glimpse of the point of inconsistency between these statements. To an ordinary mind, there would seem to be no absurdity in supposing

that two brothers might be natives of one city, and yet on occasion lease or even buy a house in another. But even this supposition is unnecessary; for it is quite possible that nothing more was meant by "the house of Simon and Andrew," than the house where they dwelt. It may not be amiss to notice also, in this place, the fact that James and John, as Mark informs us, accompanied Jesus into the house. The omission of the other two evangelists to put on record this fact needs no explanation; relatively it was a very unimportant circumstance, yet not on that account without historical value; for it shows that the miracle before us, was wrought in the presence of several witnesses.

(2.) Matthew says that Peter's mother-in-law was "laid and sick of a fever," Mark, that she "lay sick of a fever," and Luke, that she "was taken with a great fever." The first two represent her as prostrated by an active fever, and the last, making use of a current medical distinction, describes her as being in the power of a great fever. The phraseology of the witnesses is here different and to all appearance independent (I cannot agree with Alford), yet their testimony is not only accordant, but almost identical, in meaning. No jury could reject such testimony.

(3.) Matthew says that Jesus having come into the house, "saw" Peter's mother-in-law sick; Mark says that "they immediately spoke to him about ber;" and Luke, that "they asked him about her." Mark and Luke here supply a fact passed over by Matthew, yet merely a subordinate one, in all respects consistent with his narrative. As Jesus entered the house he was reminded of the sufferer, and asked, perhaps, if he would restore her health. At once he approached her bedside, looked upon her with compassion, and wrought a miraculous cure. The company may have entered first, not the sick room, but another, and in this Jesus may have been spoken to and questioned, as two of the evangelists relate, while as he entered the sick room he may have fixed his eyes on the sufferer and proceeded at once to effect her recovery. This is perhaps the most probable representation.

(4) In describing the miracle, Matthew says that Jesus