"touched her hand and the fever left her;" Mark, that he "took her by the hand and lifted her up and immediately the fever left her ;" and Luke, that he "stood over her and rebuked the fever and it left her." Here again is real barmony with seeming diversity. He "touched her hand," he took her hand and lifted her up," he "stood over her and rebuked the fever." The verb aro used by the first evangelist and translated "touched," is not inconsistent with Mark's statement, that he took her hand ;" for it signifies, according to the best lexicographers, to cling to, lay hold of, or grasp; and though it may be often employed in the New Testament to denote a slight contact, it here retains its original power. On the other hand the verb repe, which is rendered in our version "lifted up,” signifies primarily "to awaken," "to rouse up," and then, dropping the reference to sleep, "to cause to rise, or to raise." It does not therefore intimate that Christ lifted up the sick woman by strength of arm. Nor does Luke's statement that he "stood over her and rebuked the fever," conflict with the idea of his taking her hand. The several statements are complementary to one another, giving us a lively picture of the whole scene. As Jesus took the sufferer's hand within his own he spoke the word which Luke commemorates; instantly the fever departed, health pervaded her entire being, and following the gentle impulse of his hand she arose. Each narrative is true so far as it goes, each gives enough to show the source of the healing power, but all are necessary to the completeness of the picture in detail.

(5.) The cure was perfect as well as instantaneous. The fever left her, say all the accounts, and "she ministered unto them." "The completeness of her restoration," says Alexander, "was evinced by her returning to her ordinary household duties, so that she who just before lay helpless in their presence, was now serving them," that is, with food, etc. Such a result can only be ascribed to extraordinary Divine action.

In the evening after this day, when the sun was set (for it had been a Sabbath), the people, as we are told by the same evangelists, brought to him in large numbers those who were sick, and he healed them all. A careful scrutiny of the several Vol. xxviii.-6.

narratives of this miraculous activity (Matt. viii: 16, 17; Mr. i: 32-34; Luke iv: 40, 41) will disclose the same harmony in diversity which has already attracted our attention. But we must ask our readers to make this examination for themselves. Matthew, however, says these miracles of healing were performed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses," and we cannot pass over this declaration without remark. It may be the key to a great mystery, and we think it is. The words quoted by the evangelist are descriptive, in the original passage, of vicarious suffering. It is next to impossible to understand them otherwise. Hence in the miraculous healing of diseases Jesus suffered vicariously, redemptively. His anguish in the garden and on the cross was but the culmination of that which he felt almost daily, while healing the sick, cleansing the leprous, or forgiving the penitent. By the holy sharpness of his vision he pierced quite through the veil of sense and natural causes, and saw in moral evil the black root of all disorder, the source of all suffering. He could therefore heal neither bodily nor spiritual disease without a deep consciousness of his special relation to both as the Substitute, the Redeemer, the Lamb of God, who was to bear the penalty of a world's guilt. And it is not, we believe, too much to suppose that by a superhuman and perfect sympathy (compassion) he took into his own holy consciousness, and truly realized the bodily as well as the spiritual suffering which he removed from others. As works of authority or power it was easy for Christ to say effectually: "Thy sins are forgiven thee," or "Rise, take up thy bed and walk," but as works of redeeming grace they cost him unspeakable anguish. If these remarks are just, the language of Matthew offers us a glimpse of moral law the most profound, and of spiritual processes the most affecting. It lifts the miraculous agency ofChrist into a more vital union with the great end of his mediatorial work, and justifies us in extracting a deep and definite sense from the words of Jesus, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

In this section we have also placed the healing of the man

who had the dropsy, as recorded by Luke xiv: 1-6; but not without hesitation, since the only account of this miracle transmitted to us is very brief, giving no clue to the progress which had been made already by the disease. As, however, the dropsy is often incurable, it may be presumed that the man who now came to Jesus, despaired of help from any other quarter. Paulus, denying as usual that the evangelist intends to represent Christ as working a miracle, remarks: "One has no reason to think that here was a hydrops consummatus, and only by such an hypothesis does the event become incredible." But does not the language of Luke suppose the instantaneous recovery of the sick man? And by what medical process has the dropsy ever been at once removed? Paulus also says that "Jesus probably took the man aside, and examined the effect of the remedies previously used." But of this there is no intimation in the text; indeed just the opposite may fairly be inferred from it. The cure was wrought publicly in the presence of men who were watching for an opportunity to accuse the Saviour of disobedience to the law. Hence his question: "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" and his justification of the act: "Which of you shall have an ass, or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day?" The miracle before us is related very briefly, as we have said; it has therefore received less attention from sceptics than many others, and obviously it must stand or fall with those which are narrated more at length. Yet the record of this event by Luke bears every mark of truthfulness, consistent with such brevity. His language is clear, direct, unambiguous. The event did not take place in a corner. It was preceded by an important query, adapted to fix every eye upon Jesus and the afflicted man before him, and it was followed by an unanswerable justification. The scene was not easy to forget.

Finally we have placed in this section the healing of the centurion's servant, recorded in Matt. viii: 5-13, and Lu. vii : 1-10. On these accounts we remark:

(a.) Their diversities may be easily reconciled. E. g., Strauss observes that the sufferer is called by Luke a douλoç

66

ἔντιμος, but by the Centurion in Matthew ὁ παῖς μου; yet he neglects to observe that he is called by the Centurion in Luke ὁ παῖς μου (ν: 7). Besides the word παῖς may signify either son or servant. The difference between the two evangelists is evidently a note of independence and truthfulness. Again, as to the disease, Luke says that he was sick and ready to die," and Matthew that he was "sick of the palsy and grievously tormented." As to the kind of disease the latter is more specific, as to the stage of it the former is more explicit. But there is no contradiction between them, unless it can be shown that a man "sick of the palsy" cannot be "ready to die." Lastly, the Centurion himself, according to the first evangelist, came to Jesus with his request, while, according to the third, he sent the elders of the Jews to bear it. But "this diversity," says Dr. Robinson, "is satisfactorily explained by the old law maxim: Qui facit per alium, facit per se. Matthew narrates briefly; Luke gives the circumstances more fully." (See Jo. iv: 1, 2; xix: 1; Mr. x: 35; Matt. xx: 20; II. Sam. xxiv; 1; I. Chr. xxi: 1.)

(b.) The points of agreement between them are essential. E. g., both narratives unite in saying, (1) that Jesus was now returning from the place of his Sermon on the Mount; (2) 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, and for two reasons; (6) that one of these reasons indicated deep humility, "I am not worthy," etc.; (7) that the other evinced 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; (13) that according to his faith his servant was at once healed, and that, too, from a distance. These certainly are numerous and striking points of coincidence. And it may be added that the character of the Centurion is

essentially the same in both narratives, though his humility is perhaps more fully illustrated in that of Luke. So, too, the bearing of Christ is the same in both narratives. These coincidences are unaccountable on any hypothesis, but that of historical truth.

(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 restoration. Christ's wonder at the Centurion's faith is equally fatal to that hypothesis. To suppose a military officer illustrating his belief that Christ had sufficient authority over his disciples to send one of them to a sick man with medicine, is well nigh absurd; to suppose that Jesus was astonished at so great faith in his authority as a Master or skill as a leech, is altogether absurd.

(d.) The mythical interpretation of these narratives has been already given. Strauss labors hard to show that they are merely different versions of the story recorded by John iv: 46-54; a story which grew out of the impression that Jesus, as the true Messiah, must have wrought miracles at a distance, since he was greater than any of the ancient prophets. Our reply to this theory need not be repeated.

8 II. Healing Chronic Diseases.

Matt. ix: 1-8; Mr. ii: 1-12; Lu. v: 17-26; Matt. xii: 9-13;

(NOTE a) The solicitude of the Centurion for his servant agrees very well with his generous spirit toward the Jews, for whom he had built, it is said, a synagogue.

(NOTE 3) The circumstance of his not being a Jew may have led him to employ the elders" to present his request, and also to think that Jesus would prefer not to enter his house.

(NOTE 7) The word palsy or paralysis was used more comprehensively by the ancients than it is by the moderns. It was applied to disease attended by excruciating pains, as the gout, as well as to disease affecting the nerves of volition merely. (See Winer's R. W. B. Article, Paralytische; also, Trench on the Miracles, p. 18, and I. Mac. ix: 55, 56, where Alcimus “aken with the palsy," is said to have died presently with "great torment."