Mr. iii: 1-5; Lu. vi: 6-11; Jo. v: 1-17; Lu. xiii: 10-17; Matt. ix: 20-22; Mr. v: 25-34; Lu. viii: 43-48; Matt. viii: 1-4; Mr. i: 40-45; Lu. v: 12-16; Lu. xvii: 11-19.

To begin with the Healing of the Paralytic recorded by Matt. ix: 1-8; Mr. ii: 1-10, and Lu. vii: 17-26, we observe(a.) That these narratives are in no respect contradictory. A chronological disagreement between the first evangelist and the other two has indeed been alleged, but not proved;' for Matthew and Mark, surely, do not profess to give the events of our Saviour's life in the order of time. Says Westcott (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, page 344): “An inspired order is the correlative of an inspired abridgement;" and further on: "The examination of a few chapters of the Synoptical 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 pre-eminently true of the first. We are therefore persuaded that some of the events recounted by Matthew, prior to the miracle before us, took place 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 dif ference, 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 the paralytic was borne a κλίνη, Mark, a κράββατος, and Luke, a κλνίη, and a xvideov; but there is no reason whatever for doubting the fitness of any one of these terms to describe the article in question. It can hardly be presumed that Luke contradicts

himself, and yet he uses the very word employed by Matthew, and a synonym, likewise, for the one employed by Mark. Indeed, the use of three different terms by the three evangelists to designate the same article proves the independence of their testimony, and enhances its value. But there is another variation: Matthew and Mark agree in testifying that Jesus addressed the paralytic by the title "child," while Luke gives the word "man," as used in the address-rézvoν-avdρшлé. This difference is worthy of close examination. We may suppose that our Saviour uttered the word "man," but with a look and tone which made it equivalent to the more kindly and gracious term "child." If so, and if he spoke in Aramaic, Luke has translated ad literam, Matthew and Mark ad sensum. The former has given us more exactly the word of Jesus, but not so fully his meaning as the latter. Or we may suppose that our Saviour used the term "child," but with a look and tone fitly represented by the term "man;" in which case Matthew and Mark may be said to preserve the letter, while Luke preserves the spirit, of the address. But with still greater reason may we suppose that in the word of Christ, as uttered by him, was contained the sense of both these terms, or a sense intermediate between the two, so that by yielding our minds to the influence of both, allowing each to modify the other, we obtain the best possible idea of his meaning. If, however, this last hypothesis be correct, why, it may be asked, was not each one of the evangelists led by inspiration to put both these words into the lips of Jesus? Because, we reply, this would have misrepresented the style, and weakened the force of his speech. His words were powerful, because they were all freighted with deep meaning. His language was condensed. To have expanded his discourses by a paraphrase would have been to mar their beauty and strength. Better give nine-tenths of his meaning in one word than all of it in two; for the very style of our Saviour's teaching revealed his divinity.

We observe,

(b.) That these narratives agree in all essential points. They agree, e. g., in affirming, (1) that the miracle recorded was

wrought in a house; (2) that the disease cured was paralysis; (3) that the sufferer was brought to Jesus on a couch; (4) that Christ acted in view of "their faith"-the faith of more than one; (5) that he first said to the paralytic, "Thy sins are forgiven thee;" (6) that some of the Scribes (and Pharisees, Lu.) who sat by, reasoned in their hearts, charging him with blasphemy; (7) that Christ knew their thoughts, and reproved them; (8) that he placed the claim of power to forgive sins on the same level with the claim of power to cure paralysis by a word; (9) that he began to state his willingness to assure them of his power to do the former by doing the latter; (10) that instead of completing this statement in words addressed to the Scribes, he finished it by words of power addressed to the paralytic: (11) that he thus claimed for the Son of Man upon earth power to forgive sins; (12) that he directed the sufferer before him to rise, take his own couch, and go to his house; (13) that the paralytic at once arose and went forth, according to this direction; (14) that the people saw this, and were filled with astonishment. Some of these coincidences are very exact and striking. For instance, the words of Jesus: "Thy sins are forgiven thee," are precisely the same in all; the question: "Whether is it easier to say?" etc., is almost the same in all; and the unfinished address to the Scribes is exactly the same in all. The last instance is especially worthy of consideration; for the form of the sentence is peculiar and in all probability just that used by Christ. It is also noticeable that Jesus, in this address, calls the attention of captious men on the spot to this miracle as an evidence of his divine prerogatives.

We may also observe,

(c.) That the naturalistic interpretation of these passages is untenable. According to Paulus, Christ perceived that the paralytic now put before him was of a melancholy temperament, and thoroughly disheartened by the belief that his weakness was a punishment from God for past sins. He also perceived that the man had really strength to walk, if he could be induced to use it. The first thing, therefore, was to destroy his superstitious notion of a divine judgment resting

upon him in the form of sickness. This Jesus effected by saying to him, with an assured and decisive tone: 'Thy sins have been forgiven thee.' As, however, this language was misinterpreted by the Scribes, he said to them in effect: "I could as easily have said at first: Thou shalt be made whole,' as to have said: Thy sins have been forgiven thee,' but it was necessary to say the latter to remove his dejection and effect his recovery. Having thus prepared the way, Christ directs the paralytic to rise up and walk. Inspired with new confidence the poor man makes the effort, and is successful. The work is now virtually done, for joyful in hope he will rapidly recover."

Such is the exposition of Paulus, ingenious but unsound. (1.) It does not accord with the remark of all three evangelists, that the first words of Christ were uttered in view of "their faith." The efficacy of his words in removing a false impression and inspiring hope might depend on the faith of the supposed hypochondriac, but not on that of his friends. Yet the gospels are not careful to say that the paralytic himself was one of those who believed; much less do they intimate that his confidence in Jesus was especially necessary, was in fact the prerequisite to a cure.

(2.) It does not accord with the import of Christ's words to the paralytic: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." For resting on the tense* of the verb it translates: "Thy sins have been forgiven thee," and supposes the sentence merely didactic. But the perfect is here used as an emphatic present, and the language is plainly authoritative. So it was understood by the Scribes (Matt. ix: 3; Lu. v: 21; Mr. ii: 7), and so it was explained by Christ himself (Matt. ix: 6; Mr. ii; 20; Lu. v: 24.) (3.) It does not accord with Christ's answer to the Scribes: "Whether is it easier," etc. They had charged him in their hearts with arrogating a prerogative of God by professing to forgive sins. Instead of rejecting this interpretation of his language, his entire reply accepts and endorses it. This is

The reading is doubtful, but the best authorities give the perfect instead of the present.

true of the question to which we now particularly refer. For this question evidently places the forgiving of sins and the instantaneous cure of the sick on the same level. Says Meyer: "The sense (without a question) is this: The one is no easier to say than the other, to both belongs the same divine ¿ovoia; but that ye may know that I have said the former with full right, I will now add the latter."

(4.) It does not accord with the impression made by the event. The great astonishment produced by the change in the paralytic can only be explained by supposing a real miracle. The cure was instantaneous. The paralytic went out whole and strong.

It

(d.) The mythical interpretation is equally untenable. finds a motive for this legend in Isa. xxxv: 3 and 6: "Strengthen ye the weak hands and confirm the feeble knees," and "then shall the lame man leap as an hart.” "In view of these passages," says Strauss, "a derivation of the gospel narratives from Messianic expectations is exceedingly obvious." Yet he is in favor of accepting a naturalistic view of the occurrence. Jesus may have effected the recovery of one suffering from mental depression and nervous weakness by words of cheer leading him to put forth his energies. This hypothesis has been already considered. It would now be easy to show that the three narratives in question do not represent a popular legend. The points of coincidence are too numerous, and the seeming discrepancies too obvious to admit of such an explanation. It cannot, however, be necessary to specify them in detail.

Here we must pause, for the limited space which can be given to a single article is filled. The miracles, thus far examined, are among those which have given least trouble to naturalists; others, not yet considered, have taxed their powers of invention and perversion far more severely. Should an opportunity be presented for completing our examination and combining the results of it, the testimony in support of our Saviour's miracles will be seen to possess amazing strength and clearness.