Library of the Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON o NEW JERSEY 
 
 Gift of 
 
 Levi P. Stone, Esq. 
 
 1875 
 
 BS2419 B427 
 
 Belcher, Thomas Waugh, 1831-1910. 
 Our Lord's miracles of healing : consider^ 
 reliiiion lo some modem objeciions and i 
 
OUR LORD'S 
 MIEACLES OF HEALING. 
 
LONDON : 
 GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PEINTBRS, 
 
 ST. John's square. 
 
OUE LOED'S 
 
 MIRACLES OF HEALING 
 
 Ccnjsiiicrci) in ulatiait to some itlobcvu 
 ©bjectians anb tcr ittcbkul Sricuct. 
 
 ^ BY 
 
 T. W. BELCHER, M.D, M.A., 
 
 MASTER IN SURGERY, TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN; 
 
 YELLOW, AND SOME TIME CENSOR, EXAMINER, AND CHIEF LIBRARIAK, ROIAL 
 
 COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF IRELAND ; 
 
 CURATS IN CHARGE OF THE MISSION CHURCH AND DISTRICT OF lAlNT 
 FAITH, STOKE NEWINGTON. 
 
 WITH PREFACE BY THE MOST REVEREND RICHARD 
 CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., 
 
 LORD ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. 
 
 JAMES PARKER & CO., 
 OXFORD; AND 377, STRAND, LONDON. 
 
 1872. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface - vii 
 
 Introduction .......... 1 
 
 Chapter I. Miracles of Healing narrated in the Grospels . . 11 
 
 II. Fevers 17 
 
 III. Paralysis 39 
 
 IV. Leprosy 81 
 
 V. Demoniacal Possession (and Lunacy) . . . 107 
 
 VL Dropsy 132 
 
 VII. Menorrhagia 135 
 
 VEIL Ophthalmic Disease 142 
 
 IX. Organic Defects of Organs of Sense . . . . 152 
 
 X. Surgical Injury 163 
 
 Conclusion 166 
 
 Note, — For the full list of the Miracles of Healing see Chapter I, ; 
 where will also be found a table of the Contents of each chapter, with 
 the title or titles of the miracle or miracles discussed therein : e. g. to 
 find the case of the man with a withered hand, refer to Chapter L, 
 where it will be found classed as the fourth miracle discussed in 
 Chapter III. on Paralysis. The student is recommended to read this 
 book throughout ; and then, for purposes of reference, to follow the 
 suggestions given in Chapter I. 
 
P REFACE 
 
 BY THE 
 
 AUTHOR OF " NOTES ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR LORD." 
 
 1 HAVE been asked to prefix a few words of recom- 
 mendation to a book which, in my judgment, needs 
 none. 
 
 No one who reads the following pages will deny the 
 large amount of interesting and instructive matter 
 which the past training and special knowledge of the 
 writer have enabled him to bring to bear on the illus- 
 tration of the Miracles of our Lord. Questions which 
 others, myself certainly included, have dealt with 
 slightly and superficially, and with the want of a severe 
 accuracy, are here more thoroughly treated by one who 
 speaks with a modesty, and at the same time an ac- 
 quaintance with the points at issue, and a consequent 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 authority whicli, I think_, must inspire confidence in 
 all. 
 
 I will not refuse myself tlie pleasure of adding^ that 
 the writer was for some years honourably known to me 
 in the diocese of Dubhn as doings at such times as he 
 could rescue from other engagements, the work of an 
 earnest layman in the Church ; until, being drawn still 
 more closely to the Churches work, he was content to 
 relinquish high professional prospects, and to exchange 
 a ministry to the bodies of men for the harder, but 
 more excellent, ministry to their souls. 
 
 KicHARD C. Dublin. 
 
 Dublin, September 4, 1871. 
 
M I :R A C L E S. 
 
 MIRACLES OF HEALING. 
 
 INTEODUCTION. 
 
 It is a notewortliy fact that no Englisli theological or 
 medical writer has published a work on the miracles of 
 healing performed by our blessed Lord, suited to the 
 discoveries of modern medical science, and to the 
 progress of modern thought. And this is the more 
 remarkable, because there is a much closer connexion 
 between medicine and theology in Holy Scripture than 
 between theology and geography, natural history, and 
 so forth. 
 
 To say nothing of the Old Testament, the reader of 
 the Evangelical narratives cannot fail to perceive that 
 throughout our Lord^s ministry disease is in many 
 instances described as connected with sin; that for- 
 giveness and healing are frequently said to be conveyed 
 
MIEACLES OF HEALING. 
 
 by the same exercise of power to tlie one person ; 
 and that the main earthly object of our Great Exem- 
 plar appears to have been the healing of "all man- 
 ner of sickness and all manner of disease among the 
 people/^ 
 
 It will notj then^ I trust_, be deemed presumptuous 
 in one who desires to see this want supplied_, to attempt 
 to step into the gap^ and make some observations cal- 
 culated to advance the study of Holy Scripture from a 
 medical point of view. Nor should the imperfection of 
 what follows be deemed an argument against this study^ 
 but rather an incentive to increased diligence in working 
 a not over explored mine. 
 
 The only English book worthy of the name " Medica 
 Sacra " is the well-known work of the learned Dr. 
 Mead^j who flourished as a London physician in the 
 early part of the last century. But it is not too much 
 to say^ that_, besides this work being generally inac- 
 cessible^ it refers only to some four or five out of the 
 twenty-one miracles of healing recorded in the Gospels 
 as having been performed by our Lord; and these it 
 treats in a way in many respects behind the medical 
 science of the present day. 
 
 There have been indeed some other English publica- 
 
 1 Medica Sacra : sive de Morbis insignioribns qui in Bibliis Memo- 
 rantur Commentarius. Lond. 1749. An English translation, from 
 which most modem quotations are made, was published in 1755, the 
 year after the author's death. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 8 
 
 tions on this subject^ ; but while most of the more 
 modern works relating to it are written in foreign 
 languages, several of them, as well as all the Mediaeval 
 and less modern French, German, and Italian works, 
 are not only written in Latin, but are not parti- 
 cularly easy of access, even to readers in our public 
 libraries. 
 
 In the present case I propose to give a nominal list 
 of all the miracles of healing above referred to ; and 
 herein I shall select the miracles in question from the 
 classification prefixed to Archbishop Trenches well- 
 known work^ Next, I hope to classify similar diseases 
 together ; and, then, to discuss each miracle separately. 
 But it is to be noted that, as regards any particular 
 disease, the greater part of the remarks on it will be 
 found under mention of the first case, which should be 
 read by any one desirous of fully studying a subse- 
 quently-mentioned miracle of the same kind. 
 . It may be well to state for what this book is not 
 
 " Harle, (Rev.) Jonathan, M.D., Essay on the State of Physic iu 
 the Old and New Testaments, &c.,with an account of cases mentioned 
 in Scripture. Lond. 1729. Medica Sacra ; or, Short Expositions of 
 the more important diseases mentioned in the Sacred Writings. By 
 Thomas Shapter, M.D. Lond, 1834. I have not been able to get a 
 sight of Harle's Essay. It is not in the British Museum or the 
 College of Physicians. Dr. Shapter's book refers only to four of the 
 cases mentioned in the New Testament. 
 
 3 Notes on the Miracles. It is to the 7th edition that reference 
 will be made. 
 
 B 2 
 
MIRACLES OF HEALING. 
 
 intended. It is not intended as a treatise on miracles 
 in the abstract^ nor on the Gospel miracles as distin- 
 guished from the Apocryphal or the Ecclesiastical. 
 Nor is it intended as an answer to the Pantheist^ the 
 Sceptic^ the Eationalist^ or to the more bold forms of 
 unbelief which confront us in our own day. There is 
 plenty of English theological literature suited to all 
 these ends ; and several of such works need only to be 
 put before the public in a modern and popular style to 
 secure the attention of the candid inquirer. Nor does 
 this book profess to be ' an exhaustive treatise ; but 
 should be rather regarded as a body of notes, which 
 therefore may be added to by further study^ or by the 
 learning and research of others. 
 
 It is needless to say that these remarks are not 
 intended for persons who consider their knowledge of 
 creation to be so universal and infallible as to lead 
 them to reject or doubt the existence of every thing 
 which passes the bounds of their own experience. 
 
 Furthermore^, these pages are not intended to show 
 all or even the strongest points from which to argue 
 in favour of the miraculous. The general consent of 
 the Church in all ages to the truth of the Gospel 
 narratives, is an historical fact which commends 
 itself most strongly to my own mind ; although it 
 would not perhaps prove in the least degree con- 
 vincing to those who require proof of revelation before 
 they could believe in a Church in any sense of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 term. For instance^ the general consent of the Houses 
 of Parliament for two hundred years back to the truth 
 of certain generally-believed stories told of Cardinal 
 Wolsey and of Oliver Cromwell, would be taken by 
 every one as evidence of quite as strong a kind regard- 
 ing those public men, as that which could be given 
 by many in Paris at present, but by no one in one 
 hundred years to come, that a statue of Napoleon 
 once stood on the top of the column in the Place 
 Vendome, and that they saw both pulled down during 
 a time of popular excitement: 
 
 Having said thus much regarding one side, it may be 
 well to make a few observations respecting the other; 
 I mean respecting the object of this book. 
 
 First of all, it is intended for the educated reader. 
 Not necessarily for the classical scholar ; but for the 
 English reader, who, by passing over all the words of 
 dead languages enclosed within brackets, will be able 
 to read throughout, as if no such words were intro- 
 duced into the text. It is obvious, however, that they 
 who possess an average knowledge of Greek and Latin 
 will be able to prove for themselves some criticisms, 
 which others not so favourably circumstanced must 
 take for granted. 
 
 To such students, then, the following remarks are 
 respectfully commended, with the hope that they 
 may, under the Divine guidance, tend to give some 
 light to the doubtful, assist in confirming the faith of 
 
6 MIRACLES OP HEALING. 
 
 the wavering, and furnish behevers with one more 
 proof of the truthfulness of the Evangelical writers. 
 
 It is intended to show that those diseases healed by 
 our Lord either were such as were not, and now are 
 not, curable by human means ; or that they were such 
 as are only imperfectly cm^ed by man ; or such as are 
 never cured immediately. That is to say, that they 
 were well chosen cases, the healing of which, under the 
 circumstances peculiar to each, could not be ascribed 
 to human skill. Some of the diseases healed by our 
 Lord^s word or touch, were then, some even now, not- 
 withstanding our boasted advancement of Medical Sci- 
 ence, are not curable, save by slow and tedious pro- 
 gress. Some must run a certain course, if then indeed 
 they may be healed, whereas others can under no cir- 
 cumstances be cured by man, although he be but "little 
 lower than the angels/' 
 
 They were in several instances such diseases as were 
 common in the East at the time. The cures were not 
 denied at or after our Lord's time by heathen writers, 
 or by the Jews, who believed in the supernatural, and 
 ascribed them to Satanic influence. Nor did either 
 heathen or Jewish writers endeavour to explain them 
 away as arising from natural causes; or as brought 
 about by human skill ; or as real to the parties 
 interested only ; or as facts coloured by highly 
 figurative language suited to the received opinions of 
 the time ; or as poetic fictions embodying grand moral 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 truths. The heathen and Jewish belief in the miracu- 
 lous was the same : and so, apart from the truths to 
 which the miracles of Christ testified, His miracles to 
 the cultivated heathen appeared to be merely some 
 more added to others which he himself believed, and 
 which at most proved that one more god might be 
 added to his already long catalogue. To the Jew they 
 were realities which could not be denied ; and as belief 
 in them on his own principles would involve reception 
 of the worker as the promised Messiah, so ascription of 
 them to the father of "lying wonders'' was his only 
 way out of the difficulty. For, be it remembered, the 
 proof of a miracle, in itself, was no proof of Divine 
 mission either to Jew or heathen, any more than it 
 should be to us at the coming of Antichrist. 
 
 The varied and conflicting opinions of doubters of or 
 unbelievers in the miracles — I mean those of our own 
 day — ^have been alluded to in a passing way. There is 
 the bold way of denying the authenticity of the Gos- 
 pels themselves. ' There is the less bold way of admit- 
 ting these records to be only partly true ; and so, that 
 every man should decide for himself how far they are 
 true. Also there is the plan of admitting their general 
 truth, but arguing the copious use of figurative lan- 
 guage in describing historical facts. This, however, is 
 plainly nothing else than partly receiving and partly 
 rejecting statements, to the truth of which the narrator 
 stands pledged. There is also the plan, not so obsolete 
 
8 MIRACLES OF HEALING. 
 
 as some tliiiik_, of ascribing all these miraculous cures 
 to natural causes^ or to honest delusions on the part of 
 the persons concerned. 
 
 From all this it will be seen that the vital difference 
 between the unbelievers who rejected Christ in the 
 days of His flesh, and those who reject Him now for 
 intellectual reasons in Christian countries, is the firm 
 belief of the former as contrasted with the ill-concealed 
 doubt or avowed unbelief of the latter in the spiritual, 
 immaterial, or supernatural. To the Jew who believes 
 in Christ now, these miracles, which as facts he need 
 not deny, are at once proofs of His Divine mission; 
 while to the modern Rationalist, unbeliever, or semi- 
 unbeliever, it is desirable to show that the language of 
 the Gospel narratives is such as might have been ex- 
 pected from truthful writers ; that SS. Matthew, Mark, 
 and John write of disease from a popular or common- 
 sense point of view, while St. Luke uses the technical 
 language of a physician; that all agree, as to statements 
 of facts, that the miraculous cures were such as could 
 not be mistaken for cures by human skill; that the 
 Divine Healer simply restored the primitive order, 
 health, by a superhuman rather than by a super- 
 natural power, by the working of a higher over a 
 lower law"*. And as to how this was effected is not 
 more inexplicable than the action of medicines on the 
 system in disease, or the effect of the mind on the 
 
 * Archbishop Trench. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 body in causing or curing ordinary disease; that, in 
 fact, the art of the physician is the result of obser- 
 vation and experience, or of reasoning, as applied to 
 facts which have occurred in duly recorded cases. 
 
 The undesigned coincidences, and the use of peculiar 
 words by the different Evangelists, will also be seen to 
 confirm the truth of their story in several instances, 
 and to furnish a strong proof of the authenticity of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 It is hoped that these pages may be found useful by 
 some of the clergy, and especially by my younger 
 brethren. Also to theological teachers of educated 
 young persons it is hoped that they may prove of some 
 advantage. But to my brethren of the medical pro- 
 fession I earnestly beg to commend these observations, 
 and particularly to such of them as are teachers of 
 medicine. 
 
 There is abroad in the medical profession a material- 
 istic spirit; a tendency to unbelief, which is alien to 
 the discharge of that holy calling, sanctified by the 
 Great Physician, and second only to the ministry itself. 
 There are several hundred medical students in London 
 alone, to say nothing of other large medical schools; and 
 the influence of these young men for good or evil in 
 the towns, and villages, and parishes, in which they 
 will often be the only representatives of lay religious 
 thought, cannot be told. No calling has in its daily 
 practice a more thorough opportunity of discharging 
 
10 
 
 MIEACLES OP HEALING. 
 
 Christian duties, and of advocating Christian truths; 
 and as Christian instruction rarely finds a place in the 
 medical training of the present day, it is incumbent on 
 us all to try how this want may best be remedied, and 
 how the physicians of the body may be worthy dis- 
 ciples of " the beloved physician whose praise is in the 
 gospel." 
 
 It may not be amiss to repeat that our Lord^s Mira- 
 cles of healing are not here considered with regard to 
 "modern objections/' but with regard to "some 
 modern objections/' as stated in the title, and on page 4. 
 Medical men, also, will see the propriety of making 
 numerous foot-note references to standard books quite 
 familiar to them, instead of crowding the text with 
 extracts and summaries which would serve to repel the 
 medical student, as well as the theological teacher. 
 
 The author will be glad to receive suggestions from his Clerical 
 and Medical brethren for the improvement of this treatise in a second 
 edition, should such be called for. All such suggestions may be 
 addressed to him at St. Faith's, Stoke Newington, IST. 
 
 To his relative, the Kev.R. H. Belcher, M.A., Master in King's Col- 
 lege School, he is under obligation for some valuable suggestions 
 and references; and he has also to acknowledge some important 
 suggestions made by an unknown reader of his MS. ; suggestions 
 which have been taken advantage of in the following pages. 
 
MIRACLES OP HEALING NARRATED IN THE GOSPELS. 11 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 MIRACLES OF HEALING NARRATED IN THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 The miracles of healing performed by our blessed Lord, 
 and specially described as sucH by tlie Evangelical 
 writers, are twenty-one in number, as may be seen 
 from tbe following list : — 
 
 1. The healing of the nobleman^s son. 
 
 2. The demoniacs in the country of the Gadarenes. 
 
 3. The healing of a woman with an issue of blood. 
 
 4. The opening of the eyes of two bhnd in the 
 house. 
 
 5. The healing of the paralytic. 
 
 6. The cleansing of the leper. 
 
 7. The healing of the centurion^s servant. 
 
 8. The demoniac in the Synagogue at Capernaum. 
 
 9. The healing of Simon^s wife^s mother. 
 
 10. The healing of the impotent man at Bethesda. 
 
 11. The opening of the eyes of one born blind. 
 
 12. The restoring of a man with a withered hand. 
 
 13. The woman with a spirit of infirmity. 
 
 14. The healing of the man with the dropsy. 
 
 15. The cleansing of the ten lepers. 
 
12 MIRACLES OF HEALING NAERATED IN THE GOSPELS. 
 
 ^ 16. The Liealing of the daughter of the Syrophoe- 
 nician woman. 
 
 17. The healing of one deaf and dumb. 
 
 18. The opening of the eyes of one blind at Beth- 
 saida. 
 
 19. The healing of the lunatic child. 
 
 20. The opening of the eyes of two blind men near 
 Jericho. 
 
 21. The healing of Malchus' ear. 
 
 Of the preceding twenty-one miracles, several are 
 cases of the same class of disease; and, therefore, the 
 diseases healed may be reduced to nine, and classified 
 as follows :~Fever, 2 ; Demoniacal ^possession (under 
 which shall be discussed the case of the lunatic child), 
 4; Menorrhagia, 1; Ophthalmic disease,^; Paralysis 
 (mcluding the case of the woman with a spirit of infir- 
 mity), 5; Leprosy, 2; Organic defect of organs of sense 
 (vision 1, speech and hearing, 1), 2; Dropsy, 1; Sur- 
 gical injury, 1. Total, 21. 
 
 They will thus be discussed under nine difi'erent 
 heads, as follows : — ■» 
 
 Fevers , . \ ^i^^^'s wife's mother, j Cases of acute 
 C The nobleman's son. 3 disease. 
 /The paralytic. \ 
 
 The centurion's servant. 
 Paralysis "^^^ impotent man at Bethesda. ^^^es of 
 ' The man with a withered hand. | ctironic 
 The woman with a spirit of clisease. 
 infirmity. / 
 
MIRACLES OF HEALmO CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 13 
 
 7- C The leper. 
 
 Leprosy • o ^, ^ , 
 ^ -^ C The ten lepers. 
 
 ' The demoniacs in the country of the 
 Gadarenes. 
 The demoniac in the synagogue at Ca- 
 pernaum. 
 
 Demoniacal 
 possession . 
 
 The daughter of the Syrophcenicianwomaoi. 
 I The healing of the lunatic child. 
 Dropsy . . The man with the dropsy. 
 Menorrhagia. The woman with the issue of blood. 
 
 ( Opening of the eyes of two blind in the 
 
 house. 
 Opening of the eyes of one blind at Beth- 
 
 saida. 
 Opening of the eyes of two blind men 
 
 near Jericho. 
 
 Ophthalmic 
 ddsease . 
 
 V 
 
 Organic ^e- f y •gi^^_^^g ^^^^ ^^-^^^ 
 
 jects oj or-\ Speech and hearing — one deaf and dumb. 
 gan^s of sense, t 
 Surgical injury. — Malchus' ear. 
 
 Where a miracle is narrated by more than one Evan- 
 gelist,, the reader is recommended, before referring to 
 this book/ first to read over, in the English authorized 
 version, the several accounts ; and, if able to do so, to 
 read them also in the original Greek. Moreover, as 
 the chapter on fevers contains some general remarks 
 on Christ^ s miracles of healing, suited to several or 
 
14 QENEEAL MENTION OF DISEASE IN THE GOSPELS. 
 
 all of the cases discussed; a reference to it is also 
 recommended in studying any of the subsequent 
 chapters. 
 
 GENEEAL MENTION OP DISEASE IN THE GOSPELS. 
 
 In St. Matt. iv. 23, 24, it is thus written : " And Jesus 
 went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, 
 and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing 
 all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among 
 the people. 
 
 " And His fame went throughout all Syria : and they 
 brought unto Him all sick people that were taken 
 with divers diseases and torments, and those which 
 were possessed with devils, and those which were 
 lunatic, and those which had the palsy ; and He healed 
 them.^' 
 
 The phrase translated " all manner of sickness and 
 all manner of disease " [yracrav vocrov kol iraaav fiaXa- 
 Ktav] may fairly be rendered, in the medical language 
 of our day, " all manner of chronic and all manner of 
 acute diseases : '' the word translated " sickness '' in 
 the text [i^ocro?] meaning a disorder of long standing 
 \Tr}v Kpoviav KaKoirdOeiav], or a chronic disease, as 
 distinguished from the word translated '^disease'' 
 \_fjLa\aKla] ; a term which has been technically defined 
 as a temporary disorder of the body [rrjv TrpocrKacpov 
 avcofiaXiav rod crco/i-aTo?] , an acute disease. 
 
 On the expression "with divers diseases and tor- 
 
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY OP &T. LUKE. 15 
 
 merits'' [7rotKL\aL<i voaoc^ koI I3ao-avoi(;~\, it may be 
 noted tliat tlie word here translated " disease '' [v6aos:~\ , 
 probably means disease in tlie abstract, as opposed to 
 health, a disturbance of the primitive and normal order 
 of bodily soundness : serious, perhaps mortal, disease, 
 but yet unaccompanied with '^torments'' [^aadvoi^'], 
 which in several acute diseases, and in some chronic 
 ones, e.g. in some forms of Paralysis, make life doubly 
 burdensome to their subjects. Moreover, we find 
 mentioned in this category " those possessed with 
 devils " [SaLfjLovL^ofjiivov'i'] , that is, persons afflicted 
 from other than natural causes, the victims of an 
 unseen evil agency ; and also, in clear contra-distinction 
 to them, ^Munatics'' [^a-eXrjvca^ofjbevovfi], persons whose 
 peculiar malady was chiefly mental, and believed to 
 increase at change and full of the moon. From this 
 and other passages in the Grospels, it will be seen that 
 our Lord is said to have wrought many more miracles 
 of healing than are narrated at length by the Evan- 
 gelists, and a fair consideration of the cases which 
 have been fully recorded, will go far to establish the 
 conclusion that there was something so special in each 
 instance as to make its detailed narration desirable. 
 
 MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY OF ST. LUKE. 
 
 The following pages are intended to show that the 
 Gospel of '^ the beloved physician '' speaks of these 
 miracles of healing in the medical technology of the 
 
16 MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY OP ST. LUKE. 
 
 Greek scliool of his day ; and so_, tliat while the other 
 Evangelists describe disease in the popular language of 
 ordinary close observers^ St. Luke expresses himself 
 professionally. If the other Evangelists^ being plain — 
 or^ as we should now call them_, non-professional — men^ 
 had Written of disease in technical terms, this might 
 plausibly be adduced as an argument against their 
 fidelity ; but if, in addition to accepting the universally- 
 received opinion, that St. Luke wrote the third Gospel, 
 and that he was a physician — if, in addition to ac- 
 cepting this view, it were found that he did not use 
 technical terms where he might have been fairly ex- 
 pected to have used them, it would require no small 
 ingenuity to remove the doubts raised by these circum- 
 stances in the minds of many. Indeed the technical 
 terms themselves, as used in St. Luke^s Gospel, prove 
 that it was written by one well acquainted with medi- 
 cine ; and, therefore, the narratives in this Gospel, if 
 found to coincide with those in the others, will, on this 
 particular point, furnish one more proof, in addition to 
 the many others generally advanced, in favour of the 
 credibility of the Gospel histories. 
 
FEVERS. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 FEVERS. 
 THE HEALING OF SIMON's WIFe's MOTHEE. 
 
 The following accounts are given of this miracle : — 
 St. Matt. vdii. 14, 15. St. Mark i. 29—31. St. Luke iv. 38, 39. 
 
 14. And when Jesus 
 was come into Peter's 
 house. He saw his 
 wife's mother laid, and 
 sick of a fever. 
 
 15. And He touched 
 her hand, and the fever 
 left her : and she arose 
 and ministered unto 
 them. 
 
 29. And forthAvith, 
 when they were come 
 out of the synagogue, 
 they entered into the 
 house of Simon and 
 Andrew, with James 
 and John. 
 
 30. But Simon's 
 wife's mother lay sick 
 of a fever, and anon 
 they tell him of her. 
 
 31. And He came 
 and took her by the 
 hand, and lifted her 
 up : and immediately 
 the fever left her, and 
 she ministered unto 
 them. 
 
 This case especially illustrates the healing of an 
 Acute disease ; most of the other miracles of healing 
 being referable to the class of Chronic affections : and, 
 as we see above, the first three Evangelists relate it 
 
 c 
 
 38. And He arose- 
 out of the synagogue, 
 and entered into Si- 
 mon's house. And 
 Simon's wife's mother 
 was taken with a great 
 fever; and they be- 
 sought Him for her. 
 
 39. And He stood 
 over her, and rebuked 
 the fever; and it left 
 her : and immediately 
 she arose and minis- 
 tered unto them. 
 
18 FEVEES. 
 
 with scarcely any apparent diJBference of detail, so far 
 as the English version is concerned. St. Luke tells us 
 of this woman (iv. 38) that she ^' was taken with a 
 great fever ^' [fjv avve')(Ofievr) irvpero) /leyaXo)] . St. Mark 
 says (i. 30) she ^^lay sick of a fever " [jcaTeKeLro Trvpia- 
 aovaa] ; literally, she lay stretched {or lay flat) in a 
 fever. While St. Matthew informs us (viii. 14) that 
 she was " laid and sick of a fever ^^ l/Se/SXy/jLevrjv koX 
 iTvpeaaovaav], or, as it might be rendered with sub- 
 stantial accuracy, she was struck down in a fever. 
 
 The unprejudiced English reader of the above three 
 accounts cannot fail to observe their substantial agree- 
 ment ; and where there is any diversity of detail, it is 
 exactly such as goes far to prove the truthfulness of 
 these independent accounts of the same transaction; 
 and also to establish the value of their united testimony 
 as to an alleged wonderful occurrence. The unpre- 
 judiced Greek reader cannot fail to observe certain 
 differences of phraseology in the three accounts ; dif- 
 ferences — as shall be presently shown — arising from 
 circumstances peculiar to the Evangelical writers them- 
 selves. 
 
 As St. Luke's phraseology is full of meaning, it may 
 be well to note his antecedents. 
 
 St. Luke, " the beloved physician,^' is believed to 
 have practised medicine at Antioch, which, at that time, 
 as situated between the great schools of Alexandria 
 and Cilicia, and not far from them, or from the western 
 
THE HEALING OP SIMOn's WIFE's MOTHER. 19 
 
 schools, held a more central position than any great 
 city of the ancient world. Greek was then the lan- 
 guage of medical learning ; and St. Luke himself was 
 probably a fair example of an educated Asiatic Greek. 
 The medicine of the New Testament is the Greek 
 tinctured with the Jewish. Medical learning and 
 practice in St. Luke's case, then, were chiefly Greek ; 
 and the medical writings of Aretaeus the Cappadocian, 
 most probably a cotemporary, are believed to represent* 
 the opinions or medical school to which " the beloved 
 physician '^ belonged. There is a remarkable agree- 
 ment between this Evangelist and Aretaeus regarding 
 demoniac agency in disease, Aretseus affirming and 
 Hippocrates repudiating such influence : and the Greek 
 reader of the third Gospel and of the Acts of the 
 Apostles is more or less familiar with the occurrence of 
 medical phraseology in these records\. 
 
 ^ Besides those instances which will occur in the course of the 
 following remarks, one- or two others may be noted : e. g. — viii. 55, 
 e7re(rTpe\|/6 t5 Trvev/xa — the breath, the token of animation, returned : 
 Acts iii. 7, e(Trfp€(i)6r](Tav al /Satreis avrov Kol ra (Tcpvpd, the soles of his 
 feet, and his ankle-bones (tibia, smd Jibula) received strength'. 
 
 These and other instances will be found in Freind's History of 
 Physick (2 vols. 8vo, 1725 ;) while as to demoniacal influence 
 in connexion with the opinions of St. Luke and Hippocrates, see 
 notes on " Sacred Diseases " in the Sydenham Society's edition of 
 the latter. See also a paper on the Medical Style of St. Luke, in the 
 Gentleman's Magazine for June, 1841, where some of the above, and 
 others not referred to in these remarks, are noticed. 
 
 " There fell from his eyes as it had been scales '"' (Acts ix. 18). 
 Dean Howson (in Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 PEVEES. 
 
 In the present case one of these occurrences of 
 technical language claims our attention. 
 
 St. Luke says (iv. 38) that Simon^s wife's mother 
 ^^ was taken with a great fever^.^^ ^^A great fever :" — 
 this expression is a technical one ; and is to be found 
 in the writings of that great medical authority Galen, 
 who uses it in his celebrated treatise on fevers 
 \_TOP fjieyav re kol fiLKpov irvperov (Galen de Different. 
 Febr. i.)]. 
 
 Galen_, who lived a short time after St. Luke, adopted 
 the current phraseology of medical men of his time, 
 just as modern French writers on Epilepsy specify the 
 " grand V112I'' as distinguished from ih.Q " ijetit mal." 
 At the time when our blessed Lord walked this earth 
 pestilential fevers held a most prominent place among 
 Oriental plagues ; and their great prevalence and im- 
 portance may be judged of from the fact, that a large 
 amount of ancient Greek medical literature is on the 
 subject of fevers alone. We know quite well, then, 
 
 Paul) argues for tlie literal trutli of St. Luke's expression, because of 
 his peculiar exactness in speaking of such subjects. — Edition of 1870, 
 
 p. 78, 910^6. 
 
 '^ "Was taken with a great fever" \Jiv (rvuexofi^vn^. It may be 
 said that the exact force of these words is not suggested by the 
 English version. " Was taken with a great fever " may be held to 
 suggest the notion of the actual seizure, the beginning of the disease ; 
 whereas the original words point to the woman's exact condition at 
 the time immediately before her cure. A critic has well advised 
 that "was suffering from," or " was labouring under," would better 
 suggest the meaning to the English reader. 
 
THE HEALING OP SIMON^S WIFE^S MOTHEE. 21 
 
 what was " the great fever '' of St. Luke and of the 
 Greek medical classics. It may be shortly described 
 in modern language_, and will be recognized by non- 
 medical readers as substantially the same with Typhus 
 of our own time : — 
 
 Fever, contagious or infectious_, lasting for days or 
 weeks, the onset sudden and well marked, or gradual 
 and obscure, without well-marked remissions, accom- 
 panied by extreme prostration of strength, great and 
 varied disturbance of all bodily and mental functions, 
 and a strong tendency to local complications ; charac- 
 terized, in most instances at an early period of the 
 disease, by a peculiar eruption of the skin. The attack 
 is essentially one on the nervous system, which shows 
 signs of disorder in every direction ; even the very 
 countenance assumes a dull, anxious, and confused ex- 
 pression ; in fact, the disease is rightly named Typhus 
 [tuc^o?], smoke or mist, and hence the stupor arising 
 from fever. Experience has proved that fever of this 
 kind cannot be cut short, and that it will run a certain 
 course for days or weeks, and endure in spite of the 
 best treatment. Patients are liable to relapse, and 
 recover slowly. There is no specific medicine for its 
 cure. It is treated on general principles ; the physician 
 meeting each symptom as it arises. The unexpected 
 natm-e of its onset, the utter prostration, even in the 
 strongest man, and the facts that the whole head is 
 sick and the whole heart is faint, are symptoms which 
 
22 FEVERS. 
 
 impress themselves on the ordinary observer. Thus 
 we see that, according to St. Luke, Simon^s wife^s 
 mother was " taken with [was suffering from] ^ a great 
 fever ; '' that is, she had encountered one of the most 
 formidable enemies to humanity of that or of any age. 
 In vain did physicians then, as now, attempt to remove, 
 or sometimes even to moderate that scourge of our 
 race, the hidden nature of which still merits the de- 
 scription of the Psalmist, who is believed by some good 
 authorities to have referred to that class of diseases 
 when he wrote of '^the pestilence that walketh in 
 darkness." 
 
 In contrast with the description of St. Luke, we 
 find St. Mark stating that Simon^s wife^s mother " lay 
 sick of a fever;" or, as I have before suggested, lay 
 stretched in a fever, a mode of expression quite con- 
 sistent with, although perhaps not intended to point 
 out, the nature of the disease and the great prostration 
 caused by it. Now, any ordinary observer with that 
 faculty which we often call common sense — any such 
 observer, who has seen cases of the great fever, will 
 have been struck by the lying down from illness, or 
 lying down flat which always accompanies it. One of 
 the most marked symptoms of Typhus — the great fever 
 — is this fact just noted ; and more, at one stage of it 
 the patient does literally lie stretched — lies on the back, 
 
 2 See note on [^v ffwiX'^P-^^'"}] "was taken with," or " was suffering 
 from," on p. 20. 
 
THE HEALING OP SIMON^S WIFE^S MOTHER. 23 
 
 and slides down as far as possible to the foot of the 
 bed, from sheer nervous prostration and weakness ; 
 and this is one of the symptoms to which the attention 
 of physicians is frequently directed by those who nurse 
 the sick. And this common-sense description, quite 
 consistent with technical accuracy, as I have shown, 
 may be accounted for by the tradition of ancient Church 
 historians that St. Mark wrote his Gospel under the 
 inspection of St. Peter. St. Peter in this case would 
 have had every opportunity of noting the prominent 
 characteristics of a great fever, and personal anxiety 
 alone would have caused him to take advantaga of 
 these opportunities. 
 
 But, again, in contrast to the technical correctness 
 of St. Luke, and to the personal observation implied by 
 St. Mark^s description, note St. Matthew. He relates 
 how Simon's wife's mother was " laid and sick of a 
 fever ; " or, as I have above suggested, struck down in 
 a fever; the word [PePXrjfjbevr^v] translated 'Haid or 
 struck down ^' having a marked reference to another 
 popular point of view from which the great fever might 
 be viewed by a non-professional person — I mean its 
 mode of attack, in connexion with its subsequent and 
 continued prostration. The patient was struck down 
 as by an arrow, or other missile, for such is the literal 
 meaning of the Greek word : — she was apparently 
 well one hour, prostrate the next. This, as I have 
 above observed in describing the '^ great fever," is a 
 
24 FEVEES. 
 
 frequent mode of attack in bad fevers in tlie present 
 day and in these countries. It was a marked and 
 commonly known feature in tke fearful famine fever 
 wkicli overtook Ireland in 1847, of wMcli I re- 
 member, as a boy, seeing hundreds of cases; and in 
 more mature years, as a physician to a large fever 
 hospital, I had ample evidence of the same fact. 
 
 As, however, the word [/Se^Xrj/jbevrjv] implies a rela- 
 tively present state arising out of a past act or acts ; 
 so the past act leading up to the " lying " which our 
 Lord beheld may not have been the sudden access of the 
 disease — her being struck down by the fever — but her 
 being , laid on the bed when first attacked by it, and 
 her continuing to lie so when He saw her. In St. 
 Mark vii. 30, in the case of the daughter of the Syro- 
 phoenician woman, her mother is said to have gone to 
 the house, and to have found the devil gone out, and 
 her daughter "laid upon the bed^^ \_l3€^7]/jLevr]v eirl 
 rrjf; KXlvr)(f\ . Here, however, it may also be said that 
 the expression implies, or has some reference to, the 
 forcible manner in which evil spirits are represented as 
 departing from those afflicted by them, leaving the 
 individual, as one might say — ^were cant phraseology 
 admissible — "floored,^^ tying in utter exhaustion after 
 a vigorous attack and final struggle. In any case, 
 the presumed fact of the sudden access of the disease is 
 quite consistent with the use of the word [^ejSXrjfieprjv'] . 
 
 Thus St. Matthew may be presumed to represent 
 
THE HEALING OF SIMON's WIFE^S MOTHER. 25 
 
 the popular rumour regarding tliia case, perhaps the 
 sudden invasion of the disease, but at any rate the 
 gravity of the symptoms ; St. Mark, the case as 
 observed by one personally acquainted with it ; while 
 we must regard St. Luke as giving a professional 
 account of the case. 
 
 Of our Saviour^s miracle St. Matthew says (viii. 15), 
 " He touched her hand, and the fever left her^^ [^-^jraro 
 T^? yeipo^i avrrj<^j Kat dcprJKev avrr]V 6 Trupero?] . 
 
 St. Mark says (i. 31), " He came and took her by 
 the hand, and lifted her up : and immediately the fever 
 left her^^ [irpoaeXOcov r^'yecpev avrrfv, Kpariqaa's Trj<i ')(eLpo<^ 
 avTr}<i' Kol a(j)rJKev avTrjv b Trvpero'^ ev6e(o<;~\ . 
 
 St. Luke says (iv. 39), " He stood over her, and re- 
 buked the fever ; and it left her '^ [eTrtcrTa? iirdvo) avT-fj^ 
 iTriTL/jirjae rS irvperu), kol a(j)rJK6v avTrjv] . 
 
 Here again St. Luke writes in a remarkable way : — 
 The fever was with him an entity to be rebuked. St. 
 Mark notes with the accuracy of a non-professional 
 eye-witness, as St. Peter probably was, that the disease 
 left her "immediately ;^^ while St. Matthew may again 
 be presumed to record the fact which would chiefly 
 impress itself on the populace, that the miracle was 
 wrought in connexion with the significant action of 
 taking the patient by the hand. 
 
 The accounts of this miracle given by all three 
 Evangelists are singularly unfavourable to the sugges- 
 tion of its being a poetic myth, or " unhistorical ; ^^ and 
 
26 FEVERS. 
 
 they are equally unfavourable to tlie objection that the 
 case may have been cured by human skilly or by the 
 vis medicatrix naturce. 
 
 When the Lord rebuked the winds and waves> 
 saying, " Peace be still/^ we are told that, contrary to 
 the usual course of things, there was an immediate 
 calm; there was not any swell on the waters before 
 they settled into peaceful stillness. Even so here, the 
 cure was not only complete, but immediate. '' Imme- 
 diately she arose and ministered [literally, " was minis- 
 tering^^] to them. ^' To them," according to St. Mark 
 and St. Luke; ^^to him," according to the best MSS. 
 of St. Matthew. On the perfection and undoubted 
 nature of the immediate cure, as instanced by the 
 words " she ministered to him," Bengel notes (St. 
 Matt. viii. 15)^ how she showed that welcome sign of 
 true health, the fact of discharging her duties as mis- 
 tress of the house. [" Officio matris familias funge- 
 batur, sanitatis verae signo Iseto."] 
 
 What we should expect to find in an ordinary case did 
 not here occur. There was not any slow and painful 
 convalescence, varied perhaps by relapse ; no crisis with 
 subsequent exhaustion and lingering weakness. No 
 man was known to have cured a fever in so short a time, 
 and in so undoubted a manner that the patient could 
 at once proceed to the ordinary duties of her daily life. 
 
 Nor in this nineteenth century can the case be 
 
 ^ Gnomon Novi Testamenti, in loc. 
 
THE HEALING OP SIMOn's WIFE^S MOTHER. 27 
 
 mended in tliat respect. Using the word ^^cure^^ in 
 its modern popular sense, it may be remarked tliat 
 physicians even now do not profess to cure a fever. 
 They profess only to pilot the ship through the storm, 
 to obviate the tendency to death, to treat each symptom 
 of injury to bodily or mental function as it may arise. 
 They have no specific for it; nor, so far as present 
 knowledge goes, can they expect ever to find one. 
 
 This case is, then, not one in which any mere man, 
 however gifted, could have cured by such exercise of 
 skill as would have induced the bystanders to reverence 
 him as Divine. 
 
 It was not one in which a physician of superior 
 ability could have accommodated himself to the pre- 
 vailing superstitions of the day. Our Lord could have 
 cured other diseases as truly and quickly as this fever ; 
 but some of them may have been such as man could 
 overcome ; and so their cure may have been esteemed 
 man^s work. True it is that this case possibly may 
 have been amenable to human treatment ; but the best 
 that could be expected from the ablest physician was 
 a long illness and a tardy convalescence. 
 
 To the fairly educated medical man the technical 
 expressions evolved from St. Luke^s account of this 
 case will have great weight in proving his testimony to 
 be true ; especially when he has also the clear accounts 
 of the same case from the other two Evangelists ; all 
 agreeing, and yet all strikingly different in detail, a 
 
28 FEVERS. 
 
 threefold cord of evidences^ such as the consulting 
 physician frequently has presented to him at the bed- 
 side of a wife, by the varying, yet accurate accounts of 
 her skilled medical attendant, her watchful nurse, and 
 her anxious husband. 
 
 And the undesigned coincidences to be found here 
 are worthy of note. There are sufficient peculiarities 
 in the story as told by each Evangelist to satisfy any 
 unprejudiced reader that the three accounts were not 
 written in concert. They coincide as to fact, while 
 they prominently record details from various points of 
 view. Thus — to quote one more besides those illustra- 
 tions given above — St. Matthew says, ^' He touched 
 her hand, and the fever left her." St. Mark says He 
 " took hold of her hand, and raised her up." Here, 
 again, St. Matthew gives the fact which struck the 
 ordinary common sense narrator — cure in connexion 
 with the sign or means of touch. St. Mark, the eye- 
 witness, or amanuensis of the eye-witness, St. Peter, 
 records how He not only touched, but took hold of her 
 hand ; in doing so took hold of it, — the power of that 
 Divine touch raised her up. St. Luke dwells not on 
 the sign or means of touch, which to him was not there 
 the important fact, but to the spiritual as distinguished 
 from human agency in "rebuking" the raging of a 
 disease. And again, St. Matthew, as representing 
 accurate public rumour, dwells not on the immediate 
 cure, while St. Mark, as an eye-witness, does j and. 
 
THE HEALING OP SIMON^S WIPERS MOTHER. 29 
 
 further^ St. Luke, from a teclmical point of view, notes 
 not that; for at the crisis in a fever, the essential 
 disease, in one sense, often immediately leaves the sick 
 person; but the fact that while the fever did leave 
 her, yet, contrary to all experience she was not ex- 
 hausted and left nearly dead, but she immediately arose. 
 Instead of her weakness being greatest at this point, 
 she was up at once and ministering to the Saviour. 
 
 One great proof of supernatural agency which the 
 witnesses of this miracle had, must be wanting to us — 
 the instantaneous cure evident to the senses. No nar- 
 rative can convey more than a feeble description of the 
 voice and manner which accompanied the command; 
 nor can it give other than a faint idea of the astonish- 
 ing change produced by the instantaneous cure*. No 
 one who has never witnessed a fever patient at the 
 height of the disease, and immediately after the crisis 
 which often accompanies it, can, even from the clearest 
 written description of a physician, have the same con- 
 viction of the change which the eye-witness feels and 
 remembers. 
 
 When the Lord thought fit to cure by a word. He did 
 so; but often^ we find a visible sign or means used, 
 either with or without the healing word. In all cases 
 we have the audible word or the visible touch, and so 
 
 5 See Newman's Essays on Miracles, 2n(i Edition, 1870, p. 9. 
 * In twenty-two out of thirty-three cases " He never laid His hand, 
 upon demoniacs." — Keble an Eucharistical Adoration, chap. ii. sec. 2-1. 
 
30 FEVERS. 
 
 may we not rightly call miracles such as these sacra- 
 ments of healing ? Some will say how could a word or 
 a touch cure a fever ? Let physicians explain if they 
 can, how it is that few or no signs of injury can be 
 found in the body after death by fever ? how it is that 
 medicines cure disease ? or how it is that striking words 
 or strong mental impressions often affect nervous dis- 
 eases ? They know the facts_, but no more. 
 
 Bodily disease, as elsewhere observed, was closely 
 connected with sin; as closely as the soul is connected 
 with the body; and therefore bodily diseases were 
 regarded as typical of spiritual ones. The dead raised 
 up symbolized those dead in sin. Leprosy figured the 
 utter pollution and loathsomeness of sin, excluding the 
 leprous man, the sinner, from heavenly society. The blind 
 man was a type of one spiritually blind; and so on with 
 the deaf, the dumb, the lame, the lunatic, and others. 
 
 The faith of the person or persons interested is not 
 sufficient without the outward sign. The son of the 
 widow of Nain is restored to life by a touch of the 
 bier whereon he lay, and by the Divine command, 
 '^ Young man, I say unto thee. Arise '^ (St. Luke vii. 
 1 4) . The daughter of Jairus was raised by our Saviour 
 taking her hand, and bidding her arise (St. Mark v. 
 41 ; St. Luke viii. 44). Lazarus was awakened by the 
 cry, "Come forth'' (St. John xi. 43). The Lord 
 touched the leper, saying, " I will ; be thou clean " 
 (St. Matthew viii. 3) . The blind man cast away his gar- 
 
SACRAMENTAL MIRACLES OF HEALING. 31 
 
 ment, and came to Jesus ; but did not see until Christ 
 spoke the words, '^Eeceive thy sight ^' (St. Luke xviii. 
 42) . When Christ beheld a man blind from his birth, 
 he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, 
 and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 
 and said, " Go wash in the pool of Siloam (St. John ix. 
 7) ; after which words, St. John adds, " he went his 
 way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.^^ Again, 
 in the case of the deaf man who had an impediment in 
 his speech, we read that Christ took him aside, put His 
 fingers into his ears, and spat and touched his tongue, 
 and looking up to heaven, and sighing, said, Eph- 
 phatha, that is. Be opened (St. Mark vii. 32). The 
 deaf and dumb spirit Christ addressed, saying, "I 
 charge thee, come out of him^' (St. Mark ix. 25) ; and 
 we know how that faithful woman touched the hem of 
 His garment, and was immediately made whole (St. 
 Luke viii. 44). 
 
 These instances are given to show that an audible or 
 visible sign in connexion with our Lord^s great mira- 
 cles — and notably those of healing — is a prominent 
 feature in the Evangelical descriptions of them; and the 
 fact of their connexion is not more inexplicable than 
 other facts which to physicians are equally unaccounted 
 for in the present day. As before observed, the action 
 of medicines on disease is still a subject for theory and 
 controversy. The effect is in many cases known, and, 
 from expei-ience in some cases, is to be looked for, but 
 
32 FEVERS. 
 
 does not always follow in others ; and yet tlie cause is 
 hid. The Great Physician in mercy extends the border 
 of His mantle over sinful man, to assure him, by the 
 human physician, that as death and disease have been 
 sent, so have recovery and medicines. But He extends 
 only the border of His mantle, to show that the mere 
 earthly physician fails and errs, where the heavenly 
 Healer might forgive man's iniquities, and redeem his 
 life from destruction. We call the mutterings of the 
 fever patient delirium, and in the terrors of the men- 
 tally diseased we see what we call lunacy. But what 
 know we of these conditions ? What relations have 
 these sufferers with the unseen world ? We see through 
 a glass darkly ; but it may be that tkey are face to face 
 with invisible things, in mercy hid from us. 
 
 It may be fairly concluded, then, from the Scriptural 
 accounts of this miracle, — 
 
 1. That the description of facts is substantially the same 
 by the three Evangelists, SS. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 
 
 2. That while certain points are dwelt on with marked 
 force in the account peculiar to each Evangelist, these 
 prominent features are not only such as are thoroughly 
 consistent with the respective positions and personal 
 qualifications of the writers, but that each tends strongly 
 to confirm the truth of the accounts of the others. 
 
 3. That these marked coincidences were undesigned, 
 and so go far to prove that the Evangelists are to be 
 thoroughly relied on as writers. 
 
THE HEALING OF SIMON's WIPE's MOTHER CONCLUSION. 33 
 
 4. That the account of this miracle, given in the third 
 Gospel, was clearly written by one acquainted with 
 medical science, and that the traditional assignment of 
 its authorship to ^'' the beloved physician" is probably 
 correct. 
 
 5. That the account given in the second Gospel bears 
 strong traces of having been written by an eye-witness, 
 or by the amanuensis of an eye-witness ; and that the 
 traditional assignment of it to him whom St. Peter 
 (1 Ep. V. 13) calls "Marcus my son," is probably 
 correct. 
 
 6. That the account given in the first Gospel most 
 probably was written by one who was not an eye- 
 witness; but yet by one whose account, when com- 
 pared with those of the other two, shows him to have 
 been truthful ; and that his testimony is such as men 
 would act on readily and without doubt in the most 
 important transactions of worldly life. 
 
 If SS. Matthew and Mark being plain, or, as we 
 should now call them, non-professional men, had 
 written of disease in technical terms, we should have 
 plausible reason for doubting their testimony ; as also 
 we should had St. Luke not used technical language 
 with as much frequency as might reasonably be ex- 
 pected of a medical Evangelist, writing of disease in 
 which the spiritual rather than the bodily was the more 
 prominent idea. 
 
 7. That St. Luke's ipsissima verba tend strongly to 
 
 D 
 
84 FEVEES. 
 
 confirm tlie trutli of Holy Writ — the fact that a miracle, 
 and nothing else, was performed; and his account in 
 conjunction with those of SS. Matthew and Mark should 
 teach us to what absurd impossibilities we inay be led 
 if we deny the existence of an unseen world and of a 
 superior and superhuman power; seeing that to un- 
 belief in some of the commonest facts which we do see 
 and feel, the like objections may be made, e. g. we 
 know soul and body are united. What unites them ? 
 How is it that we are made to move, and not to stand 
 still ? How is it that a man can speak, while a monkey 
 cannot ? How does the soul act on the body ? What 
 is the motor power of the nervous system ? Also if we 
 reject the testimony of such writers as the Evangelists, 
 how can we be sure that any thing ever happened which 
 we have not seen ? 
 
 8. That this miracle was performed on a wisely chosen 
 case ; because, although the disease might possibly have 
 been cared by man, it could -not and cannot be cured 
 immediately and perfectly, but at best slowly, and 
 sometimes without recovery of perfect health. 
 
 9. To young medical men and medical students who 
 study God^s Word with devout, criticism, these remarks 
 may tend to show the information to be had from the 
 original words of '^ the beloved physician,^^ that he was 
 not a half-informed, or ill-read man in his medical 
 calling, but was " well-up ^^ — as the saying is— in the 
 then received theories and writings of physicians of 
 
THE HEALING OF THE NOBLEMAN^S SON. 35 
 
 the first class ; tliat all modern medical knowledge is 
 not new ; and that there is nothing in the highest style 
 of medical knowledge inconsistent with faith in the 
 spiritual and supernatural. 
 
 10. And to such medical men as recognize the higher 
 existence of the supernatural^ our calling presents itself 
 as a far more noble thing than it does to the doubting 
 materialist. Science is with the former not the chief 
 end of the student ; but becomes, as it should be, the 
 handmaid to mercy ; and may we not use the words of 
 one of the most eloquent public speakers of the present 
 day'', and " venture to hope — nay, to believe — that as 
 public opinion becomes more Christian, a higher, nay 
 the very highest, social consideration, will be every 
 where assigned to the members of that noble profession 
 of medicine, which ministers with one hand to the pro- 
 gress of advancing science, while with the other it 
 daily lavishes its countless deeds of unknown, unac- 
 knowledged generosity and kindness on the sick and 
 suffering poor.'^ 
 
 THE HEALING OE THE NOBLEMAN^S SON. 
 
 Adopting the enumeration of Archbishop Trench, it 
 will be seen that this miracle is related by St. John 
 only, and in the following terms (iv. 46 — 54) : — 
 
 There was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick 
 
 7 Canon Licldon, University Sermons, p. 279, Srd Edition, 1869. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 FEVEES. 
 
 at Capernaum. When lie heard that Jesus was come 
 out of Judaea into Galilee,, he went unto Him, and be- 
 souofht Him that He would come down, and heal his 
 son : for he was at the point of death. 
 
 ^^ Then said Jesus unto him. Except ye see signs and 
 wonders, ye will not believe. 
 
 '' The nobleman saith unto Him, Sir, come down ere 
 my child die. 
 
 " Jesus saith unto him, Gro thy way ; thy son liveth. 
 And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken 
 unto him, and he went his way. And as he was now 
 going down, his servants met him, and told }im%, saying. 
 Thy son liveth. Then enquired he of them the hour 
 when he began to amend. And they said unto him. 
 Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. 
 
 ^^ So the father knew that it icas at the same hour in 
 the which Jesus said unto him. Thy son liveth : and 
 himself believed, and his whole house. 
 
 '^ This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when 
 He was come out of Judsea into Galilee." 
 
 Not to go over the same ground again with regard 
 to this miracle, the cure of which is identical in prin- 
 ciple with that of Simon^s wife^s mother, I may refer 
 to what was said in discussing the last mentioned, and 
 particularly as regards the disease itself, fever; the 
 connexion of the cure with a visible or audible sign: 
 and the gravity of the case. Here the nobleman^s son 
 '' was at the point of death. ^■' ^^ Sir, come down (said 
 
THE HEALING OF THE NOBLEMAN's SON. 37 
 
 the father to Christ) ere my child die/^ In the case 
 of Simon's wife's mother, it was also grave, as we have 
 seen. 
 
 Further, note that in this case, as in the former, the 
 disease left him perfectly cured — '' the fever left him " 
 \_a(f)riK6v avTov 6 Tru/oerd?], — the very words used by 
 SS. Matthew, Mark, and Luke in describing the other 
 case ; and as in the other case, so here it left him at once 
 — '' at the seventh hour," — '^ the same in which Jesus 
 said unto him. Thy son liveth/' And here was no 
 question of human skill. The cure was ejffected by a 
 word, and at a distance from the patient. So, assuming 
 the honesty of the accounts in the former case, this is 
 even a stronger confirmation of the supernatural power 
 of Christ — were such possible — than the former. 
 
 And the terms in which it is described by St. John 
 are in striking, but undesigned, coincidence with the 
 three accounts of the healing of Simony's wife's mother. 
 In all, the disease has a name. In all, it is a serious 
 disease. In all, it needs more than the ordinary phy- 
 sician. In all, the cure is efiected in connexion with 
 visible or audible means. In all, it is immediate and 
 complete; and yet there is not the least trace of verbal 
 agreement on the part of the several writers. There 
 is no possible mode of explaining this account away, or 
 of assigning it to human skill or to natural causes. The 
 story is plainly true, or it is plainly false ; and it is at 
 least as probably true as many things which we believe 
 
a8 PEVERS. 
 
 and act on as facts, without half as much evidence as 
 the manifest simplicity of this account, and the unde- 
 signed coincidences of its chief points with like accounts 
 of the other Evangelists afford us. 
 
 Read the chapter on the healing of Simon^s wife^s 
 mother before this on the healing of the Nobleman^s 
 Son^ 
 
 8 With reference to our Lord's healing this case, the Centurion's 
 servant, the man sick of the palsy, the man at the pool of Bethesda, 
 the man with the withered hand, and the ten lepers, without the 
 visible sign or means noted on page 29, the author of the " Christian 
 Year" thus remarks : — " By these comparatively rare examples, our 
 Lord may have designed to symbolize the necessity of faith in all 
 capable receivers of sacraments, and the sufficiency of it in certain 
 cases without literally receiving; according to the principle, Gratia 
 Dei HO)i est alUgata Soxramentis," (Op, cit. ii, 25.) 
 
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC. 
 
 39 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PARALYSIS. 
 THE HEALING OP THE PARALYTIC. 
 
 In contrast to the miracle performed in the last two 
 cases, affected with acute disease, let us consider a 
 miracle performed in a chronic case, that of the Paralytic 
 recorded by SS. Matthew, Mark, and Luke : — 
 
 St. Matt. ix. 2—7. 
 
 2. And, behold, they 
 brought to Him a man 
 sick, with the palsy, 
 lying on a bed : and 
 Jesus seeing their faith , 
 said unto the sick of 
 the palsy ; Son, be of 
 good cheer ; thy sins 
 be forgiven thee. 
 
 3. And, behold, cer- 
 tain of the Scribes 
 said -within them- 
 selves, This man blas- 
 phemeth. 
 
 4. And Jesus know- 
 ing their thoughts, 
 said, Wherefore think 
 ye evil in your hearts ? 
 
 5. For whether is it 
 easier to say, Thy sins 
 
 St. Mark ii. 3—12. 
 
 3. And they come 
 unto Him, bringing one 
 sick of the palsy, which 
 was borne of four. 
 
 4. And when they 
 could not come nigh 
 unto Him for the press, 
 they uncovered the roof 
 where He was : and 
 when they had broken 
 it up, they let down 
 the bed wherein the 
 sick of the palsy lay. 
 
 5. When Jesus saw 
 their faith, He said 
 unto the sick of the 
 palsy. Son, thy sins 
 be forgiven thee. 
 
 6. Bat there were 
 certain of the Scribes 
 
 St. Luke V. 18—25. 
 
 18. And, behold, men 
 brought in a bed a 
 man which was taken 
 with a palsy : and they 
 sought means to bring 
 him in, and to lay Kim 
 before Him, 
 
 19. And when they 
 could not find by what 
 way they might bring 
 him in because of the 
 multitude, they went 
 upon the housetop, and 
 let him down through 
 the tiling with his 
 couch into the midst 
 before Jesus. 
 
 20. And when He 
 saw their faith. He said 
 unto him, Man, thy 
 
40 
 
 PARALYSIS. 
 
 be forgiven thee ; or 
 to say, Arise, and 
 walk? 
 
 6. But that ye may 
 know that the Son of 
 man hath power on 
 earth to forgive sins, 
 (then saith He to the 
 sick of the palsy,) 
 Arise, take up thy bed, 
 and go unto thine 
 house. 
 
 7. And he arose, and 
 departed to his house. 
 
 sitting there, and rea- 
 soning in their hearts. 
 
 7. Why doth this 
 man thus speak blas- 
 phemies ? who can for- 
 give sins, but God only ? 
 
 8. And immediately 
 when Jesus perceived 
 in His spirit that they 
 so reasoned within 
 themselves. He said 
 unto them. Why rea- 
 son ye these things in 
 your hearts ? 
 
 9. Whether is it 
 easier to say to the sick 
 of the palsy. Thy sins 
 be forgiven thee ; or to 
 say. Arise, and take up 
 thy bed, and walk ? 
 
 10. But that ye may 
 know that the Son of 
 man hath power on 
 earth to forgive sins, 
 (He saith to the sick 
 of the palsy,) 
 
 11. I say unto thee, 
 Arise, and take up thy 
 bed, and go thy way 
 into thine house. 
 
 12. And immediately 
 he arose, took up the 
 bed, and went forth 
 before them all. 
 
 sins are forgiven thee, 
 
 21. And the Scribes 
 and the Pharisees be- 
 gan to reason, saying, 
 Who is this which 
 speaketh blasphemies? 
 Who can forgive sins, 
 but God alone ? 
 
 22. But when Jesus 
 perceived their 
 thoughts, He answer- 
 ing said unto them, 
 What reason ye in 
 your hearts ? 
 
 23. Whether is easier 
 to say. Thy sins be for> 
 given thee ; or to say, 
 Rise up and walk ? 
 
 24. But that ye may 
 know that the Son of 
 man hath power upon 
 earth to forgive sins, 
 (He said unto the sick 
 of the palsy,) I say 
 unto thee, Arise, and 
 take up thy couch, and 
 go unto thine house. 
 
 And immediately he 
 rose up before them, 
 and took up that 
 whereon he lay, and 
 departed to his own 
 house, glorifying God. 
 
 That this man had palsy of a very bad kind is mani- 
 fest from the circumstance_, mentioned by all three 
 
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC. 41 
 
 Evaiigelists_, of Ms lying in a bed, or being borne by 
 others. It was a case of coini:)letG, as distinguislied 
 from 'partial paralysis of motion — if not also of sensa- 
 tion, or, at least, of Hemiplegia, or paralysis of one 
 side of the body : I here use modern technical terms. 
 The man was totally helpless. 
 
 Throughout the whole narrative our Saviour specially 
 connects sin with the case, and so it has been con- 
 jectured^, that the disease was here, as it has been in 
 many other cases, the consequence of sinful indulgence, 
 the fruit and punishment of unbridled carnal passions, 
 or (it may be added) of unnatural crime. It has 
 also been observed that, by this miracle our blessed 
 Lord teaches that sin is the cause of disease ; and that 
 yvhen sin is destroyejl, the body will enjoy angelic 
 health and beauty^ And is it not perfectly true that 
 even to the most superficial observer who walks our 
 hospitals, or visits the sick in high or low station, sin, 
 in nine cases out of every ten, is the plain cause of 
 disease, and of disease resulting from om^ own evil 
 tempers, or unbridled passions, or from the sins of our 
 forefathers? What a fearful proof of this does not 
 '' family history,^^ in recording a hospital case, supply ! 
 Were drunkenness and unchastity unknown, would not 
 the professions of medicine and surgery be almost 
 unnecessary ? 
 
 1 Xeander, Life of Christ, p. 272, Bohn's Edition, 1864. 
 
 2 Wordsworth, Greek Test. Note on St. Matt. ix. 4. 
 
42 
 
 PARALYSIS. 
 
 If we take tlie word \_^e^\7]fievov] translated '' lying," 
 in St. Matt, ix., ver. 2 — " A man sick of the palsy, 
 lying on a bed" — if we take this word in the same 
 sense in which we took it in the case of St. Matthew's 
 account of the healing of Simon's wife's mother, (viii. 
 14, which see pages 23, 24), viz. as implying the helpless 
 condition and continued prostration, probably resulting 
 from a sudden attack ; then, the case is more forcibly 
 put before us as one of hopeless paralysis, the direct 
 result of sinful indulgence, occurring suddenly, and 
 therefore signally and notoriously, in a young man. I 
 adopt this last idea — that the patient was a young man, 
 from Bengel, who in his comment' conjectures that the 
 patient was an adult, because he was borne by four ; 
 and that he was young, from our Saviour's address to 
 him, " Son, be of good cheer." 
 
 And, indeed, from the same expression, it has been 
 fairly conjectured that this disease was, in the instance 
 before us, accompanied by pain of body, and anguish 
 of soul\ Mental and physical suffering probably had 
 a mutual connexion and reaction; and both required 
 healing before there could be a perfect cure. 
 
 The progress of modern medical science nowhere 
 appears to greater advantage than in connexion with 
 diseases of the nervous system; and some very marked 
 kinds of paralysis now much studied are those which 
 
 ^ Gnomon Novi Testament!. 
 
 "* Neander, Life of Christ, p. 272. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC. 43 
 
 are accompanied literally by what St. Matthew calls 
 [ySacraj/ot?] " torments \" 
 
 Such a case was that of the Centurion's servant, 
 recorded by St. Matthew (viii. 6, &c.) : " My servant 
 lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented ;'' 
 and St. Luke (vii. 2), describing the serious nature 
 of the same case, says he "was sick and ready to 
 die." 
 
 Many diseases were included under the general term 
 "Palsy'' in the New Testament. One writer^ has 
 enumerated five : Apoplexy, which affected the whole 
 body; Hemiplegy, which affects but one side of the 
 body; Paraplegy, which affects the lower half of the 
 body ; Catalepsy, of which the principal feature is 
 rigidity of the muscles ; and Cramp, a not infrequent 
 disease in Oriental countries now. This division is not, 
 however, sufficiently exact for the purposes of modern 
 medical science and practice ; and I only note it to 
 show that the word " palsy," as used in the New Testa- 
 ment, was a popular, not a scientific, term ; in fact, that 
 it was used much in the same way as we use it now. 
 
 The three Evangelists who relate this miracle sub- 
 stantially agree in every particular ; although, as I 
 
 ^ For the great difference between Paralysis with muscular relaxa- 
 tion, and with painful contraction, see Todd's Clinical Lectvires, 1861, 
 p. 627, &c. 
 
 6 Richter, Dissertatio Medic.-Theol., Goetting. 1775. See also 
 Jahn's Archaeologia Biblica, p. 218. Oxford Edition, 1836. 
 
44 
 
 PARALYSIS. 
 
 shall presently show, there are expressive words pecu- 
 liar to each. 
 
 It would be no difficult matter to draw a picture of 
 the palsied man as he lay, contrasting each prominent 
 symptom of his disease with the immediate and total 
 change produced by the Divine mandate, " Arise, take 
 up thy bed, and go unto thine house ;^^ three different 
 orders, each probably intended to exhibit an increased 
 exercise of physical restoration entirely at variance 
 with popular expectation. 
 
 The man who could not use hand or foot, who was 
 borne of four, was seen first to arise, — implying partial 
 use of the muscles of the trunk and lower extremities ; 
 then to take up his bed, — implying a somewhat vigorous 
 use of the muscles of the chest and upper extremities ; 
 and, finally, to show his complete physical recovery by 
 the long-continued exertion of almost all his muscular 
 powers, — implied in taking up his bed, and walking to 
 his house. 
 
 By no human means could such a case as this have 
 been instantaneously cured either then or now. And 
 although medical science has in our day advanced Very 
 much as regards the knowledge and treatment of this 
 mysterious and interesting class of diseases ; and modern 
 physicians can often ameliorate, and sometimes cure, 
 the less severe forms of palsy ; yet, even with the light 
 of our modern boasted knowledge, a professional in- 
 quiry into this case will fully establish the fair con- 
 clusion, that it was hopeless as regarded cure by human 
 
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC. 45 
 
 skill; and tliat, even admitting a possibility of cure by 
 human means, it could be accomplislied only after a 
 lengthened and trying course of treatment. 
 
 We may reasonably suppose this miracle to have 
 been wrought on a man who was affected with what 
 modern physicians call complete ])aralij sis of ^notion, smd 
 probably at the first stroke with paralysis of sensation, 
 and with unconsciousness also ; and we may presume 
 that this paralysis was connected with, or depended on, 
 what is technically called ^^ Softening of the Brain ^^^ 
 Even if his disease affected the motor power of one 
 side of the body only ; even if it were but hemiplegia j 
 with relaxation of the muscles ; the want of motor 
 power as regarded rising up, lifting his bed, carrying 
 it, and walking home, would be practically the same as 
 if the paralysis of motion were complete instead of 
 being one-sided. 
 
 As before observed, St. Matthew describes this para- 
 lytic as \_fiefi\r)/jL€vov] laid flat, stretched j perhaps sud- 
 denly struck down on his bed^; while the word used by 
 SS. Mark and Luke [^KarefcecTol simply means "he lay." 
 The same expression is used by St. Mark in describing 
 the case of Simon^s wife's mother. 
 
 St. Matthew, then, as in the instance of Simon's 
 wife's mother, here uses a word which, we may believe, 
 
 " Compare the original of the three accounts of this miracle with 
 some standard medical work, e. g. Todd's Clinical Lectures, xxxiii., 
 xxxix. ; Beale's Edition, Lend. 1861, pp. 608, 695. 
 
 ^ See the remarks on this expression on pp. 23, 24 in the case of 
 Simon's wife's mother. 
 
46 PAEALYSIS. 
 
 either expresses tlie two features of this case which 
 most readily appealed to the public^ or is at least con- 
 sistent with their existence — I mean the sudden^ and 
 the hopeless nature of the afl&iction ; while^ as has been 
 well observed^, the accounts of St. Mark and St. Luke 
 throughout bear the vivid stamp of eye-witnesses ; and 
 particularly in the manner in which they relate the 
 unusual feature in the case — the letting down the sick 
 man^s couch into the room where the Saviour was. As 
 an eye-witness, St. Mark would naturally note that the 
 man sick of the palsy did lie on a bed ; and that he 
 was so helpless that he was "borne of four" (ver. 3). 
 St. Luke_, however_, as a medical witness, would not be 
 expected to note the facts, so familiar to him, that the 
 man being palsied "lay;" or that he was so helpless 
 as to require to be " borne of four." The coincidences 
 in the three accounts thus far tend strongly to mutual 
 and cumulative confirmation of the truth of each 
 account and of all three together ; and the substantial 
 identity of this feature in the three accounts is seen by 
 the fact of the Yulgate rendering the word used by St. 
 Matthew, and that used by SS. Mark and Luke, by 
 forms of the same Latin verb [jaceo] . 
 
 SS. Mark and Luke both relate the circumstance 
 about letting down the bed through the tiling, in lan- 
 guage of simple yet undesigned coincidence ; while St. 
 Matthew, giving an account only of what Christ saidj 
 
 9 Neander, Op. cit. p. 272. But it must not be concluded that thej 
 certainly were eye-witnesses. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC. 47 
 
 passes tliis circumstance by : and although it does not 
 lie within the scope of my argument to discuss the 
 great doctrine of the Son of Man having power on 
 earth to forgive sins — an invisible and more wonderful 
 reality than to heal disease, which was an exercise of 
 power evident to the senses — yet, in passing, it may be 
 noted that the former rather than the latter is the 
 doctrine taught by the Evangelist in this particular 
 case, and hence the absence of minute detail as to fact 
 and circumstance; which, however, could scarcely be 
 avoided by eye-witnesses ^ like SS. Mark and Luke. 
 The three Evangelists speak of the bed whereon the 
 sick man was laid, but each designates it by a different 
 word from that used by the other two ; and this fact 
 should be noted, because our English translators render 
 three different words in the original by the one word 
 " bed " in the Authorized Version. 
 
 St. Matthew^ s word [/cXtV?;] means that on which one 
 lies — a couch. St. Mark adopts and uses a Roman word 
 
 (his own name, "Marcus, my son — John, surnamed 
 Mark," was Roman) — a word familiar to his readers^ 
 
 \_Kpdi3aTT0^ or Kpdl3/3aTo<i']j adopted from the Macedo- 
 nians, and rendered in the Yulgate by the Latin form of 
 the same word [grabatus] ; while St. Luke uses a classical 
 term of the later Greek writers \_K\ovi8Lov~\ , literally a 
 
 ^ See note on last page. 
 
 2 His Gospel is believed to have been intended for Gentile, and of 
 course therefore in If rge part for Roman, readers ; and hence he omits 
 the Genealogy of our Lord ; and, while he gives but few Old Testa- 
 m'int quotations, explains Hebrew words and customs. 
 
48 PAEALYSIS. 
 
 diminutive bed or couch, a term not used by tlie otker 
 Evangelists. 
 
 The word used by St. Mark denotes — Archbishop 
 Trench tells us^, — "a mean and \'ile pallet used by the 
 poorest;'' and from it we may conjecture that the 
 ^' Son" to whom Christ said, " Be of good cheer/' was a 
 son of poverty, and that his disease was aggravated (as 
 physicians know paralytic diseases are aggravated) by 
 the want of those comforts and conveniences which 
 render the sufferer's condition tolerable, and which made 
 his cure to him a relief intense and unutterable. Every 
 clergyman who visits his flock knows the truth of 
 my assertion, that a poor man afflicted with severe 
 paralysis is a miserable sufferer. 
 
 But St. Luke's peculiar word [^Kkivihcov] is good 
 Greek, according to the standard of his own time. It 
 denotes, as already observed, a diminutive couch, and 
 his use of it here may have been designed to show 
 that the bed in question was a diminutive one, specially, 
 though doubtless poorly, constructed for supporting a 
 sick person ; a smaller couch than that used for sleep 
 or rest ; in fact, such a couch as we see used for like 
 purposes in our own day. 
 
 St. Luke, doubtless, had an object in using the word 
 [^fckivihiov] ; for probably he meant to draw attention 
 to the fact that, although the bed was '^ a mean and vile 
 
 2 On the Miracles, p. 209, note, 7th Edition, 1862. 
 
THE HEALING OP THE PAEALYTIC. 49 
 
 pallet/^ as St. Mark calls it \_Kpdl3aTTos;'] , yet that 
 while it was mean, it was still a heel \_k\lv7j], as St. 
 Matthew tells us, albeit so diminutive a bed [kXivlSlov'Jj 
 as to be let down through the roof of an Eastern house 
 by the removal of a comparatively small portion of the 
 tiling. And, on the other hand, observe St. Luke^s 
 verbal honesty, where the idea is to show that a sick 
 man lay on a bed, " a mean and vile pallet,^^ when the 
 size or construction of it, or the possibility of lowering 
 it through a hole in the roof, was not the point to 
 which he would draw attention. In Acts ix. 33 (I here 
 assume that St. Luke wrote this book), he writes of 
 St. Peter finding Eneas, " which had kept his bed,^^ 
 \_KaTaK€i/jL€vov eVl Kpa^Pdrco] , who had lain stretched on 
 a mean and vile pallet " eight years, and was sick of the 
 palsy.''^ Why does he use St. Mark^s word in the case of 
 Eneas and not in the case now before us, and what may 
 we learn from this fact ? May we not conclude, that as he 
 well knew of the common word used by St. Mark, and 
 used it himself where it sufficed for Ms description ; so 
 that he undesignedly testifies to the truth of St. Mark^s 
 verbal description in the case before us ; and to the 
 necessity of his own technical accuracy in describing' 
 how it was that a helpless paralytic was let down^ on 
 his bed through the roof of a house, a fact which some 
 may have thought improbable. 
 
 It may be well to note the fact, that in the frescoes 
 of the Roman Catacombs, this bed, or mean pallet 
 
 £ 
 
50 
 
 PAKALTSIS. 
 
 [Kpd3l3aTos;'] *, mentioned by St. Mark^ is represented^ 
 in connexion with this miracle^ as a light frame of 
 wood not unlike those now used by ambulance bearers 
 in carrying the wounded off" the field of battle. We 
 see the same thing in a somewhat similar form in what 
 is called "the hospital stretcher.''^ 
 
 Here_, again_, observe the remarkable coincidences 
 even as regards this one word " bed/^ and how much 
 we learn as to the honesty of the Evangelists and the 
 perfect consistency of their accounts even with their 
 individual peculiarities. 
 
 But SS. Matthew and Mark describe this man as 
 [TrapaXuTt/co?] a palsied person^ one sick of the palsy ; 
 while St. Luke avoids that term_, and defines the 
 condition of the patient by a word [irapaXeXyfjievos:'], 
 translated in the Authorized Version^ " taken with a 
 palsy. ^^ This latter word has almost the same meaning 
 as that used by SS. Matthew and Mark ; but it is a 
 technical term which the former, strictly speaking, is 
 not; and so, while it marks the accuracy of "the 
 beloved physician/^ the non-use of it, except by St. 
 Luke, shows the thoroughly reliable nature of the 
 records of the other two, who use popular phraseology 
 quite consistent with the truth of the story. 
 
 The word [TrapaXvTLKOf;^ used by SS. Matthew and 
 Mark means one affected with [7rapdXv(7C(;'] paralysis. 
 
 ^ For the various spellings of this word see Greek texts of Words- 
 Vrorth, Alford, Stephens, and Mill ; and Liddell and Scott's Lexicon. 
 
THE HEALING OP THE PARALYTIC. 51 
 
 This latter word means, primarily, a loosening aside ; 
 and, secondarily, a disahling the nerves in the limbs 
 of one side. The word '[jTapaXeXviJbevo'i] used by St. 
 Luke implies relcuxation or debilitij at the side, and 
 thence general feebleness or exha'ustio7i. It is used 
 in connexion with nautical phraseology, to describe 
 the condition of a boat with disabled or abstracted 
 oars, and thence is applied to the condition of the body 
 when analogously circumstanced. From the accounts 
 of SS. Matthew and Mark, it may be inferred that 
 [TrapaXfcrt?] " palsy '^ had a loose or popular meaning 
 as applied to paralysis generally, as is the case in Eng- 
 land at this day, but the professional meaning of the 
 term at that time, was a 'partial as opposed to a total 
 disability of the nervous system. 
 
 The word [_7rapa\.eKviJLevo^'\ used by St. Luke not 
 only answered his purpose in describing the case accu- 
 rately, but by using it he avoided the use of the word 
 \irapaXvTiK6<s~\ , translated, " one sick of the palsy, 
 which, in his Gospel, might have been held to indicate 
 a professional or restricted meaning, not in accord, 
 perhaps, with the facts of the case ; just as in reporting 
 a sudden attack in the street now, it would be quite 
 true for a daily newspaper to report the case as one of 
 paralysis ; while, in a report of the same case in a 
 medical journal, we should expect and get technical 
 accuracy of nomenclature. And there was good reason 
 for St. Luke^s use of this peculiar word. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 PARALYSIS. 
 
 In the authoritative medical literature of his day — ■ 
 embodying^ as it did, the terms and doctrines with 
 which he was doubtless familiar in the works of Hip- 
 pocrates the Great, to doubt whose infallibility was 
 considered a medical heresy not very long ago ^ — the 
 term paralysis [7rapa\,vcn<;'] nowhere occurs^; and 
 where Hippocrates refers to this disease, he employs the 
 term " apoplexy " [aTroTrXTj^la] . 
 
 It is well known to learned physicians, that the 
 ancients generally considered apoplexy and palsy as 
 diseases of the same nature, but different in degree, 
 apoplexy being a universal palsy, and palsy a partial 
 apoplexy '. Apoplexy was looked on as a palsy of the 
 whole body, of sensation, of mind, and of motion ; and 
 in this doctrine there was a remarkable agreement 
 among the ancient physicians, Aretaeus, Galen, Alex- 
 ander, Trallianus, ^tius, and Paulus ^gineta, who 
 flourished after St. Luke^s time. 
 
 Celsus, physician to the Roman Emperor Augustus, 
 who wrote in the reign of Tiberius, and who was there- 
 
 ^ In my Memoir of Dr. Steame, founder and President of the Dublin 
 College of Physicians in 1668 (published Dublin, 1865), I have noted 
 (on p. 33) that this eminent Medico-Theological philosopher stated 
 of Hippocrates, in his "Animi Medela," that the father of Medicine 
 was one " qui nee fallere nee falli potuera.t," p. 58. 
 
 ^"Aword never used by the ancient Greek writers." — Freind's 
 History of Physick. 
 
 ' See Dr. Mason Good's Study of Medicine, 3rd Edit. 1829, vol. iv. 
 659 ; also Jahn's Archaeologia Biblica (Oxford Edition), p. 218, where 
 he quotes Eichter, already referred to on p. 43. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC. 53 
 
 fore a contemporary of St. Luke, describes palsy and 
 apoplexy by tlie general terms [Resolutio nervorum], 
 a resolution or relaxation of the nerves. Celsus repre- 
 sented enlightened medical opinion at this time; and 
 seems to have given definite meanings to the words 
 now under discussion. 
 
 He tells us, that, whereas a resolution or relaxation 
 of the nerves was anciently called apoplexy if total, 
 and paralysis if partial, he (Celsus) considered the term 
 paralysis to be the proper appellation of both \_'' At 
 resolutio nervorum frequens ubique morbus est, sed 
 interdum tota corpora, interdum partes infestat. Vete- 
 res auctores illud cnroTrXT^^lav, hoc irapaXvaiv nomi- 
 naverunt: nunc utrumque TrapaXvaiv appellari video"]. 
 From this it will appear that St. Luke, probably of set 
 purpose, refrained from using a word of then unsettled 
 professional meaning ; employing instead of it a term 
 which technically and accurately defined the nature of 
 the case — paralysis with relaxation, as distinguished 
 from paralysis with painful contraction of the muscles — 
 and which showed by marked contrast, the superhuman 
 power of the cure. The other Evangelists, not being 
 medical writers, of course would not be understood to 
 write of palsy in any but the popular sense of the word. 
 
 It may be noted in passing, that in the expression, 
 '^Confirm the feeble knees," in Isaiah xxxv. 3, the 
 word translated "feeble" is the same in the Septua- 
 gint version as that used here by St. Luke ; and in 
 
54 PARALYSIS. 
 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, xii. 12, where this passage 
 is quoted, the same word likewise appears. Also in 
 Acts viii. 7, where, assuming St. Luke to have been 
 the author of that book, we should expect the same 
 technical accuracy, we find the same word again; "many 
 taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed -y^ 
 and again, in Acts ix. 33, the same word is used in 
 describing the case of Eneas, "which had kept his bed 
 eight years, and was sick of the palsy.^ 
 
 yy 
 
 THE HEALING OP THE CENTUEION's SERVANT. 
 
 St. Matthew viii. 5—13. St. Luke vii. 1—10. 
 This case, mentioned only by SS. Matthew and Luke, 
 has been incidentally touched on in discussing the last, 
 which should be read in connexion with it. A compari- 
 son of the narratives may be found in any Harmony of 
 the Gospels^; and, inasmuch as St. Matthew describes 
 the Centurion as himself going to Christ, while St. 
 Luke describes him as sending others to the Saviour, it 
 may suffice to note that this and other points of com- 
 parison or of apparent diversity will be found fully 
 discussed by Archbishop Trench^. The Archbishop^ s 
 general position, as regards the point now chiefly 
 alluded to, is the well-known axiom, and one univer- 
 sally acted on by us all, "Quod facit per alium facit 
 
 ' See Willia-ms's Devotional Commentary on the Gospel Narrative, 
 vol. ii. p. 92, edition of 1870. 
 9 Miracles, p. 225, 7tli Edition. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE CENTURTON^S SERVANT. 55 
 
 per se :'' in other words^ a man is said to build a house, 
 while we know he pays others to build it for him. 
 
 The general question of palsy, and of how fitted it 
 was for the exercise of Divine healing power, has 
 already been noted in the former case ; several of the 
 remarks thereon made, apply here also. But there are 
 one or two features special to this case. 
 
 St. Matthew tells us (viii. 6) that this Centurion^s 
 servant was " sick of the palsy,^' the same word used 
 by him in the former instance; but he adds that the 
 paralytic was " grievously tormented. ^^ 
 
 St. Luke, on the other hand, says nothing of the 
 name or character of the disease : he only tells us (vii. 
 21) that the man was "sick and ready to die,^^ and 
 from this some commentators have found a difficulty : 
 e. g. that Most Reverend and learned Prelate, Arch- 
 bishop Trench, says^, " There is a certain difficulty re- 
 specting the exact nature of the complaint -/' and he 
 adds that St. Matthew^ s word " palsy/' and the phrase 
 "grievously tormented,' ' seem not altogether to agree, 
 nor yet the report in St. Luke that he was " ready to 
 die;" "since palsy in itself neither brings with it 
 paroxysms of pain, nor is it in its nature mortal.'' The 
 Archbishop, however, adds that paralysis with contrac- 
 tion of the joints is accompanied with sufiering; and 
 that when to this is added tetanus, as is often the case 
 in the East, the phrases " grievously tormented," and 
 " ready to die," are perfectly consistent. 
 
 1 Op. cit. 232. 
 
56 PARALYSIS. 
 
 But with all deference to so high an authority^ is not 
 this difficulty unreal ? and are the medical facts exactly 
 as thus stated ? I rather think not. No fact is better 
 established than that certain forms of paralysis, not 
 uncommon in England at present^ are accompanied 
 with ^^torments.^^ Paralysis, with contraction of the 
 muscles, is one frequent form of this disease, and I have 
 often seen it among the inmates of a workhouse hos- 
 pital. The suffering in such cases is often terrible; 
 but a reference to some standard work, such as that 
 already noted ^, will be quite sufficient evidence on this 
 point to medical students. Again, may I note just one 
 form of paralysis not rare among us, and much written 
 about by physicians now, called " Loco-motor Ataxy '^? 
 For some time past I have been in the habit of visiting 
 pastorally, a wretched sufferer from this disease, under 
 which he has laboured for about eight years. It has 
 gradually crept from his feet upwards, until now he is 
 almost helpless; and he requires the strongest sedatives 
 to give him even temporary and partial relief from in- 
 tense agony. He is verily sick and ^'^ ready to die," 
 and in due course (perhaps very soon) will be killed by 
 this disease. A mild form of palsy does not com- 
 monly end in death, but it is mostly followed by 
 repeated attacks, gradually increasing in severity, until 
 the patient not only is '''ready to," but, as a fact, 
 does "die." 
 
 2 Todd's Clinical Lectures. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE CENTURION^S SERVANT. 57 
 
 This was a severe, a mortal case, else the Saviour^ s 
 aid were not wanted. The two accounts, then, are 
 perfectly consistent. St. Matthew notes the tormenting 
 nature of the disease. St. Luke says that he was so 
 bad that no man could save him. 
 
 And this statement is also perfectly consistent with 
 that recorded in 1 Mace. ix. 55, 56 of Alcimus, of 
 whom we read, " His mouth v/as stopped, and he was 
 taken with a palsy, so that he could no more speak 
 any thing, nor give order concerning his house. So 
 Alcimus died at that time with great torment.'^ The 
 Greek words here translated '^ palsy '^ and "torment^^ 
 are the same as those used by St. Matthew ; and it is 
 scarcely necessary to add that the description of the 
 disease is true to life. But St. Matthew says of this 
 case, "And his servant was healed \_lddr]] in that self- 
 same hour.^^ Here that Evangelist uses the word pecu- 
 liarly proper for " healing ;^^ and he does so of set 
 purpose. Elsewhere, e. g. xiv. 36, he says [Bieo-codTjaav^j 
 "they were made perfectly whole ;^^ and likewise St. 
 Mark uses a peculiar word [^iaco^ovro], vi. 56, "were 
 made whole.^^ St. Matthew, then, marks the fact of 
 the healing of the disease ; but does St. Luke use this 
 word of healing in this case ? He does not. He goes 
 farther, and tells us that they found him not only 
 healed, recovered, but " whole " [vyiaivovTo] , body and 
 soul in perfect health. St. Matthew^s word has refer- 
 ence to bodily health, St. Luke^s to the health of the 
 
58 PAEALYSIS. 
 
 whole man, and therefore to soundness of mind; which/ 
 as we know, is often most gravely affected in bad cases 
 of paralysis; and it may be said that these are the 
 most hopeless cases. Well then did St. Luke say that 
 the servant was ^^ ready to die/' and yet that he was 
 made ^^ whole." His word implies Sanity, our model 
 of health — mens sana in corj)ore sano. It is not long 
 ago since I saw a strong man reduced to this condition 
 of an insane, suffering paralytic. He is now in a 
 lunatic asylum, dying by inches^, and none but the 
 Great Physician can make him " whole.'' 
 
 It may be questioned whether the meaning here 
 attached to ^^ whole" [yycalvovra] is the true one; 
 whether this word does fairly include soundness of 
 mind as well as soundness of body ; whether the word 
 of itself means more than being in a sound or healthy 
 state ; and whether the nature and extent of this sound- 
 ness should not be determined by the context ? 
 
 But even admitting the force of these queries^ I 
 believe the result will be much the same. The word 
 in question occurs in the New Testament, in St. Luke 
 V. 31; vii. 10 (the case now before us); xv. 27; and 
 in 3 St. John, ver. 2. In the last instance it is used in a 
 metaphorical sense, as implying greeting, " 1 wish 
 above all things, that thou may est prosper and he in 
 health.' ' In each of the other instances it is worthy 
 of note that '^ the beloved physician" is the writer who 
 ^ Since writing the above, I have learned that he has died. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE CENTUEIOn's SERVANT. 59 
 
 uses it ; and he would not be worthy of the title of a 
 physician if he had contemplated " soundness ^^ as 
 having reference only to bodily health. The relation 
 of mind to matter, the mutual action and reaction of 
 body and soul_, and the doctrine of spiritual influence 
 in connexion with bodily disease, are ideas or facts 
 which the reader of St. Luke will see were clearly 
 recognized by that Evangelist. And whether we look 
 on it as a matter of medical science, or as a matter of 
 fact, it cannot be denied that soundness or unsoundness 
 of mind must be closely connected with paralysis ; and 
 that any consideration of such cases which did not 
 include the mens sana in corpore sano, must be regarded 
 as utterly defective. In chap. v. 31, St. Luke wi-ites 
 of those that are whole [y^iaivovTe^^, not needing a 
 physician. Here, of course, he is writing of soundness 
 as opposed to disease. But it is equally plain that the 
 province of the physician [larpov] then, as now, in- 
 cluded treatment of the mind as well as of the body. 
 And if the word " whole" were here to be restricted to 
 soundness of body, it would quite destroy the force of 
 our Lord^s use of it as an illustration. For it evidently 
 was his purpose to show that sin affected the whole 
 individual, body and soul, as disease or health had 
 relation to the whole man ; and so he came not to call 
 the righteous (the sound or healthy), but sinners (the 
 diseased) to repentance. In ch. xv. 27, the same 
 word, used with reference to the return of the Prodigal 
 
60 PARALYSIS. 
 
 Son, is translated "safe and sound /^ and this good 
 authorities have interpreted to mean "safe and unin- 
 jured/^ But, in this instance, there was no question of 
 bodily disease at all ; while, on the other hand, we 
 read that the Prodigal " came to himself*/^ He had 
 been beside himself with sin ; but when he repented, 
 he came, returned to himself, and was received back 
 again, a sane man, by his father. Here, then, as indeed 
 Greek writers have used it, this word would seem 
 expressly intended to mean soundness of mind, and 
 not soundness or safety of body ^ From all this it will 
 appear that the word under consideration ought to be 
 regarded as expressing perfect soundness of the indi- 
 vidual; that sometimes this soundness had special 
 reference to the body; sometimes to the mind; and 
 sometimes, as in the present instance, to an abnormal 
 or unhealthy condition of the individual in which 
 both were or might be affected; mental injury in 
 paralysis being closely connected with, or following 
 from, cerebral or nervous lesion. The "soundness" 
 in a case such as this, when cured, is analogous to 
 the soundness of a recruit, who, after physical and 
 mental examination by a military surgeon, has been 
 pronounced thoroughly fit for service. 
 
 ^ " In se autem reversus." — Vulgo.te. 
 
 ^ See under vyiaivu in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon ; and also in the 
 1851 edition of Eose's Parkhurst's Lexicon to the New Testament. 
 In this latter book Kypke is quoted as referring the word principally 
 to the mind in St. Luke xv. 27. 
 
THE HEALING OP THE IMPOTENT MAN AT BETHESDA. 61 
 THE HEALING OP THE IMPOTENT MAN AT BETHESDA. 
 
 St. John V. 2—9. 
 
 2 . Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep marliet a 
 pool;, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, 
 having five porches. 
 
 3. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of 
 blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the 
 water. 
 
 4. For an angel went down at a certain season into the 
 pool, and troubled the water : whosoever then first after 
 the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole 
 of whatsoever disease he had. 
 
 5. And a certain man was there, which had an in- 
 firmity thirty and eight years. 
 
 6. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had 
 been now a long time in that case, He saith unto him, 
 Wilt thou be made whole ? 
 
 7. The impotent man answered him. Sir, I have no 
 man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the 
 pool : but while I am coming, another steppeth down 
 before me. 
 
 8. Jesus saith unto him. Rise, take up thy bed, and 
 walk. 
 
 9. And immediately the man was made whole, and 
 took up his bed and walked : and on the same day was 
 the sabbath. 
 
62 PARALYSIS. 
 
 This man also is generally believed to have been 
 afflicted with, a severe form of paralysis — to have been 
 a paralytic, like the two preceding examples_, of which 
 see pp. 39, 54. The same descriptive language is used 
 as to his condition, which we find used in cases plainly 
 called paralytic, e. g. the man sick of the palsy in St. 
 Mark ii. 4, and the case of Eneas in Acts ix. 33 ; and 
 his cure is accompanied with the like direction, *^' Take 
 up thy bed, and walk." 
 
 And, indeed, the fact of his having been diseased for 
 so long a time as thirty-eight years, and of his inability 
 to walk into the pool of Bethesda as quickly as others, 
 leads to a like conclusion. That his case was not as 
 bad as the first of the two preceding cases, we may 
 conclude from the fact that he usually made some at- 
 tempt to walk into the pool or bath : " Sir, I have no 
 man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the 
 pool ; but while I am coming, another steppeth down 
 before me." He was not, then, totally unable to move; 
 he could shuffle along as paralytics often do ; but he 
 could not get along as fast as those who stepped down 
 before him. He was not so bad as "the man sick of 
 the palsy " above referred to — for he could not move at 
 all — he was "borne of four;" but he was worse than 
 his fellow-sufi*erers. And that he might have been 
 worse than he was, is evident from what the Saviour 
 said to him : " Sin no more, lest a worse thing como 
 unto thee." 
 
THE HEALING OP THE IMPOTENT MAN AT BETHESDA. 63 
 
 Moreover, that his case was paralytic,, may be con- 
 cluded from what the narrative says of those who 
 waited for healing at this pool or bath of Bethesda : 
 "In these lay a great multitude of sick, blind, halt, 
 withered'' ^^ — that is, of persons affected with all kinds 
 of disease of the nervous system : the word translated 
 '^ sick," in the authorized version "impotent folk^' 
 [aaOevovvTOiv] , meaning " infirm sick,^^ those whose 
 diseases were chiefly connected with general failure of 
 nervous power ; and the words translated " blind, halt, 
 withered ^^ [tt^^Xcoz^, ')(^co\a)v, ^rjpcov] point in the 
 same direction, to disease from infirmity, or failure 
 of nervous power, rather than to the results of epi- 
 demics or of mechanical injury. And the fact that they 
 did resort to a bath for cure also shows this, for it is 
 well known that the ancients had great confidence in 
 the curative powers of baths, animal and mineral, in 
 diseases like these. Celsus already quoted, who was 
 then living, recommends bathing in the sea in paralytic 
 cases, and where it cannot be had, he advises the use 
 of artificial salt water'; and the learned Dr. Mead, in 
 commenting on this very case^, observes that medi- 
 cated baths were then much used in the Holy Land ; 
 and refers to the accounts of them collected by 
 Hadrian Reland^ It is not exactly within the scope of 
 
 ^ Archbishop Trench's translation. ^ Lib. ii. cap. xxvii. 
 
 s Medica Sacra, cap. viii. " Palaestina ex Monument. Yet. illustr. 
 
64 THE NATUEE OP THE CUEES AT BETHESDA. 
 
 these remarks^ to consider some questions wliicli are 
 generally discussed in connexion with this miracle, 
 such^ e. g.j as whether the closing words of verse 3, 
 " waiting for the moving of the water/^ and the whole 
 of verse 4, about the angel troubling the water at a 
 stated season, and the cure of any disease of the first 
 bather — whether these portions are interpolated or not. 
 
 Nor is it essential to our purpose to consider whether 
 by an angel troubling* the water^ is meant a messenger 
 of the Sanhedrim ; or simply the expression of popular 
 belief as to supernatural agency in the case. Nor, 
 again, need we pause to ask whether the cures there 
 effected were medicinal or miraculous. All this is 
 beside the Saviour^ s cure of this impotent man. The 
 Lord interfered in no way with the cures effected at 
 the pool of Bethesda; His act consisted in healing there, 
 and immediately _, and perfectly, one who had been so 
 paralyzed for many years as not to be able to shuffle 
 first into the bath on any one occasion during a great 
 part of his lifetime. 
 
 It may be well, however, not to pass over these 
 points altogether, and therefore for information on the 
 first mentioned — the question as to the authenticity of 
 the last clause of verse 3, and the whole of verse 4 — 
 the intelligent student may be referred to p. 157 of 
 the 2nd edition of Barrett^ s Companion to the Greek 
 Testament (Bell and Daldy, 1867), where all that has 
 been advanced by our best scholars is put in a smaQ 
 
THE HEALING OP THE IMPOTENT MAN AT BETHESDA. 65 
 
 compass ; and when it is mentioned tliat Dean Alford 
 rejects these passages as spurious, while Bishop Words- 
 worth does not, and Archbishop Trench agrees with 
 Alford, it will be seen that there is important au- 
 thority on both sides. In any case, the facts are not 
 affected, for verse 7 by itself would imply what is said 
 in verse 4. In it (verse 7) the impotent man mentions 
 the well-known phenomena that the water was at times, 
 and at times only, troubled; that this troubling was due 
 to some extraordinary influence ; and that whoever first 
 stepped in — and that person only — was cured of what- 
 soever disease he had, i. e. of whatsoever variety of 
 disease peculiar to those who lay in the five porches — 
 nervous diseases, as I have already suggested. It is 
 not stated that any disease was cured. We do not 
 find that lepers, e. g., resorted there, nor those horn 
 blind; who are elsewhere carefully distinguished from 
 those whose blindness was caused by disease^. Nor 
 need we take any trouble to water down the meaning of 
 the word " angel '' into a mere human messenger. Some 
 think they are removing one of the difiiculties of reve- 
 
 ^ The learned Baxtholini, in, his Essay " De Paralyticis in Nov. Test.," 
 to be found in Ugolini's " Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum " (vol. 
 XXX. pp. 1505, &c.), gives a list, and particulars, of several places in 
 which is, or was, an abnormal condition of baths, or waters, analogonQB 
 to the " troubling" of the pool of Bethesda at certain seasons. He 
 also says, respecting the diseases of the persons who lay in tha five 
 porches, and the curative nature of the waters, " Nervosi generis 
 sunt morbi omnes, et aquis medicatis sclent expugnari " (p. 1513). 
 
66. THE NATURE OP THE CURES AT BETHESDA. 
 
 lation by thus arguing ; but are they ? is not the 
 whole question whether or not there is a world of 
 spirits ; a supernatural power which we see not^ save 
 by its effects ? " He maketh His angels spirits (or 
 winds), and His rainisters a flaming fire/^ God carries 
 on the course of nature in many things that we 
 see — e. g. in the cultivation of the ground — by the 
 visible agency of man ; and there is nothing unreason- 
 able in believing that tempest and epidemic, even 
 though recurring in cycles, according to what are called 
 natural laws, are set in motion by the direct agency of 
 angelic ministration. 
 
 If not, do they send or launch forth themselves ? 
 ^' The wind bloweth where it listeth : and thou hearest 
 the sound thereof, and canst not tell whence it cometh 
 and whither it goeth." Look at the immeasurable 
 superiority in wonder-working power of man over the 
 lower creation, amongst whom we move, but of whom 
 we know so little ; and then see how very probable it 
 is, that above us there is a higher and unseen order of 
 beings, whose senses, and intelligence, and power, may 
 be to ours as ours are to those of the microscopic 
 millions who exist around, yea, within us — even within 
 our organs of vision — within the food we eat and the 
 water we drink, but who are as invisible and as unreal 
 to the greatness of men as any immaterial being can 
 possibly be. In man, and among brutes, it is the 
 spirit which produces motion; but what moves the 
 
THE HEALING OF THE IMPOTENT MAN AT BETHESDA. 67 
 
 natural world to perform its ordinary duties ? In fact_, 
 Scripture in many places teaclies us that tlie course of 
 nature is carried on by tlie ministry of angels ; and let 
 those wlio think this an effete superstition explain 
 how else it is carried on. And to the same cause we 
 may fairly ascribe many natural paradoxes^ or extra- 
 ordinary phenomena, which we know to be true_, but 
 which we cannot possibly explain on any scientific 
 theory. Where there is a law there must be an executive ; 
 and there is nothing unreasonable in supposing that 
 medicinal springs, even in England, are made effective 
 by the ministry of angels ; yea, medical treatment 
 itself is probably made effective in like manner, though 
 the human ministers of it often see it not. Thus we 
 see that, even supposing this pool of Bethesda to have 
 been an animal bath, a place into which the exuvias of 
 the temple sacrifices were drained, or a mineral bath, 
 such as some of those in Germany and in England, or 
 a combination of both (and there are weighty autho- 
 rities in favour of all these views), there is nothing 
 inconsistent with such fact, or facts, in the statement 
 that an angel — a Divine and unseen messenger — did 
 so act as to " trouble ^' the water and so make 
 it curative. But then, while we can well understand 
 that it was only at a stated time of the year, and by 
 reason of the stirring up of the water, that its sanative 
 property was made effective, how was it that one only 
 was healed — cured on the spot — and not only so, but 
 
 r 2 
 
68 THE NATURE OP THE CURES AT BETHESDA. 
 
 ^'made perfectly whole ^^? This is not to be explained 
 on any medical theory. Were the bath an instance of 
 merely medical treatment^ even by angelic ministry, 
 we can understand how it could mainly benefit the 
 first-comer, who would get the best of the salts or 
 animal matters held in temporary solution by the 
 stirring of the water. And as there may have been 
 room for one only to get in at a time, we can under- 
 stand why the second-comer would be much less bene- 
 fitted than the first. On no medical theory, however, 
 can we explain how any one, be he first or last comer, 
 affected with such a chronic disease of long standing 
 as any of those adverted to by St. John, and for which 
 baths were useful — how he could be ^' made perfectly 
 whole " at once, and at the first bathing. And this 
 difficulty is increased if we take the words, ^' of what- 
 soever disease he had," to apply not to any disease 
 found in the class of patients there usually assembled, 
 but to any disease in the long catalogue of ills to which 
 the flesh is heir. The result is not, as stated by Dr. 
 Mead ('^Medica Sacra," loc. cit.), "he who first stepped 
 in expenenced the virtue of the water/' but he who first 
 stepped in was made '' perfectly whole," and this even 
 in cases where such baths were of little if of any benefit. 
 Not one disease of this kind can be made " perfectly 
 whole " by one bath. Most of them cannot be made 
 "perfectly whole" by any amount or repetition of such 
 bathing. The benefit derived from baths in chronic 
 
THE HEALING OP THE IMPOTENT MAN AT BETHESDA. G9 
 
 diseases is so well known by tlie public to be 
 slowly gained, that no further remarks need be made 
 about it. Even supposing the cures ordinarily effected 
 at the pool of Bethesda to have been medicinal — that 
 is, accompanied or preceded by the outward use of 
 medical agents, just as the growth of corn is preceded 
 by sowing of the grain — yet it is fair to conclude that 
 this pool or bath was at that time a standing token of 
 God's abiding presence with His chosen people ; that 
 the cure was effected by Him who " created medicines 
 out of the earth '' (Ecclus. xxxviii. 4) ; and that, lest the 
 power should be ascribed to the creatures of His 
 mercy, He restricted His benefits, and yet extended 
 them so fully to the one case healed, that men should 
 visibly appreciate the fact that it was God who redeemed 
 their lives from destruction. 
 
 Here we see the true dignity of the Physician. We 
 see the means used, but we also feel that there is an 
 invisible power which, after all, directs the cure ^. In 
 two like cases in an hospital, treated alike, why is it 
 that one often recovers and the other dies ? 
 
 And in this miracle the Saviour asserts His claim to 
 be head and Lord over the healing art. He says, in 
 effect, to the impotent man, ^^ I, who would have made 
 thee perfectly whole hadst thou been first in the bath, 
 yet can make thee whole without it ; and I will show 
 how perfectly whole thou art — Rise, take up thy bed, 
 2 Wordsworth, in loc. 
 
70 
 
 PAEALYSIS. 
 
 and walk. Do tliat wKicb. thou hast not been able to 
 do for thirty -eight years ; and let people see that thy 
 cure is as complete and as immediate as that which may 
 have been ascribed to the waters of Bethesda/^ 
 
 It has been said that Christ did not heal this man at 
 all, but only detected an impostor ! 
 
 But this objection, which, with others of the same 
 kind, was published in 1800 by Dr. Paulus ^, is too 
 absurd to need any examination, much less refutation. 
 To say nothing of the utter denial of the plain words 
 of the Gospel, which this Rationalistic suggestion im- 
 plies, the morality of it is not such as would commend 
 itself to any one. Christ would then be set forth as 
 blessing fraud and imposture, and professing to do 
 good to one who was only worthy of punishment. Nor 
 would the others, who lay within the five porches, have 
 been likely to countenance one who was mocking their 
 infirmities by feigning disease. 
 
 THE MAN WITH A WITHEEED HAND. 
 
 St. Matt. xii. 9—13. 
 
 9. And when He was 
 departed thence, He 
 went into their syna- 
 gogue : 
 
 10. And, behold, 
 there was a man which 
 
 St. Mark iii. 1—5. 
 
 1. And He entered 
 again into the syna- 
 gogue ; and there was 
 a man there which 
 had a withered hand. 
 
 2. And they watched 
 
 St. Luke vi. 6—11. 
 
 6. And it came to 
 pass also on another 
 sabbath, that He en- 
 tered into the syna- 
 gogue, and taught ; and 
 there was a man whose 
 
 2 In his Commentary, particularly described by Archbishop Trench, 
 Op. cit. p. 78. 
 
THE HEALING OP THE MAN WITH A WITHERED HAND. 71 
 
 had his hand withered. 
 And they asked Him, 
 saying, Is it lawful to 
 heal on the sabbath 
 days ? that they might 
 accuse Him. 
 
 11. And He said 
 unto them. What man 
 shall there be among 
 you, that shall have 
 one sheep, and if it 
 fall into a pit on the 
 sabbath day, will he 
 not lay hold on it, and 
 lift it out ? 
 
 12. How much then 
 is a man better than a 
 sheep ? Wherefore it 
 is lawful to do well on 
 the sabbath days. 
 
 13. Then saith He to 
 the man, Stretch forth 
 thine hand. And he 
 stretched it forth; and 
 it was restored whole, 
 like as the other. 
 
 Him, whether He would 
 heal him on the sab- 
 bath day ; that they 
 might accuse Him. 
 
 3. And He saith unto 
 the man which had the 
 withered hand. Stand 
 forth. 
 
 4. And He saith unto 
 them. Is it lawful to do 
 good on the sabbath 
 days, or to do evil ? to 
 save life, or to kill ? 
 But they held their 
 peace. 
 
 5. And when He had 
 looked round about on 
 them with anger, being 
 grieved for the hard- 
 ness of their hearts, He 
 saith unto the man. 
 Stretch forth thine 
 hand. And he stretched 
 it out : and his hand 
 was restored whole as 
 the other. 
 
 right hand was with- 
 ered. 
 
 7. And the scribes 
 and Pharisees watched 
 Him, whether He would 
 heal on the sabbath 
 day, that they might 
 find an accusation 
 against Him. 
 
 8. But He knew their 
 thoughts, and said to 
 the man which had 
 the withered hand, 
 Rise up, and stand 
 forth in the midst. 
 And he arose, and stood 
 forth. 
 
 9. Then said Jesus 
 unto them, I will ask 
 you one thing ; Is it 
 lawful on the sabbath 
 days to do good, or to 
 do evil ? to save life, 
 or to destroy it ? 
 
 10. And looking 
 round about upon them 
 all, He said unto the 
 man, Stretch forth thy 
 hand. And he did so : 
 and his hand was re- 
 stored whole as the 
 other 
 
 11. And they were 
 filled -^N^ith madness ; 
 and communed one 
 with anotherwhat they 
 might do to Jesus. 
 
n 
 
 PARALYSIS. 
 
 The description of the disease in this case is the 
 same in these three accounts. St. Matthew says this 
 man had his hand " withered ^^ [Svp^v~\ '• St. Mark says 
 that the man had " a withered li^7]pafjLfiev7]v~\ hand :" 
 while St. Luke uses the same word as St. Matthew, 
 with the additional statement that it was the right 
 hand which was so affected ; and the Apocryphal Gos- 
 pel of the Nazarenes states that the man in question was 
 a mason by trade, and on that account implored Christ 
 to have mercy on his destitute and helpless condition. 
 
 St. Matthew, whose object, as before observed, seems 
 to have been to record chiefly the sayings of Christ, 
 presents this case before us mainly in that light ; while 
 St. Mark, with that vividness of description which 
 distinguishes an eye-witness, describes here, as else- 
 where, the very looks and demeanour of the Saviour — 
 »o important an element in carrying conviction of 
 miraculous power to the mind of a beholder : " and 
 when He had looked round about on them with anger, 
 being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. He saith 
 unto the man. Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched 
 it out : and his hand was restored, whole as the other." 
 There is a most remarkable identity, even to verbal 
 agreement, in the three accounts of the ivorMng of this 
 miracle^, and St. Luke's noting the right hand is all but 
 technical. 
 
 ■* As to the apparent variation in the accounts of the questions 
 which preceded it, see Archbishop Trench, Op. cit. p. 364. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE MAN WITH A WITHEBED HAND. 73 
 
 This is just such a fact as a medical reporter would 
 not fail to remark, as it would give important hints 
 respecting the history and cause of the disease : 
 whether, e. g., it had been caused by his trade, or had 
 been even indirectly due to it. To take a similar case 
 among ourselves : there is the familiar withered or 
 palsied hand of the house -painter, the effect of lead 
 poisoning. An ordinary man passes another in the 
 street, or sees him at home. He observes that he has 
 one hand drooping from the wrist, powerless and 
 wasted ; that he, in fact, is " a man with a withered 
 hand." The physician, however, sees at a glance that 
 it is the right or working hand which droops — then the 
 thought comes, why that hand ? because he uses it 
 most. What trade does he follow ? house-painting. 
 What is there in that trade likely to bring about such 
 a result ? lead poisoning, which, although it acts on 
 the system generally, yet specially acts on the hand — 
 yea, on the particular parts of the hand which hold the 
 painter^s brush. 
 
 The man with the withered hand was evidently 
 affected with paralysis, with atrophy, or wasting of the 
 hand ; and probably of the forearm also. It may have 
 resulted from some accident occurring in the following 
 of his trade, whereby a principal nerve and, perhaps, a 
 blood-vessel in the forearm were injured, and the 
 nervous or nutrimental telegraphy, so to speak, inter- 
 rupted, or permanently stopped. In such case there 
 
74 PARALYSIS. 
 
 would be absence of nervous power, and of nutriment, 
 and from these causes, as well as from disuse, the limb 
 or member would wither and waste away. The phrase 
 '^'^ withered hand^"* in such case is, in fact, not only forcibly 
 expressive, but literally true ; because there is no more 
 possibility of recovery in such a case than there is in 
 a withered branch of a tree when the supply of sap has 
 been cut off from it. Atrophy of any limb can be arti- 
 ficially produced by obstructing the flow of blood by 
 ligatures; and atrophy, withering, or wasting, is one 
 of the most marked symptoms in many cases of 
 paralysis. That there may be a local paralysis from 
 injury of a nerve supplying the part, without any lesion 
 of the nervous centres, is a well ascertained scientific 
 fact^ 
 
 Moreover, the word \_^VP^''^'} nsed in describing this 
 case is used in enumerating the " blind, halt, and 
 withered \_^7]pMv^ who filled the porches at the pool of 
 Bethesda; and it has already been noted that all those 
 sick persons were cases in which general failure of 
 nervous power was what physicians would call the 
 pathognomonic sign (see p. 63). 
 
 It has been conjectured by so good an authority as 
 Jahn^ that this was a case of catalepsy; and he classes 
 
 ^ Graves's Clinical Lectures (Dublin, 1864), Lecture xxxiii. See 
 also Todd's Clinical Lectures (p. 611) for withered hand from lead 
 palsy. 
 
 * Archseologia Biblica, Op. cit. p. 218. 
 
THJ3 HEALING OP THE MAN WITH A WITHERED HAND. 75 
 
 it with the hand of Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii. 4), which 
 '^ dried up '^ [e^rjpdvOrj, LXX. " exaruit," Vulgate] , " so 
 that he could not pull it in again to him ;" and with the 
 arm of the idol shepherd^ which " shall be clean dried 
 up^^^ \_^')]paLv6fi€vo<; ^7]pavB)](T6Tai, LXX. "ariditate sicca- 
 bitur_," Vulgate'] . But none of these cases could have been 
 cases of catalepsy^ even in the ancient sense of the 
 term; unless^ indeed, Jeroboam^s miraculous punish- 
 ment were such in some degree, for when he put forth his 
 hand, we read ^*^that he could not pull it in again to 
 him/^ Cataleptics retain the limbs in the position in 
 which the fit overtakes them ; but the disease itself is 
 only temporary, though recurrent ; and is accompanied 
 by unconsciousness. The inan with the withered hand 
 was perfectly conscious ; he heard the Saviour^ s com- 
 mand, " Stretch forth thy hand -/' that hand which 
 drooped feebly at his side, and was not already ex- 
 tended like Jeroboam^s. He did stretch it forth; and 
 we are told that it was restored " whole as the other." 
 
 This miracle is one of those which some have at- 
 tempted to explain away on the grounds of ordinary 
 medical or surgical treatment. " A withered hand" 
 has been explained as a dislocated arm; and the act of 
 stretching it out, we are told, restored the bone to its 
 place at once. 
 
 But no serious refutation need be given to such a 
 theory. Even supposing that "a withered hand" 
 
 7 Zech. xi. 17. 
 
76 PARALYSIS. 
 
 might by any perversion of language be made to mean 
 an arm out of joint — and no modern surgeon would 
 admit this — how could the patient extend his dislocated 
 arm ? This very loss of the power of extension is the 
 symptom which mostly tells a man that he has dislo- 
 cated an arm ; and every one who has seen a dislocated 
 arm, or who has seen a dislocation reduced, knows per- 
 fectly well that the luxated member is powerless, and is 
 so for the most simple mechanical reasons. But let us 
 suppose that the effort to stretch out the hand did 
 reduce the dislocation. What, then, of the restoration 
 " whole as the other " ? When an arm has been 
 atrophied and made powerless by long-standing dis- 
 location, is it made " whole as the other ^' at once ? 
 Never. Remembering, then, in the three preceding 
 instances the general remarks made on paralysis, and 
 undesigned coincidence of statement, and the selection 
 of cases the instantaneous cure of which could not be 
 attributed to human skill, and the technical accuracy of 
 St. Luke, we must see in this narrative a strong con- 
 firmation of the truth that a superhuman work was 
 wrought on the man with the withered hand. 
 
 THE WOMAN WITH A SPIRIT OF INFIRMITY. 
 
 St. Lukexiii. 10—17. 
 
 10. And he was teaching in one of the synagogues 
 on the sabbath. 
 
 11. And, behold, there was a woman which had a 
 
THE WOMAN WTIH A SPIRIT OP INFIRMITY. 77 
 
 spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed 
 together, and could in no wise lift up herself. 
 
 12. And when Jesus saw her. He called her to Hirrij 
 and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine 
 infirmity. 
 
 13. And He laid His hands on her: and immediately 
 she was made straight, and glorified God. 
 
 14. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with 
 indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the 
 sabbath day, and said unto the people. There are six 
 days in which men ought to work : in them therefore 
 come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 
 
 15. The Lord then answered him, and said. Thou 
 hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath 
 loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him 
 away to watering ? 
 
 16. And ought not this woman, being a daughter of 
 Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen 
 years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day ? 
 
 17. And when He had said these things, all His 
 adversaries were ashamed : and all the people rejoiced 
 for all the glorious things that were done by Him. 
 
 This miracle is related only by St. Luke, and it is 
 worthy of note how he, a physician, mentions the 
 Saviour's words, ascribing the origin of the disease to 
 Satan : " This woman, being a daughter of Abraham, 
 whom Satan hath bound." We should not look on 
 
78 PARALYSIS. 
 
 this as a cure of a case of demoniacal possession (of 
 whicli see more particularly in Chapter V.)_, but as one 
 in whicli Satan and his agents^ evil angels^ are set forth 
 as the direct authors of moral and physical evil : such 
 indeed^ there is no absurdity in supposing to be the 
 case in many_, perhaps in all, cases of bodily and mental 
 disease. Just as we see illustrated in the case of Job. 
 
 Delitzsch^ notes here that St. Luke expressly dis- 
 tinguishes between two words [TrvevfMara Trovrjpd and 
 aaOevetat]. Compare chap. viii. 2 with v. 15. In the 
 former chapter he writes of certain women which had 
 been healed of evil spirits and infirmities [Trvevfidrcov 
 TTovrjpMV Koi daOeveiodv] ; and, by way of illustration of 
 what is signified by the first of these terms [Trvev/jLara 
 irovripa], compare Ezek. x. 17 and Zech. v. 9, where a 
 certain Divine and miraculous power whereby inanimate 
 things become capable of motion is indicated in the 
 word ruach [n')'^ ^] . 
 
 It is plain from St. Luke^s account, that he uses the 
 same word which St. John uses in the case of the man 
 at Bethesda who had an ^'^ infirmity ^^ (see p. 62). It 
 is plain that this woman was paralyzed; the seat of 
 the disease lying chiefly in the spine, or in the dorsal 
 muscles, which probably were relaxed, while those in 
 front of the body, by reason of the equilibrium between 
 the two sets of muscles being destroyed, would incline 
 
 " "Natural and Demoniacal Sickness," in Biblical Psychology, 
 p, 347, Clai'k's edition. 
 ' Compare Gesenius, s. v. 
 
THE WOMAN WITH A SPIEIT OF INFIRMITY. 79 
 
 the body forward, and gradually contract, so as to keep it 
 bowed down or bent. 
 
 We see tbis in paralysis of one side of the face, where 
 the side towards wbicb the nose and mouth are pulled is 
 not the diseased but the sound side. The muscles at 
 the diseased side being powerless, those at the sound 
 side pull without any compensating power. 
 
 " This infirmity '^ (wrote Dr. Mead in his Medica 
 Sacra) " often befalls those who have been very long 
 afflicted with a disorder of the loins ; whence the mus- 
 cular fibres of that part become contracted and rigid. 
 Wherefore it is very probable that this tedious disease 
 proceeded from that very ^ause, and was curable by the 
 Divine assistance only." 
 
 On Ascension Day, 1871, when walking along the 
 Strand, I saw a very remarkable case, which apparently 
 resembled that of the poor woman whose cure is 
 recorded in the Gospel. She was literally bowed down 
 with a spirit of infirmity, and could in no wise lift up 
 herself. Her head was so bowed down as at least to 
 be on a level with her knees ; and the shape which her 
 body presented was somewhat like the letter U turned 
 upside down, with the right hand arm of the inverted 
 letter slightly shortened. 
 
 But in the case recorded by St. Luke the disease 
 possibly had a mental origin ^ The impotent man 
 
 * She was present at the Synagogue* worship, which would not 
 have been permitted had she been, demoniacally possessed, in the 
 Evangelical sense of that expression. 
 
80 PAEALYSIS. 
 
 at Betliesda had an '^ infirmity." She had " a spirit 
 of infirmity '' [irvev/JLa da6€V€ias:~\ ; and do we not 
 often see men whose bodies have actually become 
 bowed down by mental distress? At any rate^ this 
 woman^s case was one which is never perfectly cured, 
 and seldom ameliorated. Its tendency is to get 
 gradually worse, as hers probably had done, until, all 
 hope being gone, she became a case for the Great 
 Physician, who " loosed " her from the contraction of 
 her infirmity wherewith she was " bound;" "and imme- 
 diately she was made straight." St. Luke^s words 
 [irapaxpVf^^ avwpdoidri'] are those of a medical observer. 
 Contrary to medical experience, she was immediately 
 healed ; and that healing was at once the consummation 
 and evidence of the cure. She '' was made straight :" 
 no better medical test of perfect cure of paralytic 
 contraction. 
 
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 
 
 81 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 LEPROSY. 
 THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 
 
 St. Matt. viii. 2—4. 
 
 2. And, behold, there 
 came a leper and wor- 
 shipped Him, saying, 
 Lord, if Thou wilt. 
 Thou canst make m,e 
 clean. 
 
 3. And Jesus put 
 forth His hand, and 
 touched him, saying, I 
 will ; be thou clean. 
 And immediately Ins 
 leprosy was cleansed. 
 
 4. And Jesus saith 
 unto him. See thou tell 
 no man ; but go thy 
 way, shew thyself to 
 the priest, and offer 
 
 St. Mark i. 40—45. 
 
 40. And there came 
 a leper to Him, be- 
 seeching Him, and 
 kneeling down to Him, 
 and saying unto Him, 
 If Thou wilt. Thou 
 canst make me clean. 
 
 41. And Jesus, moved 
 with, compassion, put 
 forth His hand, and 
 touched him, and saith 
 unto him, I will; be 
 thou clean. 
 
 42. And as soon as 
 He had spoken, imme- 
 diately the leprosy 
 departed from him, 
 
 St. Luke V. 12—16. 
 
 12. And it came to 
 pass, when He was iu 
 a certain city, behold, a 
 man full of leprosy ; 
 who seeing Jesus, fell 
 on his face, and bo- 
 sought Him, saying, 
 Lord, if Thou wilt. Thou 
 canst make me clean. 
 
 13. And He put forth 
 His hand, and touched 
 him, saying, I will : be 
 thou clean. And im- 
 mediately the lepror.y 
 departed from him, 
 
 14. And He charged 
 him to tell no man : 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 LEPROSY. 
 
 the gift that Moses 
 oommanded, for a tes- 
 timony unto them. 
 
 and he was cleansed. 
 
 43. And He straitly 
 charged him, and 
 forthwith sent him 
 away; 
 
 44. And saith unto 
 him, See thou say 
 nothing to any man : 
 but go thy way, shew 
 thyself to the priest, 
 md offer for thy cleans- 
 ing those things whicl 
 Moses commanded, foi 
 i testimony unto them 
 
 45. But he went out. 
 and began to publisl 
 it much, and to blaze 
 ibroad the matter, 
 insomuch that Jesus 
 ^ould no more openly 
 mter into the city, but 
 was without in desert 
 places ; and they carre 
 to Him from every 
 quarter. 
 
 but go, and shew thy- 
 self to the priest, and 
 offer for thy cleansing, 
 according as Moses 
 commanded, for a tes- 
 timony unto them. 
 
 15. But so much the 
 more went there a 
 fame abroad of Him : 
 and great multitudes 
 came together, to hear, 
 and to be healed by 
 Him of their infirmi- 
 ties. 
 
 16. And He with- 
 drew himself into the 
 wilderness, and prayed. 
 
 There are two instances of the miraculous cure of 
 leprosy recorded in tlie Gospels — that now under con- 
 sideration, and the cleansing of the ten lepers, narrated 
 by St. Luke only (xvii. 11 — 19). The three Evange- 
 lists describe the first of these two cures in almost 
 identical words. The disease is called by the one name 
 by all ; and the kind of cure — a purifying cleansing — 
 is expressed by the same Greek word in each Gospel. 
 
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 83 
 
 St. Luke only adds to the description of the other two, 
 that the man was not only a leper, but " full of 
 leprosy ;" this expression not havings reference to the 
 great superficial extent of the disease, for then he 
 would not have been a leper at all in the Levitical 
 sense ^_, but having reference to the gravity of the 
 case. In fact it was the language of a medical observer, 
 and is a striking coincidence in favour of the truth of 
 the story, when taken in connexion with the narratives 
 of the other two Evangelists. 
 
 And, in accordance with this statement, we find that 
 the man was legally a leper ; for Christ commands him 
 to show himself to the priest, " and ojffer the gift that 
 Moses commanded^' (St. Matt. viii. 4). This he would 
 not have been required to do had his disease been of 
 that kind which, as free from ulceration, was known to 
 be mild, and so was exempted from the rigorous pro- 
 visions of the Levitical law. 
 
 Moreover, the expression *^'full of leprosy^' shows 
 that not only was he in a hopeless state of what, as 
 a matter of fact, was an incurable disease, but that there 
 were aggravating circumstances in his case — circum- 
 stances which made him a peculiaiiy fit subject for the 
 power of the Great Physician; for, while the Jewish 
 law did contemplate and provide for restoration to 
 
 1 When the disease overspread the whole surface of the body, the 
 patient was entitled to be pronounced " clean" by the law of Mutes. 
 See Lev. xiii. 12, 13. 16, 17. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 LEPROSY. 
 
 liealtli in some cases^ yet tliey were few and far be- 
 tween ; and grave cases of the disease were not tlien^ 
 nor are they now^ amenable to medical treatment, so 
 far as thorough cleansing, and certainly not so far as 
 immediate cure, is concerned. 
 
 This man, then, had leprosy, Jewish or Hebrew 
 leprosy ; that disease which, in regard to its symbolism, 
 is perhaps more important than any other mentioned 
 in Holy Scripture. What was the nature of lepra 
 Hebraeorum ? 
 
 In the thirteenth chapter of Leviticus we have three 
 varieties of '^* leprosy" clearly described. To all of 
 them the generic term Bahereth, or bright spot, is 
 applied ; the varieties being respectively named Bohak, 
 or dull white, and two varieties of Tsorat, or malignant 
 disease, viz. Bahereth Kehe, or dusky Bahereth, and 
 Bahereth lehhana, or bright white Bahereth. 
 
 BohaJc was not seriously regarded by the Jewish law. 
 ^^ If a man also or a woman have in the skin of their 
 flesh bright spots (Bahereth), even bright white spots; 
 then the priest shall look : and, behold, if the bright 
 white spots (Bahereth) in the skin of their flesh he 
 darkish white, it is a freckled spot (Bohak) that groweth 
 in the skin; he is clean (Lev. xiii. 38, 39). 
 
 The second variety, Bahereth Kehe, nigrescent or 
 shadowed [^^ umbrae similis" — Celsus] leprosy, was more 
 serious than Bohah, 
 
 But the third variety, Bahereth lehhana, or bright 
 
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 85 
 
 white leprosy^ was tlie most serious of all. The patho- 
 gnomonic characteristics of this disease were — a glossy^ 
 white, and spreading scale on an elevated base, the 
 elevation depressed into the middle, but without change 
 of colour ; the hair participating in the whiteness, and the 
 patches themselves perpetually widening their outline. 
 
 When any one of these appeared on a person he was 
 brought before the priest ; and if, in connexion with 
 such a blemish, the specific marks of a tsorat, or malig- 
 nant leprosy, were found, he was declared unclean, or, 
 in case of doubt, he was remanded for further examina- 
 tion. The disease, particularly the bright white variety, 
 terminated either favourably or unfavourably. In the 
 former case, it spread over the body without ulcerating, 
 and, having run through its course, exhausted itself. 
 In such case, while the scales were yet dry on him, the 
 leper was declared clean, and restored to society. If 
 the case terminated unfavourably, the patches ulcerated, 
 producing quick and fungous flesh, and the patient 
 was pronounced unclean for life. He was clothed and 
 otherwise treated as one dead, while the Hebrew 
 theocracy compelled him to forsake the haunts of men, 
 proclaiming to all passers-by the hopeless and irre- 
 vocable sentence, '^ Unclean, unclean. ^^ 
 
 Rhenferdius, an old medical writer, in his treatise 
 "De Lepra Cutis Hebraeorum^^ (to be found in Meu- 
 schen^s Nov. Test, ex Talm. illustr. pp. 1057, &c.)_, 
 plainly proves from ancient authors, Talmudists and 
 
86 LEPEOSY. 
 
 others^ that Hebrew leprosy was a scaly disease denoted 
 by every name implying cuticular eruption. He asserts 
 tliat one pathognomonic sign^ praeternatural whiteness 
 [albedo praeternaturalis] , was common to all the species 
 of it; andj quoting from Maimonides, be states that 
 white hair^ spreading, and tenaciousness of life [pilus 
 albus_, diffusio, et vivacitas] were the distinguishing signs 
 observed by all Jews to mark the different varieties. 
 
 To the same effect writes Schilling in his Comments 
 on Leprosy (De Lepra Commentationes, Leyden, 1778), 
 in which he reprints a discussion of Ouseelius on the 
 same subject (Phillippi Ouseelii, M.D., De Lepra 
 Cutis Hebrseorum). In this last treatise, the lujiiteness 
 is expressly maintained to be the distinguishing sign 
 of Hebrew leprosy, and it is shown that in the different 
 varieties it varied as the whiteness of snow varies from 
 that of gypsum, which varies from that of wool, which, 
 again, varies from the whiteness of a sheep's fleece. 
 
 The learned Dr. Mead, in his Medica Sacra; that 
 well-known Bible scholar and physician. Dr. Mason 
 Good ^, and many other writers of note, all agree in the 
 above account of this disease. The original word used 
 in the New Testament, and by the LXX. [Xeirpa from 
 XeTTG), to peel or scale off], also confirms the preceding 
 remarks. Because of the luhite scales, it was likened to 
 snow ; and this where the disease was distinctly ijenaly 
 and therefore, it may be presumed, of the severest and 
 
 2 In his work in 5 vols., 8vo, entitled the " Study of Medicine." 
 
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 87 
 
 most typical kind. Hence it is recorded that the hand 
 of Moses was leprous as snou) (Exod. iv. 6) ; that Miriam 
 became ''^ leprous (white) as snow'' (Num. xii. 10); and 
 Gehazi went out from Elisha^s presence "a leper as 
 (white as) snoiv" (2 Kings v. 27). 
 
 The above is intended as a concise account — suited 
 to the educated general reader — of this celebrated dis- 
 ease of which so many divines and physicians have 
 written ; and on the exact nature of which_, even now_, 
 there is much difference of opinion. That the leprosy 
 of the middle ages^ elephantiasis Grsecorum (the ele- 
 phant skin disease of the Greeks), and not the disease 
 above described, was the " lepra Hebrseorum/^ is main- 
 tained by moderns of note ^ ; but after much considera- 
 tion of the subject — one to which I have given some 
 attention ■* — I am persuaded that the opinion just men- 
 
 3 E.g. Mr. Erasmus Wilson, F.R.S., is of this opinion. See his 
 " Diseases of the Skin;" from an old (4th) edition of which much of 
 the matter concerning leprosy (including the assumption of the 
 identity of these distinct affections) in the recently published 
 " Speaker's Commentary " appears to have been taken. 
 
 4 I may refer the reader to the Article on the " Leprosy of the 
 Hebrews," on pages 329, &c., of my enlarged and revised edition of 
 Neligan on Diseases of the Skin (Dublin and London, 1866) ; and to 
 the following tractates and reviews of mine : — 
 
 The Hebrew, Mediceval, and Modern Leprosies compared, " Dublin 
 Quarterly Journal of Medical Science," May, 1864. 
 
 Remarks on the Hebrew Catalogue of Skin Diseases, Ibid. Nov. 1864. 
 Review of the Royal Coll. of Physicians' Report on Leprosy, Ibid. 1868. 
 Notes on the MedicBval Leper Hospitals of Ireland, Ibid. 1868. 
 Review of Recent Works on Dermatology, Ibid. 1868. 
 
88 LEPROSY. 
 
 tioned^ although maintained by some great names_, is 
 Scripturally, historically^ and medically untenable^ and 
 I must refer the reader, and especially the medical reader, 
 who desires more full information, and references 
 to books ancient and modern, to what I have pre- 
 viously written on the subject. The question is an in- 
 tricate one ; and the confusion about it in books arises 
 in great measure from not clearly defining terms before 
 discussing the subject. Between Greek elephantiasis 
 and Hebrew leprosy, there is literally as much differ- 
 ence as between black and white, between hypertrophy 
 and atrophy^. The confusion of writers, j ust referred 
 
 ^ The writer of the article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible advo- 
 cates what I conceive to be the correct view ; but he does not refer to 
 the most modern medical treatises ; nor does he prove his case, as he 
 might have done, from Schilling and others whom he quotes. Dr. 
 Mead's reference, alluded to in a foot-note in that article, was to Fra- 
 castorius, and not to Avicenna, " De Morbis Contagiosis." On the 
 other hand, the "Preliminary Notes" on leprosy, and the comments on 
 Lev. xiii. andxiv. in the recently published " Speaker's Commentary," 
 show how natural it is for a non-medical commentator to accept a 
 medical authority which, to him, appears conclusive, forgetting that 
 " doctors differ." With all respect for the learned writer of these 
 notes, I must observe, that in my opinion one mistake runs through 
 all his remarks on leprosy, and it is this : the assumption that the 
 elephantiasis of the Greeks was identical with the leprosy of the 
 Hebrews. This view, I respectfully maintain, is contrary to medical 
 antiquity. Hippocrates, Galen, and especially Celsus, and Eabbinical 
 writers, such as Maimonides, can be alleged against it. 
 
 The view assumed without argument in the Commentary just 
 referred to, to the utter exclusion of the older opinion, is indeed advo- 
 cated by one modem medical writer of note, who has thought fit to 
 
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. 89 
 
 to, in great part accounts for the opinion against wliicli 
 I contend, and the fact of the elephant skin disease 
 (by Dr. Mead believed to have been the disease of 
 Job) being anciently supposed to follow the leprous 
 affection, and both being endemic in the East, would 
 further tend to confusion in the minds of readers and 
 writers. 
 
 How far the idea of Galen — that they were both 
 kindred diseases — may be found true, it is not easy to 
 say ; but, like most remarks of the ancient keen ob- 
 servers, there is probably much truth in it ; and Dr. 
 Carter^s recent researches point in that direction ^ 
 Although lepra Hebraeorum and elephantiasis Graeco- 
 rum were different in their appearances, symptoms, 
 and effects, yet if — as is now the received opinion — 
 
 nse some apparent " free -handling " witli the sacred text, and to 
 express himself thus, in the very book which is quoted, and seems to 
 have furnished the basis of the leprosy literature above referred to : — 
 " The sacred writings, usually exact and accurate in their description 
 of events, are so confused on the subject of elephantiasis as to require 
 to be put out of the pale of reference when treating on this subject ; 
 and the pages of the Greek and Arabian authors are equally uncer- 
 tain." " Now [to quote my own words published in 1866] it is not 
 Moses who is ' confused,' but his modem critics, who very illogically 
 assume the truth of their own position, and then try by that standard 
 the great Hebrew lawgiver and the fathers of medicine who wrote of 
 another disease altogether." 
 
 Assuming my view to be correct, the text of Lev. xiii. is simple in 
 meaning, and pathologically true. In any other case, it must be 
 "accommodated" to "modern thought." 
 
 5 On Leprosy as seen in India, Trans. Bombay Med. and Phys.Soc.1862. 
 
90 LEPROSY. 
 
 both be constitutional maladies, directly resulting 
 in some cases from exposure to conditions unfavour- 
 able to health, there is nothing impossible or impro- 
 bable in the opinion that elephantiasis may have found 
 an easier victim in the Hebrew leper than in any one 
 of sound constitution. Both diseases now exist side-by- 
 side in the East "^ ; and I have mentioned in another 
 work that at Tangiers in Africa, at the present day, 
 the two diseases are to be found, the leprosy proper 
 prevailing chiefly among the Jewish residents, and 
 presenting exactly the symptoms described in 
 Leviticus ^ Moreover, on p. 562 of the ^^ Speaker^s 
 Commentary" it is stated, as a remarkable fact, that in 
 Syria elephantiasis is unknown among the Jews. In 
 India also, and to a great extent in Egypt, they appear 
 to enjoy the same immunity. 
 
 Among the Jews and other Eastern nations lepers 
 occupied positions quite incompatible with the exist- 
 ence in them of the symptoms and results of the medi- 
 aBval disease, or elephantiasis ^, which so unfitted the 
 subject of it for active life, that he was shut up in a 
 
 7 Report on Leprosy (R. Coll. Phys. Lond.), Lond. 1867. Eespect- 
 ing Palestine and Syria, this report states (pp. xi and xii) that the 
 two forms of the disease recognized in that district are — 1. Baras el 
 Israily, or Israelitish leprosy, which consists of whitish scales on the 
 skin ; and — 2. Jezam, or Da el Ased, or the lion-like disease. 
 
 ^ Diseases of the Skin, Op. cit. p. 320. 
 
 ^ See a description of eleijhantiasis in any ancient or modern 
 medical work ; verify it by comparison with some coloured plate ;. 
 and then compare both with Lev. xiii. 
 
WAS LEPEOST CONTAGIOUS? 91 
 
 leper hospital ; liad a burial service performed over him 
 on his admission ; and was treated as legally dead. 
 
 Josephus describes leprosy in a man as " a misfor- 
 tune in the colour of his skin/' and says, " There are 
 lepers in many nations who are yet in honour, and not 
 only free from reproach and avoidance, but who have 
 been great captains of armies, and been entrusted with 
 hio-h offices in the commonwealth, and have had the 
 privilege of entering into holy places and temples ^J' 
 
 We find Naaman, a leper, commanding the Syrian 
 armies (2 Kings v.) ; Gehazi was conversed with by 
 the King of Israel ^ (2 Kings viii. 4, 5) . The leper was 
 not excluded from the synagogue [Lightfoot, Horas 
 Hebr. i. 513]; nor from the Christian Church [Suicer, 
 Thesaurus Patrum, under Xeirpo^'] . 
 
 Also, the leper, in the very case now before us, fol- 
 lowed our Lord among '^ great multitudes •" and be- 
 sought him " to make clean,'' what Josephus calls, " the 
 misfortune in the colour of his skin ;" and that this 
 was the Levitical leprosy the context shows, for he was 
 directed to go to the priest and comply with the direc- 
 tions of the Mosaic law. 
 
 Was the Hebrew leprosy contagious? This is a 
 practical question, for on the answer to it depends 
 much of its fitness as a special type of sin. 
 
 * Antiq. iii. c. 11, sec. 4. 
 
 2 But the Chronology of the Kings is so little understood that this 
 may have occurred before his punishment. 
 
92 LEPROSY. 
 
 Many learned men liave argued that it was not con- 
 tagious. Dean Alford^ e. g., says, in commenting on this 
 miracle, " The whole ordinances relating to leprosy 
 were symbolical and typical. The disease was not con- 
 tagious ; so that view which makes them mere sanitary 
 regulations is out of the question.^^ He then proceeds 
 to urge that the cases of Naaman and Gehazi, already 
 referred to, and the fact that the priests had to handle 
 and examine lepers, were decisive against the con- 
 tagion theory, as was also the fact that if, in the exa- 
 mination of a leper, the man was found to be entirely 
 covered by the disease, he was pronounced clean. He 
 states, on the authorities already quoted, that the leper 
 was not excluded from the synagogue, nor from the 
 Christian Church ; and that analogies in other cases — 
 as, e. g., touching the dead, and having an issue, which 
 are joined with leprosy in Num. v. 2 — show that 
 sanitary caution was not the motive. He further ob- 
 serves that the law was symbolical, and that only; that 
 under it a leper was a type of one dead in sin; and 
 that the same emblems were used in his case as in 
 those of mourning for, and cleansing after contact with 
 the dead, which precautions were never used on other 
 occasions (compare Num. xix. 6. 13. 18, with Lev. 
 xiv. 4—7). 
 
 Archbishop Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 210) 
 agrees with the views propounded in Robinson^ s Bibli- 
 cal Researches in Palestine j and seems to think, with 
 
WAS LEPROSY CONTAGIOUS ? 93 
 
 him, that the disease was constitutional and hereditary, 
 but contagious only from man to wife. He is further of 
 opinion, that " it was not in any respect a sanitary re- 
 gulation;^^ and remarks that "where the law of Moses 
 was not observed, no exclusion took place ; and where 
 the law was in force, the stranger and sojourner were 
 expressly exempted from its provisions." Rhenferdius, 
 the old medical writer already quoted, thinks it was not 
 contagious, because the priest who examined and han- 
 dled the leper did not get it; because up to the time of 
 decision the patient was suffered at large ; because uni- 
 versal lepra was pronounced clean ; because, if there 
 were any well-founded suspicion, it is highly probable 
 [sit verisimile] that Moses would have called every 
 species unclean. He quotes from the Talmudists to 
 show that the examination could not, and did not, 
 take place either in the morning or in the evening, or 
 on a cloudy day, or at noon ; but at the third, fourth, 
 fifth, eighth and ninth hours of the day. Neither did 
 it occur at various festival seasons, nor at nuptials, 
 when, in case of suspicion, a set time [septem duum] 
 was given to the married person before examination ; 
 and in the case of Jews only did it occur at all. He 
 also remarks on the case of Naaman; and concludes 
 that leprosy was not contagious, because, if it were, 
 nothing would have occurred to defer the immediate 
 separation of the infected person. 
 
 The objections of the three learned personages 
 
94 LEPROSY. 
 
 above set before us, are so placed as to put tbe non-con- 
 tagion theory in tlie strongest and most probable 
 light. Rbenferdius, in fact,, gives nearly all that has been 
 advanced on one side of the question. 
 
 With great diffidence, then, would I presume to 
 differ from such learned names ; but I think that the 
 non-contagion view is stretched too far. It is not 
 clearly stated what is meant by contagion ; and if, on 
 the one side, it be alleged that the Mosaic enactments 
 regarding leprosy were sanitary only, there is no 
 logical necessity for the direct contrary view that they 
 were symbolical, and in no respect sanitary. While, if 
 it can be shown that they were sanitary, as well as 
 symbolical, this miracle will teach the same analogy 
 between sin and disease as the others. The man with 
 an infirmity was really helpless, showing the real 
 spiritual infirmity caused by sin. The leper, if not 
 contagious, could scarcely symbolize one dead in sin 
 who defiled every soul with whom he came in contact. 
 Would he not, in such a case, teach that evil communi- 
 cations do not corrupt good manners ? Whether there 
 be such a thing as contagion at all is still a medical 
 question ; and it is well known that physicians of the 
 highest eminence differ as to whether certain diseases, 
 e. g. fever, scarlatina, and idiopathic erysipelas, are 
 contagious in any sense. Strictly speaking, the term 
 contagion may be applied to a disease communicable 
 from one person to another by personal contact; and 
 
WAS LEPEOST CONTAGIOUS ? 95 
 
 the term infection to a disease communicable from 
 person to person by otlier means_, e. g. by breath- 
 ing infected air. However, as in point of fact — or, 
 rather, as in general opinion — some diseases, such as 
 small-pox, are believed to be communicable by both 
 means, we may extend the meaning of contagious to 
 any disease which one person may take from another 
 by personal contact, by touching or wearing the clothes 
 of a sick person, or the furniture of a sick room, or by 
 breathing the infected atmosphere of an apartment. If 
 an animal poison enter the body of a healthy person, it 
 is pretty much alike whether that entrance be ejffected 
 through the lungs, or through the skin, or even 
 through strong impressions on the nervous system. In 
 many such case a disease may be said to be contagious, 
 because, as has been remarked ^, it is literally catching. 
 
 In this sense, then, shall the term contagious be 
 regarded in the following observations. 
 
 Now, with reference to the non-contagion view of 
 Hebrew leprosy, it must be said that the dii^ect contrary 
 opinion was that generally, if not universally, enter- 
 tained by ancient writers. We have those who meet 
 the statement that the Mosaic law of leprosy was 
 symbolical only by a counter-statement, that it was 
 sanitary only; and we have those who hold a middle 
 course. They follow the presumed . principle of the 
 
 •' Sir T. Watson's Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic, 
 ii. 778 (4th edit.). 
 
96 LEPEOST. 
 
 Jewish theocratic government, and neither ignore the 
 symbolical law on the one hand_, nor the sanitary law 
 on the other ; but combine both. Thus, considering 
 the Jewish Church and State to be co -extensive, they 
 look on this part, as well as many others, of the Levi- 
 tical code as both symbolical and sanitary. 
 
 Any question of the contagious nature of a disease 
 resolves itself into a question of observation, both in 
 daily life and in books ; and no medical fact is more 
 patent in the present day than that the old medical 
 writers were as acute observers of nature as we are, with 
 all our boasted knowledge. And, passing by the an- 
 cients, we may just mention Mead and Mason Good 
 as men who, by their learning, lived in the old world, 
 while, by their observation and experience, they lived, 
 and lived to purpose, in their own times. Now, Mason 
 Good says of the ^' tsorat," or typical leprosy, " There 
 is no doubt of its having proved contagious -/' and 
 Mead, while accounting for the apparent difficulties of 
 the case, is of a like opinion. 
 
 Against the objections brought forward to the conta- 
 gious nature of Hebrew leprosy, it may be urged — 
 1. That the assertion that the Mosaic ordinances in 
 this respect are solely symbolical, is an assertion, and 
 no more, 2. That the priests or physicians (for in this 
 latter capacity they are here considered) did not con- 
 tract it by intercourse with the leper, may be accounted 
 for by the known position of medical men in all ages. 
 
WAS LEPROSY CONTAGIOUS ? 97 
 
 Tliey are exposed to contagijn more than any other clas-s^ 
 and yet the cases in which diseases are contracted from 
 patients are comparatively rare : even of this smal 1 
 average many are notoriously caused by want of th?„t 
 proper precaution which^ even if leprosy be admittedly 
 contagious^ would protect the careful physician from 
 injury by contact. Besides, there is nothing to show 
 that the priests did not exercise this proper precaution ; 
 nor is there any thing to prove that, without it, they 
 were wholly exempt or protected from the disease. 
 3. The case of Naaman is beside the question, as he 
 was not a Jew ; even as a Syrian, his social position, 
 which plainly was not affected by his disease any more 
 than such would be now in this country, would enable 
 him, by having every personal convenience and accom- 
 modation, to avoid communicating his disease to any 
 one. The same remark would apply to the King of 
 Israel conversing with Gehazi, especially as a son of 
 Ahab was not likely to care much about the Mosaic 
 law. Moreover, as before noted, the chronology of the 
 Kings is so unsettled that Gehazi may have talked 
 with the King before his punishment. 4. With re- 
 ference to the admission of lepers to the synagogue>s 
 and Christian churches, was the disease mentioned by 
 Suicer and Lightfoot " leprosy " at all ? If it were, 
 no Christian law was broken in the one case, while the 
 Jewish law certainly was broken in the other. 5. The 
 analogy of the law of leprosy to that respecting one 
 
 H 
 
98 LEPEOSY. 
 
 toucliing tlie dead^ or having an issue, is also easily- 
 explained. 
 
 Every physician knows that toucliing the dead is 
 literally an unclean act, and in some cases a highly 
 contagious and dangerous one also. From want of 
 caution, or from accident, many an anatomical student 
 has contracted diflfuse inflammation, and succumbed to 
 a speedy death ; nor has the lot of the surgeon operat- 
 ing on the living sometimes been much better. The 
 idea of the uncleanness of the dead is a natural instinct 
 thoroughly rooted in us all. In a short time a dead 
 body becomes intolerable ; and if there be any truth in 
 foul air and impurity causing disease and making men 
 eatcli it, then, in this sense of contagion, it would be 
 hard to persuade any one that a dead body was not 
 really unclean. The same remarks apply to the issue ; 
 but, as the subject is not one suited for the non- 
 medical reader, reference may be made for particulars 
 about this to a paper already quoted*. In either of 
 these cases, cited as analogous to leprosy, there is 
 undoubted uncleanness; and as sanitary science on 
 good grounds reckons uncleanness directly conducive 
 to disease, there is no doubt of the wisdom of separat- 
 ing the healthy from the unclean, as contagious, even 
 on a general sanitary principle. 
 
 Thus the analogy between Hebrew leprosy and the 
 
 * The Hebrew, Mediaeval, and Modem L^rosies compared. Op. 
 cit. 
 
WAS LEPROSY CONTAGIOUS ? 99 
 
 above cases points very strongly to a sanitary view of 
 the Mosaic Code. 
 
 6. In tlie case of the man entirely covered with 
 disease^ and yet pronounced clean, the contagion theory 
 is easily supported. I have already noted that the 
 blemish might terminate favourably or unfavourably. 
 It was in the former case that the scale [Xevr/?] spread 
 over the entire body without producing any ulcera- 
 tion ; gradually it lost its morbid power and exhausted 
 itself; and tlierij when the scales were yet dry on the 
 patient, he was pronounced clean. This is the view 
 of Mead and of Mason Grood; and it is fully borne 
 out by the authorized text of Lev. xiii., especially 
 when we remember the two senses — generic and 
 specific — in which the word " leprosy " is employed by 
 the translators. On the supposition that it was a more 
 extended and worse kind of the same unclean leprosy, 
 it is impossible to perceive the symbolism of pro- 
 nouncing that ceremonially clean, which was corporeally 
 the very worst kind of leprous uncleanness. 
 
 7. The reference to Eobinson's Biblical Researches in 
 Palestine may be explained, by stating that this writer 
 does not clearly show what kind of leprosy he saw. He 
 merely states a few symptoms, which lead one to infer 
 that it was not elephantiasis, as he called it. As to its 
 being hereditary, that is very probable ; and it is also 
 believed that it dies out of a family after three or four 
 generations. Moreover, it evidently was contagious 
 
 H 2 
 
100 LEPEOSY. 
 
 from man to wife^ not only in tlie sense of taking by 
 contact^ but also in tlie sense of catching from exposure 
 to tlie same vitiated air and the same conditions un- 
 favourable to health. Just as husband and wife^ by 
 living together_, often get personally like each other ; 
 a young person, in like case, gets constitutionally 
 assimilated to an old one. Even in this sense of con- 
 tagion, or communication, consumption was in this 
 country long held to be contagious. On the Continent 
 such is still the general opinion ; while in Italy, the 
 clothes and effects of any one dead from phthisis 
 pulmonalis, or consumption of the lungs, are burned 
 just as the clothes of any leper were. 
 
 8. That no exclusion took place where the law of 
 Moses was not observed, is accounted for on the simple 
 principle that no law is observed except where it is in 
 force. But is it true that ^' no exclusion '^ was observed 
 outside the land of the chosen people? Doubtless 
 there was no such exclusion as was rigidly enacted by 
 the law of Moses ; but what of leper hospitals all over 
 the East to this very day ? 
 
 Nor where the law was in force am I able to find any 
 proof of the exemption of the stranger and sojourner 
 from its provisions. On the contrary, it would seem, 
 from Lev. xix. 34, that " the stranger that dwelleth 
 with you shall be as one born among you;" and, pro- 
 vided he was circumcised, he might eat of the Passover, 
 and was in all respects considered as a Jew : " He 
 
WAS LEPROSY CONTAGIOUS? 101 
 
 shall be as one that is born in the land" (Exod. 
 xii.48). 
 
 9. Some of the objections of Rhenferdius are 
 weighty. Several of them have been already con- 
 sidered, and a few only now remain. They may be all 
 placed in one group thus : — That up to the time of de- 
 cision the patient was suffered at large, because if there 
 were any good ground for suspicion of contagion, Moses 
 would have pronounced every species unclean, because 
 the examination was conducted only at the clearest 
 and brightest hours of the day, and not at all at various 
 festivals, and only after some time in the case of newly- , 
 married persons. 
 
 The idea set forward in these objections is, that if 
 the disease were really contagious, all haste would have 
 been made to separate the leper from the healthy. 
 
 Now, for the sake of argument, let us assume the 
 law of Moses to be a sanitary treatise, and we shall see 
 the great importance of the priest-physician making 
 an accurate diagnosis. This law was written for all 
 time, so far as the Hebrew nation was concerned ; and 
 if any error should exist in it, or in the administration 
 of it, the grievance to unborn generations would be 
 immense. Thus all the common and unmistakable 
 signs of leprosy are omitted; and those capable of 
 being misjudged are set down in so clear a way, that 
 the priest had only to follow his instructions and give a 
 judgment which was never resisted as unjust. Every 
 
102 LEPEOST. 
 
 possible precaution was to be taken ; full time, clear 
 ligbt, and circumstances free from any excitement con- 
 nected witli the public feasts or private rejoicings,, were 
 to serve as guides to the physician^ that he might in 
 all doubtful cases — as we do still — give the prisoner 
 the benefit of the doubt, and avoid dooming a clean 
 person to the horrors of the unclean leper. We all 
 recognize this principle, even in our imperfect lunacy 
 laws ; for it is a more fearful thing to doom one sane 
 man to a madhouse, than to let loose ten madmen on 
 the public. 
 
 It has been said that it must have been a hardship to 
 be shut up seven or fourteen days for every alleged 
 attack of leprosy; and therefore some of the learned 
 have proposed to translate the words ^' shut up ^^ into 
 " bind up ; '^ inferring that the priest merely covered or 
 bound up the eruption, and not the man who had it. 
 But there is no reason why the translation need be 
 altered to suit this theoretical difficulty. Even in these 
 days of activity and business, it would not be thought 
 a great hardship to shut up for a few days every one in 
 London suspected of having such a serious disease as 
 small-pox. In fact, many regret the absence of some 
 such law in England just at this time (1871), when 
 small -pox is widely prevalent among us. 
 
 The leprosy of houses and clothes (Lev. xiv.) has' 
 often proved a difficulty to the believer, and a rock of 
 ofi'ence to the indifferent. It is not strictly within the 
 
WAS LEPROSY CONTAGIOUS? lOo 
 
 purpose of those remarks to enter fully into this subii 
 ject ^ ; but I do not hesitate to affirm that that diffi- 
 culty is not real. Tliere are few medical facts better 
 ascertained than that unwholesome clothing can com- 
 municate disease ; and that not only can houses cause 
 it by their general unfitness for habitation, but that 
 persons going to reside in a house lately tenanted by 
 persons sick of such a disease as scarlatina will readily 
 contract that disease. Moreover the recent microscopic 
 discoveries of diseases called Dermatophytse — parasitic 
 diseases of an animal and of a vegetable or fungus 
 nature — go far to prove the wisdom of the analogy 
 established by Moses between the leprosy in man and un- 
 wholesome contagious conditions (or leprosy) of clothing 
 and houses ; between the acarus which infests the skin , 
 and that which dwells in the garment made of animal 
 or vegetable substance ; between the vegetable parasite 
 which attacks man, and the fungus which dwells in 
 the walls of houses. That the leper was clothed and 
 treated like a dead man cannot afiect the question of 
 contagion in any way ; nor can the admitted contagious 
 nature of the disease in the least destroy its emblematic 
 character. On the contrary, if leprosy was not con- 
 tagious, then indeed it would lose the most important 
 
 5 See Mead's " Medica Sacra," on Leprosy; and the article in 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible on "Leper." The latter gives snch 
 an explanation as will carry much weight with medical men skilled 
 in cutaneous diseases. 
 
104 LEPEOSY. 
 
 part of its typical nature — ^its resemblance to the con- 
 tagious nature of sin ; and if tlie law was in " no 
 respect '' sanitary^ it takes away one proof of the 
 theocratic government of the Jewish state. 
 
 I think_, then^ that there is fair ground for concluding 
 that Hebrew leprosy was not necessarily infectious by 
 contact in every case ; but that it was contagious in 
 the wider sense of being communicable by social or 
 family interchange_, whereby it deteriorated the health 
 of the soundj and specially predisposed them to leprosy 
 when attacked by the minor skin affections. These 
 were classed with leprosy by Moses ; and, as I have 
 elsewhere attempted to show®, all taken together form 
 a classification true to nature, and not open to the ob- 
 jections which may be urged against our ever-changing 
 modern classifications. It served to detect disease; 
 to diagnose it ; to treat it when curable ; and to per- 
 manently separate the diseased from the healthy when 
 cure was impossible. 
 
 My object in thus discussing leprosy at length in 
 connexion with the miracle now before us, is to show 
 that the most minute investigation on medical grounds 
 tends to confirm the Mosaic account of this disease, as 
 well as the truth of the narrative in the Gospels. That 
 there is thorough agreement as well as undesigned 
 cx)incidence between the Old Testament and the New in 
 this matter; and that the Mosaic provisions about 
 6 Hebrew Catalogue of Skin Diseases. Op. cit. 
 
TBE HEALING OF THE TEN LEPERS. 105 
 
 leprosy bear the stamp of sound public policy as well 
 as of scientific hygiene. Much more might be added ; 
 but sufficient has been advanced to prove that in this 
 particular thing, the Bible, even as a mere book, is 
 fully entitled to our belief; and that the less we ex- 
 plain it away and treat it as exploded, the more likely 
 are we to find out how little we ourselves know after 
 all. Some years ago, the statement of the Bible, that 
 *' the blood is the life '^ was deemed unscientific and 
 behind the age. Now, however, it is not deemed an 
 untrue or exploded opinion. 
 
 THE HEALING OF THE TEN LEPEES. 
 
 St. Luke xvii. 12—19. 
 
 12. And as He entered into a certain village, there 
 met Him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar ofi"; 
 
 13. And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, 
 Master, have mercy on us. 
 
 14. And when He saw them, He said unto them. Go 
 shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to 
 pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. 
 
 15. And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, 
 turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 
 
 16. And fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him 
 thanks : and he was a Samaritan. 
 
 17. And Jesus answering said. Were there not ten 
 cleansed ? but where ai^e the nine ? 
 
106 LEPROSY. 
 
 18. There are not found tliat returned to give glory 
 to God, save this stranger. 
 
 19. And He said unto him. Arise, go thy way: thy 
 faith hath made thee whole. 
 
 This narrative, peculiar to St. Luke, does not require 
 any minute consideration, as the whole question of 
 leprosy, its character, incurability, and fitness for the 
 exercise of miraculous power, were discussed in the last 
 case, — which see. We find that the ten men here were 
 lepers ; because St. Luke uses the technical word 
 " lepers '' {Xeirpol'] ; and we also know that they were 
 affected with the Levitical leprosy ; for they were told 
 to go and show themselves to the priest ; and as they 
 went they were ''^ cleansed." These words have been 
 considered in the last case ; and St. Luke^s description 
 has been noted as thoroughly agreeing with the medical 
 mind, as we should expect from the prominent place 
 which miracles of healing hold in his Gospel. • 
 
THE DEMONIACS IN THE COUNTRY OF THE GADARENES. 107 
 
 CHAPTEE V. 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 THE DEMONIACS IN THE COUNTRY OP THE GADARENES. 
 
 St. Matt. viii. 28—34. St. Mark v. 1—20 
 
 28. And when Hewas 
 come to the other side 
 into the country of the 
 Gergesenes, there met 
 Him two possessed 
 with devils coming 
 out of the tombs, ex- 
 ceeding fierce, so that 
 no man might pass by 
 that way. 
 
 29. And, behold, they 
 cried out, saying. What 
 have we to do vrith 
 Thee, Jesus, Thou Son 
 of God? art Thou 
 come hither to tor- 
 ment us before the 
 time ? 
 
 30. And there was a 
 good way ofi'from them 
 an herd of many swine 
 feeding. 
 
 31. So the devils be- 
 
 1. And they came 
 over unto the other side 
 of the sea, into the 
 country of the Gada- 
 renes. 
 
 2. And when He was 
 come out of the ship, 
 imm.ediately there met 
 Him out of the tombs 
 a man with an unclean 
 spirit. 
 
 3. Who had his dwel- 
 ling among the tombs ; 
 and no man could bind 
 him, no, not with 
 chains: 
 
 4. Because that he 
 had been often bound 
 with fetters and chains, 
 and the chains had 
 been plucked asunder 
 by him, and the fetters 
 broken in pieces : nei- 
 
 St. Luke viii. 2&— 39. 
 
 26. And they arrived 
 at the country of the 
 Gadarenes, which is 
 over against Galilee. 
 
 27. And when He 
 went forth to land, 
 there met Him out of 
 the city a certain man, 
 which had devils long 
 time, and ware no 
 clothes, neither abode 
 in any house, but in the 
 tombs. 
 
 28. When he saw 
 Jesus he cried out, and 
 fell down before Him, 
 and with a loud voice 
 said, What have I to 
 do with Thee, Jesus, 
 Thou Son of God most 
 high ? I beseech Thee, 
 torment me not. 
 
 29. (For He had com- 
 
108 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 saying, If 
 
 sought Him 
 Thou cast us out, suf- 
 fer us to go away into 
 the herd of swine. 
 
 32. And He said unto 
 them, Go. And when 
 they were come out, 
 they went into the 
 herd of swine : and, 
 behold, the whole herd 
 of swine ran violently 
 down a steep place 
 into the sea, and pe- 
 rished in the waters. 
 
 33. And they that 
 kept them fled, and 
 went their ways into 
 the city, and told every 
 thing, and what was 
 befallen to the posses- 
 sed of the devils. 
 
 34. And, behold, the 
 whole city came out to 
 meet Jesus : and when 
 they saw Him, they 
 besought Him that He 
 would depart out of 
 their coasts. 
 
 ther could any man 
 tame him. 
 
 5. And always, night 
 and day, he was in the 
 mountains, and in the 
 tombs, crying and 
 cutting himself with 
 stones. 
 
 6. But when he saw 
 Jesus afar off, he ran 
 and worshipped Him, 
 
 7. And cried with a 
 loud voice, and said. 
 What have I to do 
 with Thee, Jesus, Thou 
 Son of the most high 
 Grod.? I adjure Thee 
 by God, that Thou tor- 
 ment me not. 
 
 8. For He said unto 
 him. Come out of the 
 man, thou unclean 
 spirit. 
 
 9. And He asked 
 him, "What is thy 
 name ? And he an- 
 swered, saying, My 
 name is Legion : for 
 we are many. 
 
 10. And he besought 
 Him much that He 
 would not send them 
 away out of the coun- 
 tiy. 
 
 11. Now there was 
 there nigh unto the 
 mountains a great 
 
 imanded the unclean 
 spirit to come out of 
 jthe man. For often- 
 times it had caught 
 him : and he was kept 
 bound with chains and 
 in fetters ; and he 
 brake the bands, and 
 was driven of the de- 
 vil into the wilder- 
 ness.) 
 
 30. And Jesus asked 
 him, saying, What is 
 thy name? And he 
 said. Legion : because 
 many devils wei-e en- 
 tered into him. 
 
 31. And they be- 
 sought Him that He 
 would not command 
 them to go out into the 
 deep. 
 
 32. And there was 
 an herd of many swine 
 feeding on the moun- 
 tain ; and they be- 
 sought Him that He 
 would suffer them to 
 enter into them. And 
 He suffered them. 
 
 33. Then went the 
 devils out of the man, 
 and entered into the 
 swine : and the herd 
 ran violently down a 
 steep place into the 
 lake, and were choked. 
 
THE DEMONIACS IN THE COUNTRY OF THE GADARENES. 109 
 
 herd of swine feed- 
 ing. 
 
 12. And all the de- 
 vils besought Him, say- 
 ing, Send us into the 
 swine, that we may 
 enter into them. 
 
 13. And forthwith 
 Jesus gave them leave. 
 And the unclean spi- 
 rits went out, and en- 
 tered into the swine : 
 and the herd ran vio- 
 lently down a steep 
 place into the sea, 
 (they were about two 
 thousand ;) and were 
 choked in the sea. 
 
 14. And they that 
 fed the s"wine fled, and 
 told it in the city, and 
 in the country. And 
 they went out to see 
 what it was that was 
 done. 
 
 15. And they come 
 to Jesus, and see him 
 that was possessed 
 with the devil, and 
 had the legion, sitting, 
 and clothed, and in his 
 right mind : and they 
 were afraid. 
 
 16. And they that 
 saw it told them how it 
 befell to him that was 
 possessed with the 
 
 34. When they that 
 fed them saw what was 
 done, they fled, and 
 went and told it in the 
 city and in the country. 
 
 35. Then they went 
 out to see what was 
 done; and came to 
 Jesus, and found the 
 man, out of whom the 
 devils were departed, 
 sitting at the feet of 
 Jesus, clothed, and in 
 liis right mind : and 
 they were afraid. 
 
 36. They also which 
 saw it told them by 
 what means he that 
 was possessed of the 
 devils was healed. 
 
 37. Then the whole 
 multitude of the coim- 
 try of the Gadarenes 
 round about besought 
 Him to depart from 
 them ; for they were 
 taken "with great fear : 
 and He went up into 
 the ship, and retmmed 
 back again. 
 
 38. Now the man out 
 of whom the devils 
 were departed be- 
 sought Him that he 
 might be with Him : 
 but Jesus sent him 
 away, saying, 
 
110 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 39. Eeturn to thiue 
 own house, and shew 
 how great things God 
 hath done unto thee. 
 And he went his way, 
 and published through- 
 out the whole city how 
 great things Jesus had 
 done unto him. 
 
 devil, and also con- 
 cerning the swine. 
 
 17. And they began 
 to pray Him to depart 
 out of their coasts. 
 
 18. And when He was 
 come into the ship, he 
 that had been possess- 
 ed with the devil pray- 
 ed Him that he might 
 be with Him. 
 
 19. Howbeit Jesus 
 suffered him not, but 
 saith unto him, Go 
 home to thy friends, 
 and tell them how great 
 things the Lord hath 
 done for thee, and hath 
 had compassion on 
 thee. 
 
 20. And he departed, 
 and began to publish 
 in Decapolis how great 
 things Jesus had done 
 for him : and all men 
 did marvel. 
 
 Ill considering this miracle of healings we are at once 
 brought face to face with one of the questions of the 
 day — the existence of the supernatural — the agency of 
 unseen spiritual beings. To those, however, who re- 
 ceive the Bible in any sense, there can be no doubt 
 that the existence of good and evil angels is therein 
 explicitly mentioned and taught. It is said — because 
 men cannot as yet see proo^ of it — that modern natural 
 
DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. Ill 
 
 science gives us no trace of the supernatural. This 
 may be true ; but natural science gets dark, and really 
 forfeits its right to the name of Imoidedge, or science, 
 when it attempts to deal with the relation of mind 
 to matter. And this relation, which we know does 
 exist, and because of which we live and move and have 
 our being, implies, yea demands for its explanation, the 
 existence of a spiritual agency above and beyond the 
 visible course of nature. 
 
 And connected with this question, there seem to 
 have been at all times developments of two different 
 classes of opinions. Connected with, or disconnected 
 from, the early and Mediaeval Church, we find the set 
 of principles known in history as Manichgeanism — the 
 making evil as eternal as good, and so itself a god. 
 Pantheism, on the other hand, is a fashionable view 
 common in our own day. This theory denies any true 
 reaUty to evil, or that it is any thing else than good at 
 a lower stage ; the unripe, and therefore the still bitter 
 fruit ^. Both of these theories are excluded by the 
 Scriptural doctrine concerning the kingdom of evil, 
 and the personality of its head Satan, and the relation 
 in which he stands to the moral evil of our world. 
 Scripture teaches the absolute subordination of evil to 
 good, and its subsequence of order, in the fact that evil 
 roots itself in a creature, and in one created originally 
 pure, while good springs from the Creator. But yet it 
 7 Archbishop Trench. 
 
I 
 112 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 also teaches that the opposition of this evil to the 
 Divine will is real^ and that the end of God^s govern- 
 ment is the subjugation of this evil 5 not by force_, but 
 by righteousness and truth. And from the central will 
 of Satan the Bible derives all the evil in the universe. 
 He is represented as having a kingdom_, with its 
 ministers — " the devil and his angels." They are the 
 principalities and powers^ rulers of the darkness of the 
 world, and wicked spirits in heavenly places. 
 
 And there are no gaps or chasms in the creation of 
 God. There is one chain of being from an unorganized 
 particle of earth to the highest angel. 
 
 Moreover, we find this to be in an ascending scale, 
 many links of which can be but imperfectly observed 
 by us. Yet we can see, in a general way, the ascent 
 from the earth to mineral, vegetable, insect, reptile, 
 fish, beast, man, and angel. Angels, too, are good and 
 evil. The evil kept not their first estate ; but yet are, 
 doubtless, endowed with a power and knowledge which, 
 except that they are exercised under the Di\4ne per- 
 mission, as in the case of Job, we should regard as 
 scarcely inferior to those of God himself. They are 
 principalities and powers, and the rulers of the darkness 
 of this world. Now, if we except the Sadducees, the 
 Jews as a nation not only believed in demoniacal posses- 
 sion, but they also believed the fact of the performance 
 of miracles in such cases by Christ. Their error, as 
 we read in Holy Scripture, lay in ascribing such 
 
DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 113 
 
 works to Satan liimself; and they were not able to 
 reply to our Lord's question, " If Satan be divided 
 against himself, how then can his kingdom stand* ? " 
 In St. Matthew^s account of this very case (viii. 16) we 
 read that demoniacal possession was then common. 
 " Many that were possessed with devils/' he writes ; 
 and how this was so, Josephus explains, saying of his 
 own nation at that time — and his account is confirmed 
 by St. Paul's description in Romans i. — ^' There was not 
 a nation under heaven more wicked than they were.'' 
 
 The strong tendency of the Jews to practise magical 
 arts, like the heathen, has also been adduced as a reason 
 why demoniacal possession was common in our Lord's 
 time. Those arts, we know, were condemned by 
 Christianity, as we find from the circumstances con- 
 nected with the burning of books '^ of curious arts " 
 recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 But modern objections' to the existence or possibility 
 of demoniacal possession are made both by believers 
 and by doubters of Holy Writ. I do not here refer to 
 those who deny miracles of this kind as facts ; for, as 
 already observed, they are taking a more unbelieving 
 
 8 Calmet says (" Sur les Obsessions et Possessions du Demon. 
 Luc. xi. 14"), " Les anciens ennemis de la Eeligion Chretienno, con- 
 vaingus par I'evidence des miracles qu'ils voyoient faire a Jesu.s 
 Christ, aux Apotres, on aux premiers Chretiens, n'osoient en con- 
 tester, ni la verite ni larealite. lis se contentoient de les attribuer, oii 
 a la magic, ou au Prince des Demons, on a certaines paroles et a certains 
 secrets naturels." — Nourelles Dissertations, p. 273, Paris, 4to, 1720. 
 
 I 
 
114 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 standpoint tlian tlie Jews did^ or do now; but I 
 specially refer to those wlio use more or less " free 
 handling '' with the historic statements of the Gospels ; 
 and to those who readily and sincerely receive these 
 statements as substantially true^ but as presenting 
 difficulties which may be removed by assuming the use 
 of figurative or popular, rather than of literally true, 
 verbiage. 
 
 It has been objected — and this by many learned 
 believers in Holy Scripture, such as Dr. Mead^ — that 
 demoniacal possession was simply lunacy. And such 
 writers urge that the language of the Evangelical 
 narratives must be interpreted figuratively, and that 
 our Lord, in speaking of ijossession, accommodated 
 Himself to the language and ideas of His time : that 
 curing lunacy was a miracle just as much as curing 
 demoniacal possession. Others*, going farther, urge 
 
 3 Medica Sacra, chap. ix. 
 
 1 Dr. Farmer's Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testa- 
 nient, London, 1775. See also 8emler, Comm, de Daemoniacis, &c. 
 Halse, 1770 — 1779. An ardent controversy was carried on in the 
 eighteenth century between Dr. Farmer and his opponents. The above 
 opinion as to dArector commissioned ^yiwe intei'position is Dr. Farmer's 
 leading position. 
 
 This position is brought forward into Farmer's work above quoted, 
 from another of his previously published, and entitled, " A Disserta- 
 tion on Miracles, designed to show that they are arguments of a 
 Divine interposition, and absolute proofs of the mission and doctrine 
 of a prophet." The thesis of this latter book is "that all miracles 
 are works appropriate to God." His " Essay on Demoniacs " is not 
 what would now be called a Kationalistic work, quite the oontraxy ; 
 
DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 115 
 
 that we have no mh^acle in Holy Scripture^ save as the 
 result of direct or commissioned divine interposition. 
 Hence the Egyptian magicians were regarded as jug- 
 glers^ and the Witch of Endor as a dream ; as well as 
 the temptation of Christ by Satan ; and it is asserted 
 that the cases of demoniacal possession recorded in the 
 New Testament have all the symptoms of ordinary 
 lunacy. 
 
 But is it true that extraordinary works have not been 
 performed except by divine interposition ? I think not. 
 The power of Satan and his angels^ as taught in Holy 
 Scripture,, is clearly against this theory. To the historic 
 truth of demoniacal possession the narratives in the 
 Gospels and Christ^s own words are distinctly pledged ; 
 e.g. in St. Luke^ xi. 17 — 26, where our Lord speaks 
 of an " unclean spirit ; '' of " casting out devils •/' of the 
 unclean spirit, when he is gone out of a man, walking 
 through dry places, &c., and of ^' seven other spirits 
 more wicked than himself : '' in all this there is no 
 trace of any thing but personal possession by spirits — 
 in the plural number — and not by disease. And St. 
 Luke, the physician, plainly distinguishes between it 
 and ordinary diseases'. It is every where distinguished 
 
 but his principle is the unsafe one of making the Evangelists not to 
 mean what they wrote. It is a very learned treatise ; and is a 
 thoroughly reliable compilation of authorities on his own side of the 
 question. He quotes Semler, MacKnight, Lardner, Warburton, and 
 other writers of note. 
 2 Seevii. 21. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 from mere bodily disease'. Tlie demoniac also is dif- 
 ferent from the abandoned wicked man : for lie was a 
 subject not of punishment, but of pity ; bis being was 
 so impenetrated by fallen spirits * tbat there was a 
 double consciousness in bim ; sometimes the spirit 
 thinking and speaking, sometimes the poor subject 
 himself crying out. In many cases (as has been sug- 
 gested with regard to this miracle now under consider- 
 ation^) — in many cases probably unchecked indulgence 
 of sensual appetite had afforded an inlet to the powers 
 of evil into the animal soul [^^vxv] • 
 
 When and where Satan had his seat, then and there 
 demoniacal possession seems to have been rife. Thanks 
 to the spread of Christianity, men now point to the 
 general absence of such calamities, and thence argue 
 that they never existed. 
 
 But is this so ? Rhenius, a Lutheran missionary in 
 India (quoted by Archbishop Trench), gives it as his 
 experience, that among the native Christians there, even 
 though many of them walk not as children of the light, 
 yet there is no such falling under Satanic influence as 
 he traced frequently in the heathen around him. And 
 travellers in India have not failed to notice the fact, 
 that, after making all due and possible allowance for 
 cunning and cleverness, Satan does work by lying 
 
 3 Compare St. Matt. ix. 32, with St. Mark vii. 32. 
 
 4 St. John xiii. 2. Acts v. 3. 
 
 * Note on St. Matt. viii. 32, in Dean Alford's abridged Greek Testa- 
 ment (1869). 
 
DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 1 1 7 
 
 wonders in India nowy as did Jannes and Jambres 
 wlien they withstood Moses in Egypt. But have 
 we really no cases of demoniacal possession among 
 us now? I am not quite so sure of this. It is 
 no answer to the question to say that any cases 
 we may bring forward are cases of insanity. Per- 
 haps they are; but, then, the Gospel narratives 
 tend to prove that, in some instances at any 
 rate, there is a closer connexion between insanity 
 and demoniacal possession than we may wish to 
 believe ; and that the ancient doctrine, that all 
 insanity was the more or less direct result of posses- 
 sion, may be founded on an undeniable abstract truth^. 
 
 Some of the best psychological authorities recognize 
 demoniacs now. Esquirol has been said to have given 
 the weight of his authority in this direction" ; and let 
 
 6 In the middle ages there was something like possession. See 
 Hecker's Epidemics of the Middle Ages, published by the Sydenham 
 Society, 1844. 
 
 7 Archbishop Trench gives this (Op. cit. p. 168) as a report, but does 
 not vouch for it. On looking over Esquirol's work, " Des Maladies 
 Mentales," tome i. pp. 482, &c., Paris, 1838, it would seem that he 
 writes not exactly of demoniacs, but of demonomaniacs ; and he 
 divides them into persons affected with "theomanie," and those 
 affected with " Caco-demonomanie." Of the latter, in connexion 
 with the ancient oracles, he says (p. 487), " Si e'en etait ici le lieu, je 
 prouverais que Ton s'est servides alienes pour rendre des oracles; que 
 le pretres savaient leur inspirer un saint delire : je demontrerai plus 
 tard que la possession du demon est un vrai monomanie. Les demons 
 sont devenus muets, des que le ^hristianisme eut eclaire le monde ; ils 
 ont cesse de lutiner les hommes depuis qu'on les craint moins. Depuis 
 
118 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 any one read Dr. Forbes Winslow's well-known book 
 on " Obscure Diseases of tbe Brain and Mind/^ and 
 say wbether tkere is not some ground for coming to a 
 like opinion ? 
 
 I once knew a lady whose case was so remarkable 
 that I published it after her death^ ; and, in truth, if 
 ever there was a case of possession in the present day, 
 hers was - one. She had double consciousness, and 
 several other features similar to those in the miracle 
 now before us. In fact, in almost the same words, she 
 often said, "What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Thou 
 Son of the most high God ? I adjure Tliee by God, 
 that Thou torment me not.^^ 
 
 qu'on ne fait plus bruler les sorciers et les magiciens, I'imagmatioD 
 en repos n'enfante plus ni sorciers ni magiciens." And again, on p. 485 : 
 "Le Christianisme, ramenant les idees religieuses a I'unite de Dieu, 
 faisant taire les oracles, en eclairant les honimes, consacra I'opinion de 
 Platon, de Socrate, sur I'existence des demons ; il opera une grande 
 revolution dans les idees. On exagerales puissances desesprits sur les 
 corps ; la crainte de ceder aux instigations du diable inspira I'effroi ; 
 on se crut, de cette vie, au pouvoir des demons ; les demonomaniaques 
 se multiplierent ; c'est ce que prouve I'institution des exorcismes 
 dans la primitive figlise." Perhaps it is hardly fair to say that 
 Esquirol in these passages recognizes demoniacal possession as a 
 cause of madness, but he does not oppose it. In fact he gives no 
 decided opinion, except his not opposing it be taken as indicating a 
 leaning towards the " possession" theory. It must be borne in mind 
 that he uses the term " demonomanie," as a received technical ex- 
 pression only. 
 
 8 A Short Sketch of a remarkable Case of Insanity (read before the 
 College of Physicians, Dublin, Nov. ^5, 1863). No. 3, in Tractatus 
 Medici. Dublin, 1864. 
 
THE DEMONIACS IN THE COUNTRY OP THE GADARENES. 119 
 
 And who can tell how many of the diseases which 
 we impute solely to natural causes may not be directly 
 due to those causes, but finally due to the work of evil 
 angels ? 
 
 That the possession in the demoniacs among the 
 Gadarenes was real, and not figurative or accom- 
 modated to the language of the day, we learn from 
 the sequel of the possession of the swine. Who 
 ever heard of swine afflicted with madness, or epilepsy, 
 or melancholia ? If the devils were mental diseases, 
 how could it be said that they hesought, went out, filled 
 a herd of swine, rushed down a precipice ; or that they 
 were in the plural number, " seven other spirits more 
 wicked than himself." How could seven other diseases 
 " more wicked than " the first enter into a man ? The 
 truth is that the Gospel narrative is pledged to demo- 
 niacal possession, and that it cannot be explained away 
 on any theory. It must be taken as true or rejected as 
 false. 
 
 If the excessive indulgence in sensual appetites had 
 predisposed the demoniacs mentioned here to the pos- 
 session of evil spirits, we can conceive how the animal 
 soul, or life, in the swine might be capable of receiving 
 such influences ; but with this diSerence, that whereas 
 there is in man an immortal spirit, a real I, struggling 
 against Satanic oppression ; the brute, having no such 
 self-conserving balance, is carried headlong to destruc- 
 tion. Too much attention cannot be given to the well- 
 
120 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 weighed assertion of a learned authority' whicli says — 
 andj as I think, with good foundation — " in many cases 
 of mania and epilepsy there is a condition very analo- 
 gous to that of the demoniacs/' Certain it is that 
 the early Christian writers accepted these statements of 
 Holy Scripture in their literal sense ; and the historical 
 fact, that an order of ministers called " exorcists'' long 
 existed in the Church, and that from almost the birth 
 of Christianity — all this testifies to the widespread 
 belief of Christians, from the earliest times, in demo- 
 niacal possession^ 
 
 It has often been noted that St. Luke is very par- 
 ticular in marking out cases of possession, and in 
 
 3 Trench on Miracles, Op. cit. p. 168. 
 
 1 Delitzsch draws a curious analogy thus : — " Nothing makes 
 the condition of demoniacal possession so intelligible as the 
 magnetic rapport in artificially produced magnetic states. The 
 magnetized person there appears as the absolutely will-less instru- 
 ment of the magnetizer ; and the contents of the consciousness 
 of the magnetizer are reflected in the consciousness of the person 
 magnetized, so that the individuality of the one is, as it were, 
 merged in that of the other. Pinch the patient, he does not feel it ; 
 pinch the operator, the patient feels as if he had been pinched, and 
 complains of the injury to the part afiected. Put rhubarb in the 
 patient's mouth, he has no taste of it ; put rhubarb in the operator's 
 mouth, and the patient tastes and names this drug, under the im- 
 pression that he has it in his own mouth. Placed on his legs he 
 stands as if nailed to the ground ; but following the movements of 
 the magnetizer' s hands, he is put into visibly involuntary and uneasy 
 motion. This sympathetic unity of will is raised even into sympa- 
 thetic unity of consciousness. The patient understands even the un- 
 expressed thoughts of the operator, and acquiesces in them ; or he 
 speaks as if from himself, but in such a way that it is the manner of 
 
THE DEMONIACS IN THE COUNTRY OF THE GADARENES. 121 
 
 describing them minutely. And this, from a physician, 
 is a strong testimony in their favour; especially as 
 Hippocrates, the great medical authority, did not re- 
 cognize, but repudiated such influences in causing 
 disease. Moreover, as St. Luke otherwise follows 
 Hippocrates, and markedly deviates from him here — it 
 being then a grave thing to deviate from a teacher who 
 was regarded as almost infallible — we may conclude 
 that he did so of set purpose, and from personal con- 
 viction. St. Luke seems to have endeavoiu-ed to teach 
 the Greek Christians the true doctrine of the origin of 
 evil. Hence, the history of the temptation in chap, iv.; 
 
 thought, and the thought of the operator transferred to him which he 
 reproduces. That which is here exhibited to us is an intoxication, a 
 bondage, a possession of one Psyche by the other, accompanied by an 
 extra natural enhancement of the powers by the intrusive co-opera- 
 tion of evil, or even of good, influences of the spiritual world. From 
 this dynamical possession of one human soul by the other, we may 
 form to ourselves an idea of the substantial possession of a human 
 soul by a demon. In the former case the possession is only dyna- 
 mical, because the human soul is linked to its body ; in the latter case 
 it is substantial, although not local, because the demon, by virtue of 
 his purely spiritual nature, can penetrate into the substantial condi 
 tion of the man, without disintegrating its living unity. But, in both 
 cases, the powers of the soul have reached even to the spiritual roots 
 of the internal life under the unnatural pressure of a foreign power, 
 and have become involuntary forms of a substantial existence ob- 
 truded upon them." — Biblical Psychology, p. 356. This quotation 
 must not be understood as implying any connexion between mes- 
 merism and demoniacal possession. 
 
 See also Ennemoser's History of Magic, vol. i. pp. 334, &c. — Bohn's 
 Series. 
 
122 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 and tlie constant setting fortli of Christ as triumpliing 
 over Satan in these cases. He is careful to distinguisli 
 between ordinary diseases and cases of demoniacal 
 possession, and while he represents Satan as an agent 
 from witlioiit in the former, he displays his agents as 
 inclivelling and working from luithin in the latter'. In 
 St. Matt, iv., where the first mention of possessions 
 occurs, it is said that our Lord's " fame went through- 
 out all Syria, and they brought unto Him all sick people 
 that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and 
 those which were possessed with devils, and those which 
 were lunatic, and those that had the palsy, and He 
 healed them." Here, not only are ordinary diseases 
 distinguished from ^possessions, but the latter are distin- 
 guished from lunatics ! Thus, although there were cases, 
 as we shall see, in which possession and mental or bodily 
 disease were found together, yet there were numerous 
 cases in which lunacy and possession were distinct. 
 These remarks are intended as notes, and are not 
 exhaustive on the subject. An admirable view of the 
 controversy as to the reality of demoniacal possession 
 will be found in the Oxford Edition of Jahn's " ArchaBO- 
 logia Biblica,'' before quoted; and a well-weighed and 
 elaborate discussion, tending to confirm the literal truth 
 of the Gospel narrative, will be found in a work well 
 known to all Bible students^ In this particular miracle, 
 
 2 Wordsworth, Introduction to St. Luke's Gospel. 
 
 3 Trench, Op. cit. p. 154. 
 
THE DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM. 123 
 
 recorded by the first three Evangelists, we find St. 
 Matthew speaking of two demonaics, while SS. Mark 
 and Luke mention but one. This one was probably 
 the more prominent of the two; and so, perhaps, his 
 case only is mentioned by SS. Mark and Luke. At 
 any rate the story told by the three writers is identical, 
 as to the assertion of possession. The violent and men- 
 tal nature of the affliction is also evident from the three 
 accounts. A lunatic — a raving lunatic — he appears to 
 have been, albeit that his lunacy was the direct result 
 of demoniacal possession. SS. Mark and Luke also 
 state that after his cure he \\as ^''clothed, and in his 
 right mind; ^^ the word [o-oxppovovvra] "in his right 
 mind,^^ used by both Evangelists, expressing thorough 
 sanity and soberness as opposed to his former condi- 
 tion. This word also shows that his mind had been 
 affected; and while it does not prove that he was a mere 
 lunatic (the context distinctly stating that he was 
 possessed), yet it does prove that in his case insanity 
 was caused by evil influence. It is not necessary to 
 prove that this cure was beyond human power. 
 
 THE DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM. 
 St. Mark i. 23—26. St. Luke iv. 33—36. 
 
 23. And there was in their syna- 
 gogue a man with an unclean 
 spirit ; and he cried out, 
 
 24. Saying, Let tis alone ; what 
 have we to do with Thee, Thou 
 Jesus of Nazareth ? art Thou 
 
 33. And in the synagogue there 
 was a man, Avhich had a spirit of 
 an unclean devil, and cried out 
 with a loud voice, 
 
 31. Saying, Let us alone; what 
 have we to do ^Wth Thee, Thou 
 
124 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 come to destroy us ? I Icnow Thee 
 who Thou art, the Holy One of 
 God. 
 
 25. And Jesus rebuked him, 
 saymg, Hold thy peace, and come 
 out of him. 
 
 26. And when the unclean 
 spirit had torn him, and cried 
 with a loud voice, he came out of 
 him. 
 
 Jesus of Nazareth ? art Thou come 
 to destroy us ? I know Thee who 
 Thou art ; the Holy One of God. 
 
 35. And Jesus rebidied him, 
 saying, Hold thy peace, and come 
 out of him. And when the devil 
 had thrown him in the midst, he 
 came out of him, and hurt him 
 not. 
 
 36. And they were all amazed, 
 and spake among themselves, say- 
 ing, What a word is this ! for with 
 authority and power He com- 
 mandeth the unclean spirits, and 
 they come out. 
 
 This miracle,, mentioned by SS. Mark and Luke only, 
 has no special feature beyond that just considered, 
 which see. 
 
 We have here the same distinct assertion of the 
 individuality or personality of the evil influence, which 
 cannot be explained on any medical theory. It will, 
 perhaps, be said that the throwing down and tearing 
 of the afflicted person was nothing but epilepsy. The 
 outward signs of the possession indeed were not unlike 
 epilepsy, and such they may have been. But if the 
 story be true at all that the man was epileptic, and that 
 he was miraculously cured, then that part of it which 
 expressly ascribes his condition to Satanic influence 
 must be true, as we have shown in the last instance 
 that it is not unlikely. In any case, supposing that 
 it were one of mere mental or bodily disease, a sudden 
 
THE DAUGHTER OP THE SYRO-PHENICIAN WOMAN. 125 
 
 and complete cure was nothing but miraculous. Epi- 
 leptics — confirmed epileptics — are humanly incurable. 
 
 THE DAUGHTER OP THE SYRO-PHENICIAN WOMAN. 
 St. Matt. XV. 21—28. St. Mark vii. 24—30. 
 
 21. Then Jesus went thence, 
 and departed into the coasts of 
 Tyre and Sidon. 
 
 22. And, behold, a woman of 
 Canaan came out of the same 
 coasts, and cried unto Him, saying, 
 Have mercy on me, Lord, Thou 
 son of David; my daughter is 
 grievously vexed with a devil. 
 
 23. But He answered her not a 
 word. And His disciples came and 
 besought Him, saying. Send her 
 away ; for she crieth after us. 
 
 24. But He answered and said, 
 I am not sent but unto the lost 
 sheep of the house of Israel. 
 
 25. Then came she and wor- 
 shipped Him, saying. Lord, help 
 me. 
 
 26. But He answered and said. 
 It is not meet to take the child- 
 ren's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 
 
 27. And she said. Truth, Lord : 
 yet the dogs eat of the crumbs 
 which fall from their masters' 
 table. 
 
 28. Then Jesus answered and 
 said unto her, woman, great is 
 thy faith : be it unto thee even 
 as thou wilt. And her daughter 
 was made whole from that very 
 hour. 
 
 24. And from thence He arose, 
 and went into the borders of Tyre 
 and Sidon, and entered into an 
 house, and would have no man 
 know it : but He could not be hid. 
 
 25. For a certain woman, whose 
 young daughter had an unclean 
 spirit, heard of Him, and came 
 and fell at His feet : 
 
 26. The woman was a Greek, a 
 Syrophenician by nation ; and she 
 besought Him that He would cast 
 forth the devil out of her daughter. 
 
 27. But Jesus said unto her, 
 Let the children first be filled : 
 for it is not meet to take the 
 children's bread, and to cast it 
 unto the dogs. 
 
 28. And she answered and said 
 unto Him, Yes, Lord : yet the 
 dogs under the table eat of the 
 children's crumbs. 
 
 29. And He said unto her, For 
 this saying go thy way ; the devil 
 is gone out of thy daughter. 
 
 30. And when she was come to 
 her house, she found the devil gone 
 out, and her daughter laid upon 
 the bed. 
 
126 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 Tliis case^ mentioned by SS. Matthew and Mark only_, 
 differs from the two preceding, in that there does not 
 occur any mention of bodily disease accompanying or 
 resulting from the possession; which latter, however, 
 is expressly stated. '' My daughter is grievously vexed 
 with a devil f or, as St. Mark has it, she ^^ had an un- 
 clean spirit.'^ 
 
 And the Saviour says, '' the devil [not a disease] is 
 gone out of thy daughter. And when she was come to 
 her house, she found the devil gone out, and her 
 daughter laid on the bed." 
 
 Here is no pretended cure. It was instantaneous. 
 " Her daughter was made whole from that very hour," 
 says St. Matthew. 
 
 I cannot see how, accepting the truth of the narra- 
 tive, this case can be explained away as one of ordinary 
 disease; or, even if so, how its immediate cure can be 
 accounted for. It cannot be so on medical principles. 
 
 THE HEALING OP THE LUNATIC CHILD. 
 St. Matt. xvii. 14—21. St. Mark ix. 14—29. St. Luke ix. 37 — 42. 
 
 14. And when they 
 were come to the mul- 
 titude, there came to 
 Him a certain man, 
 kneeling down to Him, 
 and saying, 
 
 15. Lord, have mercy 
 on my son : for he is 
 lunatick, and sore vex- 
 
 14. And when He 
 came to His disciples, 
 He saw a great multi- 
 tude about them, and 
 the scribes questioning 
 with them. 
 
 15. And straightway 
 all the people, when 
 they beheld Him, were 
 
 37. And it came to 
 pass, that on the next 
 day, when they were 
 come down from the 
 hill, much people met 
 Him. 
 
 38. And behold, a 
 man of the company 
 cried out, saying, Mas- 
 
THE HEALING OF THE LUNATIC CHILD. 
 
 127 
 
 ed: for ofttimes lie 
 falleth into the fire, 
 and oft into the water. 
 
 16. And I brought 
 him to Thy disciples, 
 and they could not 
 cure him. 
 
 17. Then Jesus an- 
 swered and said, 
 faithless and per- 
 verse generation, how 
 long shall I be with 
 you ? how long shall I 
 sufier you ? bring him 
 hither to Me. 
 
 18. And Jesus re- 
 buked the devil ; and 
 he departed out of him : 
 and the child was cured 
 from that very hour. 
 
 19. Then came the 
 disciples to Jesus apart, 
 and said, Why could 
 not we cast him out ? 
 
 20. And Jesus said 
 unto them. Because of 
 your unbelief : for 
 verily I say unto you, 
 If ye have faith as a 
 grain of mustard seed, 
 ye shall say unto this 
 mountain, Remove 
 hence to yonder place ; 
 and it shall remove ; 
 and nothing shall be 
 impossible unto you. 
 
 21. BLowbeit this kind 
 
 greatly amazed, and 
 running to if i>H saluted 
 Him. 
 
 16. And He asked the 
 scribes. What question 
 ye with them ? 
 
 17. And one of the 
 multitude answered 
 and said, Master, I 
 have brought unto Thee 
 my son, which hath a 
 dumb spirit ; 
 
 18. And wheresover 
 he taketh him, he tear- 
 eth him : and he foam- 
 eth, and gnasheth with 
 his teeth, and pineth 
 away : and I spake to 
 Thy disciples that they 
 should cast him out ; 
 and they could not. 
 
 19. He answereth 
 him, and saith, O faith- 
 less generation, how 
 long shall I be with 
 you ? how long shall 
 I suffer you ? brin 
 him unto Me. 
 
 20. And they brought 
 him unto Him : and 
 when He saw him, 
 straightway the spirit 
 tare him ; and he fell 
 on the ground, and 
 wallowed foaming. 
 
 21. And He asked 
 his father, How long is 
 
 ter, I beseech Thee, 
 look upon my son : for 
 he is mine only child. 
 
 39. And, lo, a spirit 
 taketh him, and he 
 suddenly crieth out ; 
 and it teareth him that 
 he foameth again, and 
 bruising him hardly 
 departeth from him. 
 
 40. And I besought 
 Thy disciples to cast 
 him out; and they 
 could not. 
 
 41. And Jesus an- 
 swering said, O faith- 
 less and perverse gene- 
 ration, how long shall 
 I be with you, and 
 sufier you ? Bring thy 
 son hither. 
 
 42. And as he was 
 yet a coming, the devil 
 threw him down, and 
 tare him. And Jesus 
 rebuked the unclean 
 spirit, and healed the 
 child, and delivered 
 him again to his father. 
 
128 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 goeth not out but by it ago since this camei 
 prayer and fasting. unto bim ? And he 
 ! said, Of a child. 
 I 22. And ofttimes 
 it hath cast him into 
 the fire, and into the 
 i waters, to destroy him : 
 but if Thou canst do 
 any thing, have com- 
 j passion on us, and help 
 I ua. 
 
 I 23. Jesas said unto 
 i him, If thou canst be- 
 j lieve, all things are pos- 
 isible to him that be- 
 lieveth. 
 
 24. And straightway 
 
 the father of the child 
 
 . cried out, and said with 
 
 ; tears, Lord, I believe ; 
 
 help Thou mine unbe- 
 
 i lief. 
 
 j 25. When Jesus saw 
 !that the people came 
 i running together. He 
 , rebuked the foid spirit, 
 I saying unto him, Thou 
 I dumb and deaf spirit,] 
 jl charge thee, come! 
 lout of him, and enter! 
 I no raore into him. 
 ! 26. And the spirit\ 
 cried, and rent him sore, | 
 and came out of him : ' 
 and he was as one 
 I dead; insomuch that 
 imany said. He is dead. 
 
THE HEALING OF THE LUNATIC CHILD. 
 
 129 
 
 27. But Jesus took 
 him by the hand, and 
 lifted him up ; and he 
 arose. 
 
 28. And when He was 
 come into the house, 
 His disciples asked Him 
 privately, Why could 
 not we cast him out ? 
 
 29. And He said unto 
 them. This kind can 
 come forth by nothing, 
 but by prayer and fast- 
 in.s:. 
 
 Tliis case differs in one or two particulars from all 
 tlie preceding. 
 
 St. Matthew calls him a " lunatic/' and proceeds to 
 describe his disease as of the epileptic kind; a fact 
 which is much amplified in St. Mark's account, where 
 we have tearing, foaming at the mouth, jpining away *, 
 as well as the tendency to fall into the fire and water 
 (mentioned by St. Matthew also), and the statement of 
 the child's father, that the affliction dated from child- 
 hood. St. Luke's description is even more technical than 
 St. Mark's, for he mentions the cry, "he crieth out/' 
 as well as the tearing, foaming, and bruising ; all symp- 
 
 < Delitzsch here suggests that ^ripaiuea-Oai rather means numbnesw 
 or rigidity than " pining away." But it may be added, that iu 
 any case the symptom applies to epilepsy. See his Biblical Psycho- 
 logy, p. 348, Clark's edition. 
 
 K 
 
130 DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 
 
 toms of epilepsy ^ But still all the Evangelists describe 
 the case as one of demoniacal possession; and as such, 
 and not as one of bodily disease, did the Saviour cure 
 it. From this record it appears that the child was 
 a possessed^ ejnleptic lunatic. St. Matthew says that 
 Christ " rebuked the devil, and he departed out of him, 
 and the child was cured from that very hour.^' St. Mark 
 describes how the " dumb and deaf spirit '' was charged 
 to come out of him; while St. Luke^s account is concise 
 and unmistakable : " And Jesus rebuked the unclean 
 spirit, and healed the child.^^ He distinctly describes 
 the bodily symptoms, admits the spiritual influence, 
 and uses the word proper for healing [Idaaro] in 
 describing the miraculous cure. 
 
 Now it must be admitted that St. Luke, as a physician, 
 had in this instance every reason to represent the case 
 as one of epileptic mania. Hence his directly ascribing 
 it to demoniacal possession must be taken as a very strong 
 evidence of his conviction, that although medically it 
 seemed otherwise, yet truth obliofed him to put the 
 true cause forward. The instantaneous cure, in any 
 event, would have been miraculous; but St. Luke^s 
 testimony to demoniacal possession in tJiis case says 
 much for the honesty of his testimony, and for the truth 
 that God is all-powerful over the Evil One. 
 
 ^ I may perhaps be allowed to refer to an essay of mine, " Epilepsy 
 Real and Feigned," in yol. xsxir. of the Dublin Qua/rterly Journal of 
 Medical Science. 
 
THE HEALING OP THE LUNATIC CHILD. 131 
 
 This case is the only one expressly recorded in the Gos- 
 pels as that of a lunatic \_a€\r)via^6fji€vo(;'], one affected at 
 change of the moon; and whether the word is used in 
 H general sense, as we now use it, or, as is more likely, 
 in the ancient and more restricted sense, there is yet 
 much truth in it. Some think it an exploded notion 
 that lunatics are affected by the moon, but others do not 
 agree with them. In the case which I have before 
 mentioned as coming within my own knowledge, there 
 was an undoubted access of mania at such times; and the 
 treatment adopted was to give the patient grain doses 
 of Tartar emetic, which had the effect of calming her 
 considerably. In St. Matthew iv. 24 also, as before 
 noted, lunatics '[a-eXrjvia^o/jLevoi] are mentioned as a 
 class. There is no other mention of them in the N. T. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 DEOPST. 
 
 * CHAPTER VI. 
 
 DEOPSY. 
 THE MAN WITH THE DEOPSY. 
 
 St. Luke xiv. 1 — 4. 
 
 1. And it came to pass^ as He went into the house of 
 one of the chief Pharisees^ to eat bread on the sabbath 
 day, that they watched Him. 
 
 2. And, behold, there was a certain man before Him 
 which had the dropsy. 
 
 3. And Jesus, answering, spake unto the lawyers and 
 Pharisees, saying. Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath 
 
 day? 
 
 4. And they held their peace. And He took Mm, and 
 healed him, and let him go. 
 
 This miracle is related only by St. Luke ; and his 
 account of it is remarkable for the use of the word 
 [yBpcoTTLKo^] translated, *^^a man which had the 
 dropsy/' literally, ''a dropsical person" It is an 
 adjectival form of the technical word [i;8/3a)i/r] dropsy, 
 used by Hippocrates, which word is by some held 
 to imply the alteration of the countenance [w^/r] , and 
 
THE MAN WITH THE DROPSY. 133 
 
 from that, the alteration of the outward appearance, by 
 the infiltration of water [vScop] \ 
 
 Dropsy may be general or local, acute or chronic. 
 It consists in an effusion of serum (a watery fluid), or 
 of serum mixed with flakes of what is technically 
 termed coagulable lymph, or with purulent matter, into 
 the cellular membranes of the extremities, or into 
 cavities of the body lined by what are termed " serous ^^ 
 membranes. The causes of some dropsical efiusions are 
 inflammation, febrile action, debility, and venous con- 
 gestion. The causes of others, and these the most 
 serious, are organic disease leading to congestion, and 
 organic disease leading to an essential alteration in the 
 blood, such, e. g., as disease of the kidney. 
 
 When the cause of dropsy does not depend on 
 organic disease, the afi'ection itself is curable ; when it 
 does depend on organic disease of long standing and 
 severity, what physicians call the ^'' prognosis ^^ is 
 most unfavourable. And so it appears to have been in 
 this case. From the expression, '^ if an ass or an ox 
 fall into a pit,'' used by our Saviour in v. 7, by way of 
 analogy (an expression similar to that of ^^ loosing '' 
 the woman who was " bound '' with a spirit of infirmity, 
 in St. Luke xiii.), it may be inferred that this man was 
 literally '^ water-logged ;" that his was a grave case of 
 chronic and organic disease ; one which we know was 
 ^ For another, and perhaps better view, see Liddell and Scott, under 
 
134 BEOPSY. 
 
 all but liopeless_, and wliich in any event could not be 
 cured at once^ and by a word or touch. 
 
 It is to be noted bere that the cure could not be 
 ascribed to natural causes_, because no disease of this 
 kind was ever cured by strong mental impression^ or 
 by any means in a moment ; that it was not a trifling 
 affection_, for St. Luke describes it by a technical term 
 applied only to a serious disorder; and that there is 
 no evidence of pretended cure^ or of accommodation 
 to the prevailing superstitions of the day. We are 
 expressly told that the working of this miracle was 
 watched in a hostile spirit (v. 1) ; that they were not 
 able to " answer/^ much less to criticize (vv. 4 and 6) or 
 controvert^ the fact ; that the man in whom the cure 
 was wrought not only was " healed '' — and this in the 
 medical language of healing [_ldcraTo] — but that he 
 went away healed before them all. Christ dismissed 
 him [aTTeXvae] ; or^ as the English Version has it^ '^He 
 let him go," 
 
THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD. 
 
 i::;."^ 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 MENORRHAGIA. 
 
 THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD. 
 
 St. Matt. ix. 20—22. I St. Mark v. 25—34. 
 
 20. And, behold, a 
 woman, which was 
 diseased with an issue 
 of blood twelve years, 
 came behind Hbn, and 
 touched the hem of His 
 garment : 
 
 21. For she said 
 within herself, If I 
 may but touch His 
 garment, I shall be 
 whole. 
 
 22. But Jesus turned 
 Him about ; and when 
 He saw her, He said, 
 Daughter, be of good 
 comfort ; thy faith hath 
 made thee whole. And 
 the woman was made 
 whole from that hour 
 
 25. And a certain 
 woman, which had an 
 issue of blood twelve 
 years, 
 
 26. And had suffered 
 many things of many 
 physicians, and had 
 spent all that she had, 
 and was nothing bet- 
 tered, but rather grew 
 worse, 
 
 27. When she had 
 heard of Jesus, came in 
 the press behind, and 
 touched His garment 
 
 28. For she said, If 
 I may touch but His 
 clothes, I shall be 
 whole. 
 
 29. And straightway 
 the fountain of her 
 blood was dried up; 
 
 St. Luke viii. 43—18. 
 
 43. And a woman 
 having an issue of 
 blood twelve years, 
 which had spent all Jicr 
 living upon physicians, 
 neither could be healed 
 of any, 
 
 44. Came behind Him, 
 and touched the border 
 of His garment: and 
 immediately her issue 
 of blood stanched. 
 
 45. And Jesus said, 
 Wlio touched Me ? 
 When all denied, Peter, 
 and they that were with 
 Him, said. Master, the 
 multitude throng Tliee 
 and press Thee, and 
 sayest thou. Who touch - 
 ed Me ? 
 
 46. And Jesus said, 
 
186 
 
 MENOEEHAGIA. 
 
 and she felt in her 
 body that she was 
 healed of that plague. 
 
 30. And Jesus, im- 
 mediately knowing in 
 Himself that virtue 
 had gone out of Him, 
 turned Him about in 
 the press, and said, 
 Who touched My 
 clothes ? 
 
 31. And His disci- 
 ples said unto Him, 
 Thou seest the multi- 
 tude thronging Thee, 
 and sayest Thou, Who 
 touched Me ? 
 
 32. And He looked 
 round about to see her 
 that had done this 
 thing. 
 
 33. But the woman, 
 fearing and trembling, 
 knowing what was 
 done in her, came and 
 fell down before Him, 
 and told Him all the 
 truth. 
 
 34. And He said 
 unto her, Daughter, 
 thy faith hath made 
 thee whole: go in peace, 
 and be whole of thy 
 plague. 
 
 Somebody hath touch- 
 ed Me : for I perceive 
 that virtue is gone out 
 of Me. 
 
 47. And when the 
 woman saw that she 
 was not hid, she came 
 trembling, and falling 
 down before Him, she 
 declared unto Him, be- 
 fore all the people, for 
 what cause she had 
 touched Him, and how 
 she was healed imme- 
 diately. 
 
 48. And He said unto 
 her, Daughter, be of 
 good comfort : thy faith 
 hath made thee whole : 
 go in peace. 
 
 This miracle is narrated witli great minuteness by 
 SS. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Their story is identical ; 
 
THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD. 137 
 
 and the peculiarities of verbiage would supply mucli 
 matter for interesting comment^ tending to confirm the 
 honesty of the Evangelists and the medical accuracy of 
 St. Luke^ were not the subject itself one which could 
 not prudently be enlarged on in this treatise. A few 
 general remarks may^ however, be made about it. 
 
 The expression, " issue of blood," is a Eabbinical 
 one', and in Holy Scripture is only applied to the 
 two cases, normal and abnormal, provided for by the 
 law of Moses in Lev. xv. (vv. 19, to the end). The 
 former being a natural function, of course is not a 
 disease ; while the latter — that under which this woman 
 laboured — caused a permanent legal uncleanness, and to 
 the sufferer herself was the source of the greatest 
 mental and bodily misery. Moreover, when long con- 
 tinued it was incurable ^ ; and, in any case, the great 
 variety of treatment recommended for it would show 
 that ordinarily it was not amenable to the skill of the 
 physician. Much of the treatment then pursued was 
 what we should now call barbarous or useless ; but even 
 
 1 Article, " Blood, Issue of," in Smith's D. B. 
 
 2 " Non vero ex uteris venis, sed iis quee in collo uteri et cervieis, 
 aperiuntur, quas bsemorrlioides vocant, sicut illas in ano profluxit." 
 — Bartholini, Op. cit. p. 1555. He also quotes Mercurialis " Doctis- 
 simus " as saying, " Fluxus ille mulieris omuino erat incurabilis." Too 
 little is known of his learned work " De Morbis Biblicis " (which -is 
 also in Ugolini's " Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum"); and in which 
 his essays are so minute that he not only includes among Morhi Bihlici 
 all cases of raising from the dead, but " De pisce in quo sepultus 
 Jonas." 
 
138 
 
 MENOERHAGIA. 
 
 at present a long-continued confirmed case may be said 
 to be incurable, so far as the physician is concerned. 
 St. Matthew (ix.20) calls this person [yvvrj al/Jioppova-a] 
 " a woman which was diseased with an issue of blood " — 
 a case of constant haemorrhage. St. Mark and St. 
 Luke describe her as [ovaa iv pvaeo ai/jiaTO's], ^^ which 
 had an issue of blood/' " having an issue of blood f' 
 and all agree in the statement that she had suffered for 
 twelve years under her affliction. 
 
 As in other cases to which attention has been drawn_, 
 St. Matthew's description is brief; St. Mark's is more 
 full, evidently that of an eye-witness; while St. Luke's 
 is such as a physician would be expected to give. St. 
 Matthew briefly records how she came behind the 
 Saviour, and touched the hem of His garment; " for she 
 said within herself. If I may but touch His garment, I 
 shall be whole." He then tells how the Lord addressed 
 her; and concludes with the statement that she ^^was 
 made whole from that hour." St. Mark tells all this 
 in slightly varied words; but he informs us that she "had 
 suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent 
 all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather 
 grew worse." She had tried all human means to no 
 purpose; and what an amount of trial and patience and 
 expense this involved can scarce be imagined by us ^. 
 
 3 Lightfoot (" Horae Hebraicse," on St. Mark v. 26) gives a wonderful 
 Pharmacopoeia of the remedies in question. Dr. A. Clarke gives some 
 of them in his note on St. Mark v. 26, and remarks that from some of 
 
THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD. 139 
 
 But lie also tells us tliat " straightway ^' [evdem] " the 
 fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her 
 body that she was healed of that plague/' Every physi- 
 cian will testify to the force and truth of the words in 
 this verse. It is perfectly true that the disease flowed 
 from a fountain; and that it was literally a plague. 
 St. Mark further relates the Saviour's question, " Who 
 touched My clothes ? " and adds how the woman ^' fell 
 down before Him, and told Him all the truth." Now 
 St. Luke's honesty is shown by his not omitting the 
 mention of the failure of medical means in this case; 
 while, on the other hand, he is not severe on his own 
 calling; but looks at the facts under another aspect. 
 He does not relate how much she suffered from the 
 several physicians, or how she grew worse rather than 
 better under medical treatment. He says only, that 
 she could not be healed by any of them — that her case 
 was beyond medical treatment [ovk layyaev vir ovhevo<i 
 OepairevOiivai] . Also, when he comes to speak of the 
 expense she was at, he uses a word [TrpoaavdXayaaa-a] 
 which means ordinary or fair expenditure to the utmost"*, 
 
 these she could not be bettered ; while from others she must be made 
 worse. 
 
 4 I take this from Dr. Freind, the inseparable friend of the cele- 
 brated Bishop Atterbury. In his " History of Physick " (1725, vol. i. 
 pp. 221, &c.) he compares the word used by St. Mark with that used 
 by St. Luke. The word irpoaavaXicKca occurs here only in the New 
 Testament; but avaXiaKw, the meaning of which is not quite the same, 
 occurs in St. Luke ix. 54; Gal. v. 15 j and 2 Thess. ii. 8. In Major's 
 
140 , MENOREHAGIA. 
 
 in contrast to tlie word S^aizavridaGo^ used by St. 
 Markj and wliicti strictly means spending riotously or 
 luxuriously J in wliicli sense St. Luke uses it (ch. xv. 14) 
 in tlie case of the prodigal son. St. Matthew says of 
 this woman [ecrw^/^] , " She was made whole. ^^ St. Mark 
 uses a Hebrew figure^ and says \_e^ripdv6ri r) TrrjyT] rrj^ 
 ULfMaro^il, ''^the fountain of her blood was dried up;^^ 
 while St. Luke uses the technical and more correct 
 phrase \_earr} rj pvat^'], " tYLQ issue stopped/^ "was 
 staunched." St. Luke also notes how the woman con- 
 fessed "before all the people for what cause she had 
 touched Him/^ — a cause which he^ as a physician^ knew 
 she would utterly shrink from under ordinary circum- 
 stances. In fact this story, triply told, teems with un- 
 designed coincidences; with evident truthfulness on the 
 part of the narrators; and with special and honest 
 accuracy on the part of St. Luke, whose account, if 
 loosely worded, would be more open to hostile criticism 
 than either of the others. Modesty forbade this woman 
 to make a public appeal to Christ; and so she but 
 
 edition of Rose and Parkhurst's " Lexicon to the New Testament " 
 (1851) the meaning of the former word is given as to spend entirely. 
 See, however, Liddell and Scott under both words. Dr. Freind's exact 
 words are : " And you may observe, that when he comes to speak of 
 the charges the woman had been at, he uses a very proper expres- 
 sion (not implying censure on his profession), irpoaavaXdjaaaa, whereas 
 the word dairavijaaa-a, used by St. Mai-k, properly signifies spending 
 only in a riotous and luxurious manner ; and so St. Luke applies it 
 (xv. 14) in the case of the prodigal son." 
 
THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OP BLOOD. 141 
 
 touclied the liem of His garment. Even this toucli 
 would legally make it unclean^ were slie not healed at 
 once. There was here no delusion. " She felt in her 
 body that she was healed of that plague. ''^ No one thus 
 healed could make a mistake as to the fact. It may be 
 noted with reference to St. Matthew^s words [ywrj 
 ai/moppovaa], ^*'a woman which was diseased with an issue 
 of blood/^ that they identify the disease with a similar 
 description of Hippocrates \_p6ov ai/narajSri ^] , applied by 
 the father of Greek medicine to the natural function; 
 but which function when exaggerated^ or excessive^ or 
 long continued — as in this case^ for twelve years — or as 
 resulting from internal organic disease, becomes in- 
 curable. I know a case at present answering in every 
 particular to that mentioned in the Gospels. So much 
 so indeed, that to describe it would simply be to go 
 over the details of the Gospel narratives afresh. 
 
 And is it unworthy of consideration that St. Luke 
 may have had some professional knowledge of this case ? 
 The clear distinction between his description of how the 
 woman had been long under medical treatment, and 
 that of St. Mark, already referred to, may throw light 
 on this question. 
 
 6 "De Morbis," lib. i. sec. 3. 
 
142 OPHTHALMIC DISEASE. 
 
 CHAPTER YIII. 
 
 OPHTHALMIC DISEASE. 
 
 THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF THE TWO BLIND IN THE 
 
 HOUSE. 
 
 St. Matt. ix. 27—31. 
 
 27. And wlien Jesus departed thence, two blind men 
 followed Him, crying, and saying, Thou son of David, 
 have mercy on us. 
 
 28. And when He was come into the house, the blind 
 men came to Him: and Jesus saith unto them. Believe 
 ye that I am able to do this ? They said unto Him, 
 Yea, Lord. 
 
 29. Then touched He their eyes, saying. According 
 to your faith be it unto you. 
 
 30. And their eyes were opened : and Jesus straightly 
 charged them, saying. See that no man know it. 
 
 31 . But they, when they were departed, spread abroad 
 His fame in all that country. 
 
 The recovering of sight to the blind was one of the 
 offices of the Messiah foretold in prophecy, and fully 
 expected by the people in a country where blindness 
 
THE TWO BLIND IN THE HOUSE. 14 
 
 o 
 
 was mucli more common tlian it is with us. And, 
 indeed, it is so still in tlie East. From various causes 
 depending on the nature of the soil, the climate, and 
 the social habits of the people, ophthalmic inflammations 
 are common; and, when neglected, they often end in 
 total blindness. The proportion of blind to those who 
 saw was so great in our Saviour^s time ^ as to make this 
 part of the Messiah^ s office, in fact, that of a national 
 deliverer; and so, while this case is the first miraculous 
 cure of blindness mentioned in the Gospels, and one 
 mentioned by St. Matthew only, we find, what we may 
 call, wholesale cures recorded or alluded to, in addition 
 to the particular instances narrated at length by the 
 Evangelists. 
 
 It is not necessary to prove, what every one knows 
 — that cases of bhndness caused in one of the ways 
 already referred to, as doubtless was the case with these 
 
 ^ '* Their frequent recurrence need not surprise us ; for blindness 
 throughout all the East is a far commoner calamity than with us. 
 For this there are many causes. The dust and flying sand, pulverized 
 and reduced to minutest particles, enters the eyes, causing inflamma- 
 tions which, being neglected, end frequently in total loss of sight. 
 The sleeping in the open air, on the roofs of the houses, and the 
 consequent exposiu*e of the eyes to the noxious nightly dews, is ano- 
 ther source of this malady. A modern traveller calculates that there 
 are four thousand in Cairo alone ; and another, that you may reckon 
 twenty such in every hundred persons. In Syria, it is true, the pro- 
 portion of blind is not at all so great, yet there also the calamity is 
 far commoner than in western lands ; so that we find humane regu- 
 lations concerning the blind, as concerning a class, in the Law 
 (Lev. xix. 14. Deut. xxvii. 18)." — Trench on Miracles, p. 199. 
 
144 OPHTHALMIC DISEASE. 
 
 two men (for they are spoken of as part of tlie ordinary 
 blind population) — it is not necessary to prove that they 
 were cases which could not be relieved by human 
 means. The profession of the modern surgeon-oculist 
 maybe said not to have existed then; but, in any case, 
 a skilled member of that branch of the surgical pro- 
 fession could not do any thing for these men, even 
 in the way of alleviation. The world was one dark 
 night to them, as it is to the large numbers of blind who 
 inhabit our workhouses and asylums for the blind. Nor 
 was this a case in which there could be delusion on the 
 part of the men themselves. A man may fancy himself 
 relieved, or really feel relieved, in some cases of disease; 
 but between seeing and not seeing there is no middle 
 path. The fact or the delusion is one apparent and un- 
 mistakable to the public, as well as to the patients 
 themselves. 
 
 " Their eyes were opened ; '^ and this after the sacra- 
 mental rite, or means of touch, referred to more parti- 
 cularly in the remarks on the healing of Simon^s wife^s 
 mother (see chap, ii.) . It is not possible, by any amount 
 of explaining away, to make " blind men '' to be persons 
 who saw any thing ; or to make " opening their eyes ^' 
 to mean leaving them really just as they were. Nor is 
 it possible to connect any mere medical efficacy with 
 the act of touching the sightless organs of vision ; nor, 
 were it possible to regard touching the eyes as a figure 
 for performing some delicate surgical operation, would 
 
THE BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA. 145 
 
 this fit the case either^ inasmuch as such an operation 
 — e. g. one for cataract — is slowly done^ and the good 
 result, if any, is not attained at once. Very far from 
 it indeed. Nor would any surgeon perform such an 
 operation on two eyes of the one person about the same 
 time. He would wait to see the result of the firsts 
 before risking his last chance with the second. 
 
 THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BLIND AT BETHSAIDA. 
 
 St. Mark \aii. 22—26. 
 
 22. And He cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a 
 blind man unto Him, and besought Him to touch him. 
 
 23. And He took the blind man by the hand, and 
 led him out of the town; and when He had spit on 
 his eyes, and put Plis hands upon him, He asked him 
 if he saw ought. 
 
 24. And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, 
 walking. 
 
 25. After that He put His hands again upon his 
 eyes, and made him look up : and he was restored, and 
 saw every man clearly. 
 
 26. And He sent him away to his house, saying, 
 Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town. 
 
 This miracle, mentioned by St. Mark only, was per- 
 formed on one who, doubtless, was made blind from 
 some of the causes referred to in the former part of 
 this chapter, where the fitness of such cases of blindness 
 
 L 
 
146 OPHTHALMIC DISEASE. 
 
 for tlie exercise of miraculous power, and the impos- 
 sibility of delusion, or of explaining tliem away on 
 natural or medical causes, has been discussed. 
 
 It is to be noted in this instance, that there was no 
 mistake as to the fact of the man being really blind ; 
 for we read that Christ '' took the blind man by the 
 hand, and led him out of the town;^^ and from the 
 minuteness of the story it is almost evident that St. 
 Mark, or St. Mark's immediate informant, must have 
 been an eye-witness of the miracle. His account, 
 moreover, bears on it the stamp of truth, for this was 
 not an instantaneous cure; and yet he represents it 
 not to have been immediate, which he would not have 
 done had it been his object merely to relate a wonderful 
 story. 
 
 Although some have written as if this man had been 
 born blind', yet I do not think that there is any ground 
 for such an opinion. The language of the man himself 
 rather leads to the opinion that he was bUnd from 
 disease: '^1 see men, as trees, walking ^;^^ for such, I 
 suggest, ought to be the mode of reading the passage. 
 Or, as it has been put in a more expanded form — 
 though the Scriptural language is quite natural enough 
 
 2 " Moreover, from his having no knowledge of the regulation of 
 vision from experience, they (the objects of vision) were of unnatural 
 size like trees, yet known to him as men from their motions." — Wil- 
 liams' " Devotional Commentary on the Gospel Narrative," vol. v. 59, 
 1870. 
 
 *^ See a more literal translation towards the close of this section. 
 
THE BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA. 147 
 
 in such a case — " I see men. I see them standing still, 
 and dimlj as trees. I now see them walking'." 
 
 If he had never seen a man until then, he would 
 not know his figure and appearance from that of a tree. 
 In Cheselden's well-known account^ of a child con- 
 genitally blind, and afterwards restored to sight, we 
 are told that until experience taught him otherwise, 
 he did not know the shape or magnitude of any thing ^ 
 The cure here was progressive, not instantaneous; 
 and it is remarkable from the apparent use of human 
 means to expedite or accomplish the restoration to 
 sight. We are told that Christ was "besought'' to 
 " touch '' the subject of the affliction, the well-known 
 
 * Bp. Wordsworth's note on St. Mark viii. 24. 
 
 ^ "Anatomy," p. 300, London, 1784, 12th ed.— This young man was 
 born blind, or had lost his sight so early that he had no remembrance 
 of ever having seen, and was couched when nearly fourteen years of age. 
 In such cases, Cheselden remarks that patients are never so blind but 
 that they can discern day from night, and also colours in a strong light. 
 When this lad first saw he had no judgment of distances, but thought 
 all objects touched his eyes, " as what he felt touched his skin, and 
 thought no objects so agreeable as those which were smooth and 
 regular, though he could form no judgment of their shape, or guess 
 what it was in any object that was pleasing to him : he knew not the 
 shape of any thing, nor any one thing from another, however different 
 in shape or magnitude." He only gradually learned to know thirds 
 by sight ; and used to help his want by feeling : e. g. by rubbing 
 down a cat, he learned to associate the feeling with sight, and so got 
 to distinguish between a cat and a dog. 
 
 « This agi-ees with Locke's theory (" Essay on the Understanding," 
 b. ii. ch. ix. sec. 8). 
 
 L 2 
 
148 OPHTHALMIC DISEASE. 
 
 power of tke Saviour to heal blindness having been 
 observed to be associated with touching. Before 
 touching, however, He " spit on his eyes.^^ It has 
 been supposed that this was done in order to 
 sepai'ate the eyelids, which may have been adherent 
 from a morbid discharge, as we often see in cases of 
 ophthalmia. It did not require a miracle to separate 
 Tthe eyelids, and so one was not wrought, but ordinary 
 means were used for this purpose ; and human saliva, 
 I)eing at that time deemed a highly curative agent, was 
 probably used to inspire confidence or faith in the man 
 -and in those who brought him to Jesus. 
 
 The healing itself, however, was miraculous, and 
 began where the human means ended ; and the pro- 
 gressive restoration, showing the improvement of the 
 sight, from darkness to light, from dim confu'* 
 sion to perfect clearness, is thoroughly natural, and in 
 such order as would occur in restoration to sight by 
 surgical means. Moreover, the loss of this man's 
 sight may have been in like manner progressive, as it 
 generally is in such cases. The cure, though pro- 
 gressive, was not graclualj like human cures ; for al- 
 though the man at first said, " I behold men, for I see 
 them as trees walking ^'^ [ySXeVw Tov<i avOpcoTTov^, on 
 ft)? hevhpa opo) irepnrarovvTa'i], yet the context shows 
 that immediately afterwards the Saviour "put His hands 
 
 ' Dean Alford's revised translation. 
 
THE TWO BLIND MEN NEAR JERICHO. 
 
 149 
 
 again upon his [the man's] eyes, and made him look 
 up, and he was restored [airoKaTeardOri] , and saw every 
 man clearly'' SjcaX ive/SXeyjre, ryXavyM^]. Here it is 
 plain that he was '' restored." The original word means 
 restitution to the state he was in before, and so he 
 could not have been born blind. And he saw every 
 man " clearly." The perfection of the cure is set down 
 in terms which cannot be explained away, or made 
 to mean medical treatment of any kind. 
 
 THE OPENING OF THE EYES OP TWO BLIND MEN NEAR 
 
 JERICHO. 
 
 St. Matt. XX. 29—34. 
 
 29. And as they de 
 parted from Jericho, a 
 great multitude fol- 
 lowed Him. 
 
 30. And, behold, two 
 blind men, sitting by the 
 way side, when they 
 heard that Jesus passed 
 by, cried out, saying. 
 Have mercy on us, O 
 Lord, Thou Son of Da- 
 vid. 
 
 31. And the multi- 
 tude rebuked them, 
 because they should 
 hold their peace : but 
 they cried the more, 
 saying, Hare mercy on 
 
 St. Mark x. 46—52. 
 
 46. And they came to 
 Jericho : and as He 
 went out of Jericho 
 w^ith His disciples and a 
 great number of peo- 
 ple, blind Bartimaeusj 
 the son of Timasus, sat 
 by the highway side 
 begging. 
 
 47. And when he 
 heard that it was Jesus 
 of Nazareth, he began 
 to cry out, and say, i 
 Jesus, Thou son of 
 David, have mercy on 
 me I 
 
 4^. And many charg- , 
 ed him thai he should 
 
 St. Luke xviii. 35 — 43. 
 
 35. And it came to 
 jPass, that as He was 
 
 come nigh unto Jeri- 
 cho, a certain blind 
 
 jman sat by the way 
 
 ! side, begging : 
 
 36. And hearing the 
 multitude pass by, he 
 asked what it meant. 
 
 37. And they told 
 him, that Jesus of Na- 
 zareth passeth by. 
 
 38. And he cried, 
 saying, Jesus, Thou son 
 of David, have mercy 
 on me. 
 
 39. And they which 
 went before rebuked 
 
150 
 
 OPHTHALMIC DISEASE. 
 
 us, Lord, Thou Son of 
 David. 
 
 32. And Jesus stood 
 still, and called them 
 and said, What will ye 
 that I shall do unto 
 you? 
 
 33. They say unto 
 Him, Lord, that our 
 eyes may be opened. 
 
 34. So Jesus had 
 compassion on them, 
 and touched their eyes : 
 and immediately their 
 eyes received sight, and 
 thev followed Him. 
 
 hold his peace : but he 
 cried the more a great 
 deal, Thou son of Da- 
 vid, have mercy on me. 
 
 49. And Jesus stood 
 still, and commanded 
 him to be called. And 
 they call the blind man, 
 saying unto him, Be of 
 good comfort, rise ; He 
 calleth thee. 
 
 50. And he, casting 
 away his garment, 
 rose, and came to 
 Jesus. 
 
 51. And Jesus an- 
 swered and said unto 
 him. What wilt thou 
 that I should do 
 unto thee ? The blind 
 man said unto Him, 
 Lord, that I might re- 
 ceive my sight. 
 
 52. And Jesus said 
 unto him. Go thy way ; 
 thy faith hath made 
 thee whole. And im- 
 mediately he received 
 his sight, and followed 
 Jesus in the way. 
 
 Assuming that tlie three accounts above referred to 
 relate to tlie same circumstance^ it must be noted that 
 there is considerable apparent discrepancy in the Evan- 
 gelical histories, both as to the number of persons 
 healed, the place, and other circumstances. 
 
 him, that he should 
 hold his peace : but he 
 cried so much the more. 
 Thou son of David, 
 jhave mercy on me. 
 
 40. And Jesus stood, 
 and commanded him to 
 be brought unto Him : 
 and when he was come 
 near. He asked him, 
 I 41. Saying, What 
 wilt thou that I shall 
 do unto thee ? And he 
 said, Lord, that I may 
 I receive my sight. 
 
 42. And Jesus said 
 unto him. Receive thy 
 sight : thy faith hath 
 saved thee. 
 
 i 43. And immediately 
 he received his sight, 
 and followed Him, glo- 
 rifying God : and all 
 the people, when they 
 saw it, gave praise 
 unto God. 
 
THE TWO BLIND MEN NEAR JERICHO. 151 
 
 It is not, however, within the scope of these remarks 
 to show that the discrepancy is rather apparent than 
 real, for students will elsewhere get the clearest infor- 
 mation regarding it'. But it may be added that it has 
 been concluded that not one, but three miracles, are 
 here enumerated. The argument which leads to 
 this conclusion is ingenious and deserves conside- 
 ration''; but in either case, or, rather, in any case, 
 we have here a miraculous cure, or cures, which, as 
 noted in the former sections of this chapter, cannot be 
 explained away on any medical or figurative hypothesis. 
 
 8 Trench's "Miracles," p. 428, Op. cit. ; Williams's "Devotional 
 Commentary on the Gospel Narrative," vol. v. 474 (1870). 
 
 9 See Pound's " Storv of the Gospels," vol. ii. 321, London, 1869. 
 
152 OEGANIC DEFECTS OF ORGANS OF SENSE. 
 
 CHAPTEK IX. 
 
 ORGANIC DEFECTS OF ORGANS OF SENSE. 
 THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BORN BLIND. 
 
 St. Jolin ix. 
 
 1 . And as Jesus passed by^ He saw a man wMcli was 
 blind from his birth. 
 
 2. And His disciples asked Him, saying_, Master, 
 who did sin_, this man, or bis parents, that he was 
 born blind ? 
 
 3. Jesus answered. Neither hath this man sinned, nor 
 his parents : but that the works of God should be made 
 manifest in him. 
 
 4. I must work the works of Him that sent Me, 
 while it is day : the night cometh, when no man can 
 work. 
 
 5. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of 
 the world. 
 
 6. When He had thus spoken, He spat on the ground, 
 and made clay of the spittle, and He anointed the eyes 
 of the blind man with the clay, 
 
 7. And said unto Him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, 
 (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way 
 therefore, and washed, and came seeing. 
 
THE CURE OF ONE BORN BJJND. 153 
 
 8. The neiglibours therefore, and they which before 
 had seen him that he was blind^ said, Is not this he that 
 sat and begged ? 
 
 9. Some said. This is he : others said, He is like him : 
 but he said, I am he. 
 
 10. Therefore said they unto him. How were thine 
 eyes opened ? 
 
 1 1 . He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus 
 made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me. 
 Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash : and I went and 
 washed, and I received sight. 
 
 12. Then said they unto him, Wliere is He ? He said, 
 I know not. 
 
 13. They brought to the Pharisees him that afore- 
 time was blind. 
 
 14. And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made 
 the clay, and opened his eyes. 
 
 15. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he 
 had received his sight. He said unto them. He put 
 clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 
 
 16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is 
 not of God, because He keepeth not the sabbath day. 
 Others said. How can a man that is a sinner do such 
 miracles ? And there was a division among them. 
 
 17. They say unto the blind man again. What sayest 
 thou of Him, that He hath opened thine eyes ? He 
 said. He is a prophet. 
 
 18. But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that 
 
154 OEGANIC DEFECTS OF ORGAT^S OF SENSE. 
 
 Ke had been blind^ and received his sight, until they 
 called the parents of him that had received his sight. 
 
 19. And they asked them, saying. Is this your son, 
 who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now 
 see ? 
 
 20. His parents answered them and said, We know 
 that this is our son, and that he was born blind : 
 
 21. But by what means he now seeth, we know not; 
 or who hath opened his eyes, we know not ; he is of 
 age; ask him : he shall speak for himself. 
 
 22. These words spake his parents, because they feared 
 the Jews : for the Jews had agreed already, that if any 
 man did confess that He was Christ, he should be put 
 out of the synagogue. 
 
 23. Therefore said his parents. He is of age ; ask him. 
 
 24. Then again called they the man that was blind, 
 and said unto him. Give God the praise : we know that 
 this man is a sinner. 
 
 25. He answered and said. Whether He be a sinner or 
 no J I know not : one thing I know, that, whereas I was 
 blind, now I see. 
 
 26. Then said they to him again. What did He to 
 thee ? how opened He thine eyes ? 
 
 27. He answered them, I have told you already, and 
 ye did not hear : wherefore would ye hear it again ? will 
 ye also be His disciples ? 
 
 28. Then they reviled him, and said. Thou art His 
 disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. 
 
THE CURE OF ONE BORN BLIND. 155 
 
 29. We know that God spake unto Moses : as for 
 this felloiv J we know not from whence He is. 
 
 30. The man answered and said unto them^ Why 
 herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from 
 whence He is, and yet He hath opened mine eyes. 
 
 31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners : but 
 if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, 
 him He heareth. 
 
 32. Since the world began was it not heard that any 
 man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 
 
 33. If this man were not of God, He could do 
 nothing. 
 
 34. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast 
 altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us ? And 
 they cast him out. 
 
 35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out ; and 
 when He had found him. He said unto him. Dost thou 
 believe on the Son of God ? 
 
 36. He answered and said. Who is He, Lord, that I 
 might believe on Him ? 
 
 37. And Jesus said unto him. Thou hast both seen 
 Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. 
 
 38. And he said. Lord, I believe. And he worshipped 
 Him. 
 
 39. And Jesus said. For judgment I am come into 
 this world, that they which see not might see; and 
 that they which see might be made blind. 
 
 40. And some of the Pharisees which were with Him 
 
156 ORGANIC DEFECTS OF ORGANS OF SENSE. 
 
 heard tliese words^ and said unto Him, Are we blind 
 also ? 
 
 41. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should 
 have no sin : but now ye say. We see ; therefore your 
 sin remaineth. 
 
 This miracle, related by St. John only, differs from 
 the preceding miraculous cures of blindness in several 
 particulars. The blindness is expressly stated to have 
 been congenital, and therefore quite hopeless as to re- 
 covery by human skill \ It was not cured with the 
 outward accompaniment of touch, nor with the outward 
 application of saliva, as in the case recorded by St. 
 Mark only (viii. 22 — 26). See previous remarks on 
 this. Nor was this cure progressive, in the same way 
 as that was ; nor yet instantaneous, as in the cases re- 
 corded by St. Matthew only (ix. 27 — 31). And still 
 it bore some analogy to all of them. Here was touch, 
 as in St. Matthew^s cases ; for Christ " anointed the 
 eyes of the blind man,^^ and this implied touch. Here 
 was the use of saliva, as in St. Mark^s case ; but over 
 and above this. He not only spat on the ground, but 
 "He made clay of the spittle ;^^ not the same use as 
 that adopted in the former case. Nor was the cure yet 
 complete. Christ commanded him to go and wash — that 
 is, wash the parts affected — in the pool of Siloam : and 
 
 1 " Incurabile enim et nativam csecitatem ipse per lutum et divi- 
 nam potestatem abolevit." — Bartholini, Op. cit. p. 1514. 
 
THE CUEE OF ONE BORN BLIND. 157 
 
 we read liow '^ he went his way tlierefore^ andwaslied^ and 
 came seeing/' It is also plain from the rest of the 
 chapter that the case was well-known^ and the cure most 
 signally marked. It was not one of the numerous blind 
 persons before referred to, but some one whose cure 
 produced a powerful effect on public opinion at the 
 time. " The neighbours, therefore, and they which 
 before had seen him, that he was blind, said. Is not 
 this he which sat and begged ? Some said. This is 
 he ; others said. He is like him ; but he said, I am 
 lie.^' The opening of his eyes had so taken away that 
 sad, pensive cast of countenance peculiar to blind per- 
 sons, that his neighbours could not be positive as to 
 his identity, judging from his mere look. 
 
 This is the only miracle recorded in the Gospels of 
 which we learn that there was any thing like a judicial 
 inquiry into its truth ; and it has been concluded that it 
 is recorded because there may have been some question 
 as to the reality of Christ's miracles at the compa- 
 ratively late period at which St. John's Gospel was 
 written, and also because his general object seems to 
 have been to prove the Divinity of Christ. Indeed, as 
 we read throughout this chapter ix., such was the very 
 doctrine questioned by the Pharisees in that particular 
 instance. With regard to all the other miracles, it is 
 noteworthy that there is no record of any real popular 
 doubt as to the facts having occurred. The Jews be- 
 lieved that the miracles did occur, but they ascribed 
 
158 OEGANIC DEFECTS OF ORGANS OF SENSE. 
 
 them to Satan. They admitted that *^Hhis man doeth 
 many miracles ; " and even in the case before us the 
 question as to the fact shows the captiousness of hostile 
 judicial inquiry, rather than real doubt. There was no 
 answer to be made to the poor man's statement,, which 
 they themselves had called for^ and to which he reso- 
 lutely adhered under cross-examination ; so ^'thej cast 
 him out." 
 
 It has already been stated that the Easterns believed 
 in the medicinal efficacy of saliva; and it may be added 
 that they did use it as an eye- salve; nor are we without 
 examples of the medicinal use of clay^; although in this 
 case, perhaps, it had a symbolical meaning, and not a 
 medicinal one, inasmuch as it was the dust itself which was 
 a principal cause of Oriental blindness. And so its use 
 may have been intended to guard against what might 
 have been a popular delusion: that the blindness was 
 cured by medical means. Thus the clay was mixed 
 with the saliva, to show that the cure was not to be 
 due to it, which the Jews used with some accompanying 
 charms; and yet, at the same time, to inspire faith in 
 the subject, and in the bystanders, by the use of some 
 external means which the blind man could appreciate. 
 He could not see the spitting, but he did feel and chiefly 
 noticed the anointing with the clay (verse 11). And the 
 washing was doubtless intended to show that there was 
 
 - See Trench, Op. cit. p. 297. 
 
THE CURE OF ONE BORN BLIND. 159 
 
 no pretence at cure by any anointing or other human 
 means. The clay was evidently put on the eyes^ and 
 washed oft' in the pool of Siloam^ whence ^*'he came 
 seeing. ^^ 
 
 It has been objected that Christ did not here perform 
 a miracle at all ; that He did not cure blindness other- 
 wise than any skilful oculist might do it. The reason 
 given for this assertion, that Christ said He needed light 
 (ix. 4), is a very curious one; but a perusal of the text 
 will show that our Lord's words, '^ I must work the 
 works of Him that sent Me, while it is day/' had no 
 reference whatever to His requiring natm-al light. 
 
 As to the miracle being in any sense the operation of 
 a skilful ocuHst, the objection is based on complete 
 ignorance of the history of the treatment of ophthalmic 
 diseases, for it assumes that there were skilful oculists 
 in the East in our Lord's time, and that they were so 
 skilful as to be able to restore sight in a few minutes to 
 a man born blind. It has been suggested that mes- 
 meric or magnetic influence may have had something, or 
 a great deal, to do with this case. But even granting, 
 for the sake of argument, that clay or saliva may have 
 been magnetized, or that mesmeric passes may have 
 been used with the hand, yet it remains to be proved 
 that by this means ordinary blindness could be cured. 
 Whereas all will admit that cure of congenital blindness 
 could not be effected in that or any other way. I do not 
 know that any one has ever professed to have cured 
 
160 ORGANIC DEFECTS OF ORGANS OP SENSE. 
 
 congenital blindness by mesmerism or magnetism; but 
 a good modern authority, who has discussed the ques- 
 tion, states that "a sudden cure, an evident act of 
 sovereignty, has nowhere been witnessed^/^ The same 
 writer believes that the effects of these magnetic forces, 
 ^' in the great generality of cases, are purely natural/^ 
 
 THE HEALING OF ONE DEAF AND DUMB. 
 
 St. Mark vii. 31—37. 
 
 31. And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and 
 Sidon, He came unto the sea of Galilee, through the 
 midst of the coasts of Decapolis. 
 
 32. And they bring unto Him one that was deaf, and 
 had an impediment in his speech ; and they beseech 
 Him to put His hand upon him. 
 
 33. And He took him aside from the multitude, and 
 put His fingers into his ears, and He spit, and touched 
 his tongue ; 
 
 34. And looking up to heaven, He sighed, and saith 
 unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. 
 
 35. And straightway his ears were opened, and the 
 string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. 
 
 36. And He charged them that they should tell no 
 man : but the more He charged them, so much the 
 more a great deal they published it ; 
 
 37. And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He 
 
 ^ Lacordaire's " Conferences," p. 6G, 2nd ed. London, 18G9. 
 
THE HEALING OP ONE DEAF AND DUMB. 101 
 
 hath done all things well : He maketh both the deaf to 
 hear, and the dumb to speak. 
 
 This miracle, related by St Mark only, was per- 
 formed on a deaf and stammering person, who was not 
 dumb in the ordinary sense of the word, but whose 
 speech was so indistinct from deafness and from stam- 
 mering as to be unintelligible. We find here the use 
 of external means, as in the former case, but of means 
 varied to suit the circumstances. It is not necessary to 
 prove that this was a case past medical treatment, inas- 
 much as it arose from defect in an organ of sense; 
 defect of long standing, or it would not have affected 
 the power of speech. Mutes are mute mostly because 
 their hearing has failed, and thus they have lost the 
 power of imitating, which is the way whereby we learn 
 to speak. And, even where there is no failure in hear- 
 ing, shut off a man from the civilized world for a long 
 time, and let him have no one to speak to, and it will 
 be found that he gradually loses the power of articu- 
 lating intelligible language. And so we find in the 
 healing of this man. Christ first put His finger into 
 his ears; symbolical perforators of the obstacle which 
 prevented his hearing, and therefore his speech. Next 
 He spit and touched his tongue, the secondary subject 
 of defect; and then, looked up to heaven, sighed, and 
 said, " Be opened.'^ And straightway his ears were 
 opened, and, the string of his tongue was loosed, and he 
 
162 ORGANIC DEFECTS OF OEGANS OP SENSE. 
 
 spake plain/^ A most correct description^ for the hear- 
 ing was first set rig]it_, and then the stammering; and 
 any one who has heard a bad stammerer knows how he 
 does appear to be literally tongue-tied. It will be said 
 that stammering has been cured. It has : but after 
 what time ? and after the exercise of how great patience 
 and exertion ? Suppose a man whose inability to speak 
 arose from deafness^ and that this' deafness were re- 
 moved at once, would he be able to '' straightway '' 
 ^' speak plain^^ ? No ; he should learn to speak over 
 again : first hear others_, and then imitate them, as 
 children imitate their seniors, and as pupils learning a 
 strange language imitate their teachers. 
 
 This miracle is important, because in it we have a 
 clear distinction between the case of one possessed with 
 an evil spirit (see Chapter Y. on Demoniacal Possession), 
 and one whose condition resulted from congenital 
 deformity or from disease. 
 
 Christ does not here recognize the direct evil in- 
 fluence by saying, '^ I charge thee, thou deaf and dumb 
 spirit, come out of him.''^ On the contrary, the manual and 
 other acts of our Lord, in connexion with tliis act of 
 healing, distinctly point the other way; and there is the 
 plainest distinction between the terms in which St. 
 Mark narrates this miracle, and those in which he 
 details others more particularly referred to in the Chap- 
 ter on Demoniacal Possession. 
 
THE HEALING OP MALCHUS^S EAR. 163 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SUKGICAL INJUEY. 
 THE HEALING OP MALCHUS^S EAE. 
 
 St. Luke xxii. 49 — 51. 
 
 49. Wlieii they wkicli were about Him saw what 
 would follow, they said unto Hira_, Lord, shall we smite 
 with the sword ? 
 
 50. And one of them smote the servant of the high 
 priest, and cut off his right ear. 
 
 51 . And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. 
 And He touched his ear, and healed him. 
 
 This miracle is related by St. Luke only; although 
 the circumstance which led to it — the cutting off of 
 Malchus's ear by the sword of St. Peter — is narrated 
 by the four Evangelists. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to say that the healing of 
 
 Malchus's ear cannot be accounted for on any surgical 
 
 theory. The ear may have been clean cut off, or it may 
 
 have hung by a portion of skin. In any case it could 
 
 not be healed at once, and on the spot; especially when 
 
 we consider the barbarous nature of the surgery in 
 
 those times. 
 
 M 2 
 
164 SURGICAL INJURY. 
 
 Ifc is well known to non-medical persons, that when 
 once a member of the body is cut off, and continuity 
 of tissue completely destroyed, reunion is out of the 
 question. Yet, as there have been some apparent 
 exceptions to this, it may be well to give a case which 
 fell within my own knowledge. 
 
 A young man at work in a dockyard missed his 
 downward stroke with an adze, and cut across the toes 
 and instep of his right foot. A surgeon who was look- 
 ing on at the time, and who published an account of it^, 
 found that the second toe was literally amputated. 
 ^' The thinnest bridle of skin from the sole of the foot 
 prevented its complete separation.''^ This connecting 
 medium was so thin that it did not include a muscular 
 fibre. ^' It was in fact nothing more than a thin shaving 
 of the thickened cuticle of the sole.^^ By dint, however, 
 of well-applied surgical apparatus and constant care, 
 reunion was established in the fifth week after the 
 accident. 
 
 This case, which is a rare one, will serve to prove 
 that the healing of Malchus's ear cannot have been 
 effected by surgical means. If clean cut off, the part 
 separated was dead, and vital reunion by human 
 means was impossible. If, however, the injury in any 
 respect resembled that in the case quoted, as it may 
 
 ' "On the curious Keunion of an Amputated Toe." — Transactions 
 of the County and City of Cork Medical and Surgical Society, 
 1863-63, p. 42. 
 
THE HEALING OP MALCHUS^S EAR. 165 
 
 have done, from our not being told that the Saviour 
 touched any thing but " his ear '' — he is not said to have 
 reset a part of it which fell off — yet, even here, the 
 cure was miraculous. Any piece of skin, as in the case 
 above, would have contained that vitality, and those 
 vessels, microscopic though they be, which would ren- 
 der reunion barely possible. But such reunion could 
 not be accomplished at once by any man. The injury 
 itself was accompanied no doubt by profuse bleeding, 
 and even if reunited, that could not be stopped at once; 
 and so there would not be *^^healing." This is one of those 
 miracles which defy all attempts at explaining away 
 on medical grounds, or on popular fallacy; so that they 
 who admit the truth of the Gospel narrative in any sense 
 can do nothing but accept this story as true. A man 
 who got his ear cut off in a popular tumult might not 
 feel it in the excitement of the moment, but he could 
 not know it was cut off, and then fancy it was healed, 
 when, in truth, it lay on the ground, or hung dangling by 
 his cheek. Nor were the angry people who witnessed 
 this miracle in any mood for credulity. The accident 
 was a common one in those days of hand-to-hand sword 
 warfare; but the cure was previously unknown and so 
 remarkable, that St. Peter could not have escaped the 
 vengeance of the High Priest, had not he been protected 
 by that Master whom he thrice denied, and for whom 
 he afterwards thrice confessed his love. 
 
166 MIRACLES OF HEALING. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I have attempted to prove tlie following points in the 
 preceding pages : — 
 
 1. That the diseases healed by our Lord were such as 
 
 either were not curable by human means^ or 
 
 2. That they were such as were^ or are^ onlj imper- 
 
 fectly cured by man, or 
 
 3. That they were such as were, or are, never cured 
 ^ immediately : 
 
 4. Therefore, that they were well chosen cases, the 
 
 healing of which, under the circumstances peculiar 
 to each, could not be ascribed to human skill. 
 
 5. That they were, in several instances, such diseases as 
 
 were common in the East at the time. 
 
 6. That the denial of the fact of these ctires, and 
 
 7. That the explaining of them away, are modern ob- 
 
 jections, or at least such as were not made at the 
 time of their occurrence. 
 
 8. That the difference between the Jewish and 
 
 Heathen unbelief in the Christian religion in 
 connexion with miracles on the one hand, and 
 
CONCLUSION. 167 
 
 modern unbelief on the other, is the vital ques- 
 tion of the supernatural, which Jew and Heathen 
 believed, while modern unbelievers doubt or deny 
 it: 
 
 9. Hence, that to prove the language of the Gospel 
 
 narratives to be such as might fairly have been 
 expected, it has been shown that 
 
 10. SS. Matthew, Mark, and John write of disease 
 from a popular or common-sense point of view, 
 while St. Luke largely uses the technical language 
 of a physician ; 
 
 1 1 . That all agree as to statements of facts ; 
 
 12. That these cures were not such as could be mis- 
 taken for cures by human skill ; 
 
 13. That their cure was but the restoration of the 
 
 primitive order, health; 
 
 14. That hoiv this was effected, is not more inex- 
 plicable than some notoriously inexplicable truths 
 of medical and physical science in the present day ; 
 
 15. That the undesigned coincidences in the several 
 narratives, and the use of peculiar words by the 
 different Evangelists, confirm the truth of their 
 story in several instances ; and 
 
 16. So furnish a strong proof of the authenticity of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 This' I have endeavoured to do in such a way as will 
 appeal to the educated man, to the theological in- 
 
168 MIEACLES OF HEALING. 
 
 structor^ and to the teaclier of^ and practitioner in 
 medicine. Candour_, and tolerable freedom from pre- 
 judice^ are assumed in the case of every reader; and 
 I trust that if these pages should fall into the hands of 
 the typical young man of this enlightened age^ he will 
 study them with the most necessary, but often disre- 
 garded_, acknowledgment that he is not, and never can 
 be, wise above what is written. 
 
 Praise to Him " who doeth all things well ',^^ " who 
 healeth all our diseases ; and redeemeth our life from 
 destruction.^^ 
 
 THE END. 
 
 GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOBn's SQUARE, LONDON. 
 
OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 REFORMATORIES FOR DRUNKARDS. 8vo. Dublin, 1862. 
 
 NOTES ON THE TREATMENT OF CONTINUED FEVERS, 
 AND OTHER ACUTE DISEASES. 8vo. Dublin, 1863. 
 
 TRACTATUS MEDICI. 8vo. Dublin, 1864. 
 
 MEMOIR OF JOHN STEARNE, M. & J.U.D. ; Senior Fellow of 
 Trinity College, Dublin ; Founder and first President of the College 
 of Phj'sicians. [Tutor of Henry Dodwell, and Cotemporary of 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and James Duke of Ormond.] 8vo. Dublin. 
 Published for the College, 1866. 
 
 MEMOIR OF SIR PATRICK DUN (Knt.), M.D., M.P. ; Physi- 
 cian-General to the Army, and President of the College of Physicians. 
 [Cotemporary of Archbishop King and Dean Swift.] 8vo. Dublin. 
 Published for the College, 1866. 
 
 RECORDS OF THE KING AND QUEEN'S COLLEGE OF 
 PHYSICIANS IN IRELAND, including the Register from 
 1654 to 1866, and Historical Introduction. 8vo. Dublin. Pub- 
 lished for the College, 1866. 
 
 NELIGAN, ON DISEASES OF THE SKIN. Second Edition. 
 Revised and Enlarged ; pp. 526. 8vo. Dublin, 1866. 
 
 THE LAY ELEMENT IN THE SERVICES, PARISH 
 WORK, AND SYNODS OF THE CHURCH, PRACTI- 
 CALLY CONSIDERED [with special reference to the Restoration 
 of the Permanent Diaconate, Deaconnesses, Sunday Schools, Lay 
 Preaching, the Laity in Convocation, and Lord Sandon's proposed 
 Parish Councils]. Svo. London, 1870. 
 
 POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNISM: CHRIST 
 AND C^SAR. A Sermon. 8vo. London, 1871. 
 
BS2419 .B427 
 
 Our Lord's miracles of healing 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00073 0665