was spoken aloud; but this conclusion is quite impossible. In a moment of inward confusion and outward distress, one might indeed assert something contradictory; but this certainly would not be the expression of heterogeneous feelings. A 'Lord, save us,' in the mouth of the disciples, does, certainly, hardly excite the feeling of a judgment in favour of probability. For supposing that they had even, in this the commencement of their communion with our Lord, been inclined to believe Him capable of such a power, it would be difficult to reconcile it with their unmeasured astonishment after the miracle.' But if from this we decide in favour of Mark's account, it will be asked, How are the words to be understood? We would compare it with the expression of Mary at Cana, They have no wine! This last in no way excludes the demand that our Lord should perform a miracle; she simply wished to let Him know the dilemma which had arisen. The intention of the disciples was here similar. It appears unnatural that Jesus should sleep in such danger; at least, they think He ought to share their anxious solicitude.

How natural it is to man to require all persons threatened with him to be attentive in a general calamity, is seen by a striking example in Old Testament history. Jonah the son of Amittai slept in the lower part of the ship when the storm had arisen: 'So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, sleeper? Arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we

1 From the text of Matthew, one can hardly justify the arbitrary assertion, that the expression of astonishment at the deed of our Lord proceeded from the mouth of 'people' who were in the ship as well as the disciples; while the accounts in Mark and Luke decidedly exclude such a supposition. Even Matthew means by the 'people' (chap. viii. 27) no one else than the disciples. This description, in view of the manifestation of divine power, was the appropriate one; at the same time, it makes the astonishment of the witnesses conceivable in itself.

perish not' (Jonah i. 6). Quite in the same sense is our Carest Thou not?'-Thou actest as if the storm is over, as if this danger deserves no attention. Now we must not emphasize too closely the plural, as if the disciples separated themselves from Jesus, and considered themselves only in danger, and that He Him self was safe. They say in the form of communication, without intending a direct question, 'Carest Thou not that we all together perish?' Our Lord arises. But a new difference among the synoptical Gospels meets us to arrest our attention.

According to Matthew, Jesus at first turned toward the disciples with a reproach, and then directed His attention to the storm and the sea. On the other hand, Mark and Luke testify to the reversed order of His conduct; and both are certainly in this also the more faithful reporters. The midst of the storm was hardly the right moment for a reproof to the disciples; at least, it could only be effective when it had been first effectually proved that they were wrong in their care, that they had acted as faithless fools. This miracle is not to be judged from the same point of view as the cures. If often a moral influence preceded the latter, that order was in its right place; for it was important to produce the right state of feeling for the reception of the benefit. On the other hand, here the work of Jesus itself was its own preparation for the reproof which followed; the witnesses of the miracle that had been accomplished were only by witnessing it in a position to value its spiritual interpretation. Thus our Lord turns first to the storm and to the sea. The brief report of Matthew, 'He rebuked the wind and the waves' (Luke has 'the raging of the water'), is supplemented by that of Mark, that He said, 'Peace, be still.' We speak with justice of a supplementing (no dilation) by the second

evangelist. For the word 'rebuked,' on all sides. attested, must plainly have been accomplished in some way intelligible to the witnesses. But we are now arriving at the right understanding. The words in themselves are plain; and whether the 'Peace' relates to the storm, or, on the other hand, the 'Be still' refers to the roaring waves, or whether we prefer not to see any such distinction, is a matter of no importance. According to physics, the one as well as the other ought to be applied to the storm, which indeed raises the sea, and which alone can be considered as a power of nature. The evangelist himself appears to have understood our Lord as if He had directed His command exclusively to the raging sea. Let us pass this by.

Much more important is the question, How does Jesus here appear to us, and how is His conduct conceivable? They have a light task who poetically speak of hostile powers which He sent back bound, within their limits, and necessitated to quietness. They have an easy task; and yet they make the understanding of the passage the more difficult. For to perceive demoniacal sounds in the howling tempest, in the roaring storm, is purely an affair of modern feeling. Scripture knows nothing thereof. It sees absolutely in the storm and in the tempest, the lightning and flames of fire, manifestations of the almighty power and greatness of God, without ever representing them as powers seeking to assert an evil, corruptible, blasphemous will. If it is then the Lord of heaven and earth who makes the winds His angels, and for His ministers the flaming fire, it is certainly easily said that the Son who can rule His Father's household, and at whose command, according to His own declaration, legions of angels stand, that even here He was in a position to command the powers of nature.

But this is not the marrow of the question. Why did He not accomplish what it pleased Him to do by the simple direction of His will? Why these words? That the spoken sounds were not the indispensable condition to the result we know; but they were no less requisite than the laying on of hands on the sick. The end must positively have been for the sake of His own people.

We are urged to the same idea, also, from another point of view. To speak to things or to the powers of nature is not a possibility. One can only speak to those who possess the faculty of speech as well, that is, to men. Everything that our Lord said on earth is the property of men; for them was for them was it intended, and to them it is delivered. What follows? The 'Peace, be still' is spoken for the sake of the disciples. Let us keep this result, in the first place, steadily before us. We now continue. There immediately arose a complete calm; the tempest was silent, the sea became as a smooth mirror, and without being tossed about, the ship lay on the quiet surface.

Jesus now turns to the disciples on the strength of His deed. We discover even here differences among the reports; but they are of no importance. Matthew, 'Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?' Luke, 'Where is your faith?' Mark, 'Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?' The general reproach relates to their fear, their want of courage, of manliness, which, notwithstanding the threatened danger, should have raised its head, and been sure of a good issue, viz. the 'going out of power from Him. Such a confidence is possible. It flows principally from thoughts on Providence, and on its preserving power. The 91st Psalm exalts the happiness of the man who 'dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High,' and 'abideth under the shadow of the

But

Almighty,' and who says to the Lord, 'My refuge and my fortress,'-'my God, in Him will I trust.' how easily does this confidence depart at the immediate view of danger, even from the pious; how soon does his courage fail him! If it is to remain with him, there is need of a power which would keep it erect; and as such Jesus indicates faith.

What have we to understand by this? It cannot possibly indicate again the faith in Providence, and in the protection which it promises. For that is just the confidence which is apt to fade in the moment of danger; and it is not our exertion, but only a new strength which can preserve it and can heighten it. The faith which is in a position to unfold such a quickening power on the glimmering light of confidence, can be nothing else than the 'faith in Jesus!' Faith in God and faith in Jesus certainly hang sufficiently together; but they are also as distinct in experience as in apprehension. Scripture also places them beside one another, and in no way does it mingle them as entirely united. See John xiv. 1, 'Ye believe in God; believe also in me.' On the other hand (Mark xi. 22), 'Have faith in God.' 'Where is your faith?' Thus, then, does the Lord ask, Have you forgotten who I am? Do you not think whom you have with you in the ship? He accuses them not simply of this little faith (Matt. vi. 30), their want of confidence in the protecting hand of Providence; but His reproach is this, that they had here denied their faith in Him, the Messiah. Otherwise they would not have been able to show themselves so timid, but in the midst of danger must have preserved the full feeling of security, without waking from His slumber Him who was with them, and whom they knew belonged to them.1

1 Much in this sense, while narrating a later case, the second evangelist in his reflection raises a similar accusation against the Twelve (Mark vi.