as much in the representation of Mark and of Luke as in those narratives of the Acts of the Apostles, according to which the sick were made whole by the laying on of the handkerchiefs or aprons from Paul (chap xix. 12), or by the shadow of Peter falling on them (chap. v. 15). However, the other side of the question should not studiously be overlooked; it is, that the sick woman revealed an intensity in the confidence of her heart at the time, which completely puts out of sight its wrongful conception. For years she had borne her suffering, and fought against it by the use of the physician's skill. But neither the power of nature nor the endeavours of art had freed her from it. In fact, the last had not made any progress-'she grew worse;" .and it had brought her nothing else but the loss of all her possessions (Mark says: 'she had spent all that she had;' Luke: 'had spent all her living;' she had therefore become extremely poor). Consequently she is convinced that only a miracle could effect her cure. Jesus appears; she will not merely try if His hand could perhaps do something for her, but she firmly believes that He is the right helper.

.

It does not appear to her a necessity that there should be an energetical movement on the part of our Lord, either by word or deed; but the minimum of means, the mere touching of His robe ('If I may but touch'-Matt.; if I may but, if only this), she considered quite sufficient to attain her end. That was a faith which He who discovers the pure vein in the dross knew how to value. Christ showed His goodwill even by the choice of His expression. 'Daughter,' He says to the woman. (In the whole of the New Testament. we meet with this expression here alone, and in the Old Testament but once or twice in the book of Ruth. Our Lord was generally accustomed to say 'Woman' even to His mother and to Mary Magdalene. The ex

pression son (vie) He never uses in a similar sense, and TÉKVOV only occurs once, in Matt. ix. 2.) But let us thoroughly examine the meaning in these assuring words: It is her faith that helped her. What is there in this? Jesus does not say that His clothes had done it; that would be in contradiction to the strongly expressed 'thy faith.' And just as little does He say that He did it; the expression 'thy faith' denies this no less decidedly. It is certain that the woman was cured while she seized the Lord's garment; this is testified by the term 'immediately,' the eveéws of Mark and the πaрaxρñμа of Luke. She was not made whole by simply touching the garment of Jesus, but rather by doing so in faith. It is told us that a thronging multitude surrounded our Lord, and consequently the disciples were astonished at the question of their Master, 'Who touched me?' Let us suppose that among this thronging people there may also have been sick persons, who, being perhaps still nearer and closer than this woman, touched the clothes of Jesus as much as she did, but they were not cured in this manner. Thus also, on the part of our Lord, it was not the movement itself, but that perfected by the hand of faith, of which He became aware. Many touched Him in the throng without His considering it, or even being conscious of it; but this one touched Him in the spirit of faith, and in such a manner that He could have had no physical sensation of it; and yet He felt it in Himself. This expression (only contained in the text of Mark) does not mean simply the sensation of Jesus in Himself, as of one 'perceiving in His spirit;'1 but the object of the context goes directly to prove that the cause of this sensation (by reason of the 'virtue that had gone

1 In John xi. 33 and 38, the forms of expression, 'He groaned in spirit,' and 'groaning in Himself,' are used alternately, without any difference of meaning.

out of Him') is to be ascribed to a spiritual factor, the faith of the woman: for faith alone can render available the promise made from everlasting of the divine powers of grace. By this alone can a perception of it have been caused also in the inner soul of Jesus. An analogous incident will exemplify this 'knowing in Himself' on the part of our Lord. The disciples at Emmaus, after the revelation of the Risen One to them (Luke xxiv. 32), ask: 'Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the Scriptures?' They had not recognised Jesus in the stranger, and had been far from thinking Him in any possible way near; yet they experienced a very decided perception of His presence,a perception, however, which did not amount to a clear recognition. In the same way our Lord perceived, but His feeling was at once a sure knowledge (therefore it is 'knowing' in ver. 30), that faith had approached Him, and had received thereby His power of healing.

Let us, on the strength of the words, 'Thy faith hath made thee whole,' maintain that the cure of the woman was the fruit of her faith; we need not on that account have any solicitude to evade the question of the process of the cure. By considering this permissible, we do not in the least contradict the assertion we formerly justified, that every attempt to explain a miracle is wrong. We willingly agree to what Strauss states, that the experience which the woman had, considering her state of mind, appears nothing less than inconceivable. Still the account in Mark (ver. 29), that the sick woman, after she had pressed with the most intense exertions, physical and mental, to the person of Jesus, had experienced at the longed-for moment a decided effect on her organism, may give room for a psychological solution. But is the miracle which the evangelists wish to tell us thereby effected?

We have not yet penetrated into its true extent; we are still on the threshold. At present it is faith alone that has done something. What that can accomplish in the region of the natural life, has been pointed out in Scripture, especially in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, thirty-third and following verses, and its power is proved here also.

Our Lord Himself has, in the portions of the narrative already considered, remained passive. We have now to look for His miraculous power; and thus, even in this case, will be justified the proposition, that in every miracle He comes forward and appears as active in the strictest sense. He says: "Thy faith hath made thee whole;' that relates to the past. But we read further: 'Go in peace, and be whole of thy plague;' and that certainly does not point to a past. Let us suppose the case, that the woman succeeded in stealing away, and in taking from Him the cure as a theft: what might have happened? That day, and perhaps for a more or less length of time, she would have been well, but she would not have remained so for any length of time. She had gained the cure by faith. The former would have lasted just as long as the latter; its effective factor was in existence. Her cure needed an objective reality; and this real extirpation of her sickness her faith was not able to make-the will of Christ could alone assure it to her. How much our Lord would have been inclined under these circumstances to use this gift of His power, we can estimate from the value which faith-especially 'such great faith-has in His eyes. But it was first necessary to see the person who had touched Him in such faith. The success with which He looks about for this end ('He looked round about')-a common expression of Mark's to show the look of Jesus to discover and expose what is hidden (chap. iii. 5, x. 23, xi. 11)-must

have increased still more His already existing readiness. The public acknowledgment which the woman, laying aside every consideration, makes (Luke says: 'She declared unto Him before all the people'); her bending the knee in fear and trembling, as if she had committed a wrong;-all denoted a resolute will which (as in the later case of the Canaanitish woman) grace could not refuse. And so Jesus says to her: 'Be whole.' By the By the power of these words He completes in her His miracle of healing; by it He makes her whole. In consequence of her touching His garment she felt herself whole, but now she is well. To her mere feelings of being cured, is now given the surer objective basis. The reality of her recovery lies also primarily in the condition in which (eis) our Lord leaves her; henceforth she shall remain free from the plague of this suffering. This 'peace' (just as the 'salvation' assured at the same time) does not even here lose the wider meaning which specifically belongs to it in the New Testament.

We will now refer to the text of Matthew. However briefly and summarily he relates the whole event, he leaves no doubt how the real miracle was performed on the woman. It is in Matthew that the effect accomplished is shown undoubtedly as the consequence of Jesus' declaration of His will; for, after reporting the words of Jesus, 'Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole,' he makes the results follow: And the woman was made whole from that hour.' It may be asked whether, according to this, the result seems the fruit of the woman's act of faith, or not rather the effect of a miracle wrought by Jesus Himself.

6

We conclude by referring to a parallel case, which will contribute somewhat to recommend this view. Luke tells in chap. vii. 37 of a sinner who anointed