jew above all the make him as a pattern of tlie most faith because in the conviction that could cure at a distance he prevented him from going to his house whereas in john on the contrary he is blamed for weak faith which required signs and wonders l ic thought the presence of in his house necessary for the purpose of the cure these are certainly important enough to be a reason with those who regard them from a certain point of view for maintaining the distinction of tiie fact lying at the foundation of the from that reported by john only tliis accuracy of � see the of i in lot miracles of � at a distance i must be carried throughout and the the two themselves must not be overlooked first even in the of the person of the patient are not perfectly in calls him a servant who was d to the in the latter him it ta f wliich may equally mean either a son or a servant and as the when v of his er ant uses the word while the cured is v spoken of as it seems most probable that the former sense waa intended with respect to his disease the man is described by as ct of a i uke is not only silent as to tliis species of disease but he i thought by many to a one since after the expression ix v being ill he adds was mad to die and is not generally a rapidly fatal malady but the most is one which runs the entire narrative namely that all according to the does in his own person is in done by messengers for here in the instance he makes the entreaty not as in but the medium of the elders and � when he afterwards to prevent from entering his house he not come forward himself but some friends to act in his stead to reconcile this it is usual to refer to the n etc t if then it be said and indeed no other conception of the matter is possible to who make such an appeal � well knew that between the and everything was by of but lor the sake of he employed the figure of above alluded to and represented him as himself is perfectly in his remark tliat scarcely any historian would so that through an entire narrative in a case where on the one hand the figure of speech is by no means so obvious as for example that is to a general which is done by his soldiers and where on the han l precisely this whether the person acted for himself or through others is of some consequence to a full estimate of his character with therefore as he believed it necessary to refer the narrative of the fourth gospel to a separate fact from that of the first and third on account of the im so on account of the which he found between tlie two last also to be of two separate events if any one wonder that at different times entirely similar a cure should have happened at the same place for according to john also the patient lay and was cured at on his side wonders how it can be regarded as r s t de l i u s j s c den u i f s ji the life op ia the least improbable tliat in at two different periods two have had each a servant and that again at another time a nobleman should have had a sick son at place that the second should have history of the first have applied in a similar manner to and sought to his example of humility as the first to whom tlie earlier of the nobleman was known wished to weak of the latter ami lastly that cured all three in the same manner at a distance but the incident of a distinguished official person applying to to cure a dependent or relative and of at a on the latter in such a manner that about the time in which pronounced the word the patient at home recovered is so singular in its kind that a repetition of it may be regarded as impossible and c the supposition that it occurred twice only has hence it is our task to ascertain the three may not be traced to a single root now the narrative of the fourth is most generally held to bo distinct has not only an with the in the outline already given but in many remarkable details either one or the other of the more closely with than with his fellow thus while in patient as � f may be held to accord with the of john at least as probably as with the of and john decidedly in this tliat according to both the at in his own son to and not as in by on the other hand the account of john witli tiiat of in its description of the state of the in is there any mention of the of which speaks but the patient is described as near death in by the words v in john by i d m addition to which it is incidentally implied in the tut v that the disease was by a in the account of the manner in which effected cure of the patient and in which his cure was made known john stands ag on the side of in opposition to while the latter has not an express assurance on tlie part of that the servant was healed the two former make him say to the officer in very similar terms the one u g u thy j and as thou believed so it be done unto i the other ov b t way thy son and the sion of also oi b ry i j has at in 