been the scene of John's labour s - of course, in Peræ . Such a note of place is the

a

more interesting, that St. Luke so rarely indicates localities. In fact, he leaves us in

ignorance of what was the central place in Christ's Peræ n Ministry, although there

a

must have been such. In the main, the events are, indeed, most likely narrated in their

chronological order. But, as Discourses, Parables, and incidents are so closely mixed

up, it will be better, in a work like the present, for clearness' and briefness' sake, to

separate and group the m, so far as possible. Accordingly, this chapter will be devoted to

the briefest summary of the Lord's Discourses in Peræ , previous to His return to

a

Jerusalem for the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple.

The first of these was on t he occasion of His casting out a demon,18 and restoring

speech to the demonised; or if, as seems likely, the cure is the same as that recorded in

St. Matt. xii. 22, both sight and speech, which had probably been paralysed. This is one

of the cases in which it is difficult to determine whether narratives in different Gospels,

with slightly varying details, represent different events or only differing modes of

narration. It needs no argument to prove, that substantially the same event, such as the

healing of a blind or dumb demonised person, may, and probably would, have taken

place on more than one occasion, and that, when it occurred, it would elicit substantially

the same remarks by the people, and the same charge against Christ of superior

demoniac agency which the Pharisees had now distinctly formulated.19 Again, when

recording similar events, the Evangelists would naturally come to tell them in much the

same manner. Hence, it does not follow that two similar narratives in different Gospels

always represent the same event. But in this instance, it seems likely. The earlier place

which it occupies in the Gospel by St. Matthew may be explained by its position in a

group denunciatory of the Pharisees; and the notice there of their blasphemous charge

of His bei ng the instrument of Satan probably indicates the outcome of their 'council,'

how they might destroy Him.20 21

It is this charge of the Pharisees which forms the main subject of Christ's address, His

language being now much more explicit than formerly,  22 even a s the opposition of the

Pharisees had more fully ripened. In regard to the slight difference in the narratives of

St. Matthew and St. Luke, we mark that, as always, the Words of the Lord are more fully

reported by the former, while the latter supplies some vivid pictorial touches.23 The

following are the leading features of Christ's reply to the Pharisaic charge: First, It was

utterly unreasonable,24 and inconsistent with their own premisses,25 showing that their

ascription of Satanic agency to what Christ did was only prompted by hostility to His

Person. This mode of turning the argument against the arguer was peculiarly Hebraic,

and it does not imply any assertion on the part of Christ, as to whether or not the

disciples of the Pharisees really cast out demons. Mentally, we must supply - according