Luke v. 34. Luke iv. 35. Mark i. 26. to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Capernaum Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had Luke iv. 35. thrown him in the midst, (and) Mark i. 26. Luke iv. 35. Luke iv. 36. Mark i. 27. had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he and hurt him not. And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned, Luke iv. 36. and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this? Mark i. 27. Luke iv. 36. Mark i. 27. Luke iv. 36. What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? and power he commandeth the unclean spirits It appears to me also, that the demoniacs powerfully represent to us the state to which all the sons of Adam would have been reduced for ever, if the Son of God had not descended from heaven, to accomplish the wonderful plan of redemption, which is revealed in the inspired writings. The experience of common life, indeed, not unfrequently sets before us many deplorable instances of the exceeding degradation to which the human mind may fall, when it becomes the slave of the passions, uninfluenced by religious principle. We seldom sufficiently appreciate the incalculable benefit which has already accrued to the world from the influence of the Christian Religion. men. With respect, then, to the demoniacs of the New Testament, we may conclude, that it is with this doctrine as with many others in the New Testament. The traditional, popular, literal, and simplest interpretation is most probably correct, for this very satisfactory reason, that the difficulties of the new interpretation are always greater than of that which is rejected. We have here the actions of the Saviour and the destroyer. On one side we have the wonderful doctrine, that it has pleased the Almighty to permit invisible and evil beings to possess themselves in some incomprehensible manner of the bodies and souls of On the other we have Christ, the revealer of truth, establishing falsehood, sanctioning error, or encouraging deception. We have the Evangelists inconsistent with themselves, and a narrative, which is acknowledged to be inspired, and to be intended for the unlearned—unintelligible, or false. Between such difficulties I prefer the former; and, if I cannot comprehend, I bow my reason to the Giver of reason, and confess with reverence the superiority of Revelation. The difference between Christianity and Philosophy, or the mode of speculating which assumes that title, may be said to consist in this. In matters of philosophy, the vulgar may be in error, and the speculatist may be right. But, in Christianity, the popular opinion is generally right. The speculator, the philosopher, who would fashion Christianity according to his own notions of truth and falsehood, of right, or wrong, generally concludes with error. Capernaum. x Luke iv.33. spread abroad throughout all the region, into every place of the country round about, MARK 23, 24, 25. and part of ver. 27, 28. Mark i. 28. Luke iv. 37. Mark i. 28. Luke iv. 37. Mark i. 29. 23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. 27 And they were all amazed-among themselves, saying-commandeth he 28 his fame LUKE iv. part of ver. 35, 36, and 37. 35 And when the devil-he came out of him. SECTION VIII. Peter's Mother-in-Law cured of a Fever 24. MATT. viii. 14, 15. MARK i. 29, 30, 31. LUKE iv. 38, 39. Luke iv. 38. And forthwith, when they were come out of the Mark i. 29. synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great Luke iv. 38. fever, and lay sick; Mark i. 30. And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, Matt. viii. 14. anon they tell him of her, and they besought him for her. And he came and stood over her, and rebuked the fever, Mark i. 30. Luke iv. 38. Mark i. 31. Luke iv. 39. and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and Mark i. 31. immediately the fever left her; 24 This section is placed here on the united authorities of the five harmonists, and on the Scriptural authority of Luke iv. 38. ἀναστὰς δὲ ἐκ τῆς συναγω yñs, kɩoñλlev, &c. The cure of Peter's mother-in-law is placed by St. Matthew after the healing of the centurion's servant. This miracle may have been wrought more particularly to confirm the faith of the Apostles. Pilkington, who has observed the order of St. Mark and St. Luke, and rejected the supposition of Osiander and Macknight, that St. Matthew wrote in order of time, has well defended the decision of the several harmonizers on this point,-Pilkington's Evang. Hist. &c. Notes, p. 17. Luke iv. 39. and immediately she arose and ministered unto Capernaum. 14 them. MATT. viii. part of ver. 14 and 15. he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. 15 and he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and Christ teaches, and performs Miracles and Cures, throughout Galilee 25. MATT. iv. 23, 24, 25. viii. 16, 17. MARK i. 32-40. Mark. i. 32. Luke iv. 40. Matt. iv. 24. Mark i. 33. And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and (and all the city was gathered together at the Luke iv. 40. and he laid his hands on every one of them Mark i. 34. Luke iv. 40. Matt. viii. 16. Matt. viii. 17. and healed them : and he cast out the spirits with his word, and That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 25. In placing the tour throughout Galilee, after the cure of Peter's wife's mother, all the harmonists are agreed. The Scriptural authority is to be found in St. Mark, i. 32. ópías dè yevoμèvng. Michaelis adds here various other cures and miracles; and Dr. Doddridge has come, in some respects, to the same conclusions. Neither are Lightfoot, Newcome, and Pilkington, agreed in the texts they would combine together in this section. The Evangelists, describe the journeyings of Christ through Galilee in such very general terms, that it appears impossible to appropriate every expression to its particular journey. Neither does it seem capable of demonstration that it was so designed. Our Lord now began to manifest himself publicly by his miracles, and to direct the attention of the Jews to his claims as their Messiah. Galilec. Galilee. x Isa, liii. 4-12. Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our Matt. viii. 17. infirmities and bare our sicknesses 26. 26 ON THE MEANING OF ISAIAH LIII. 4-12. The chapter of Isaiah from which the Evangelist quotes the above passage, has been justly considered to contain a complete description of the sufferings of Christ. Because the Evangelist has applied the words of the prophet to the cure of diseases, the Socinian writers have endeavoured to prove that the doctrine of the atonement ought not to be, and cannot be, deduced from this passage of Isaiah. They utterly reject the propitiatory sacrifice, which is there represented as offered for the sins of men; and for the purpose of doing away the force of the expressions which so clearly convey this idea, the adversaries of the doctrine of the atonement have directed against this part of Scripture their principal attacks. They have endeavoured to prove that Christ is not here described as an wx, or sacrifice for sin, and that the sacrifice itself is not truly propitiatory. They further argue that the word BEAR sins, signifies to bear them away, or remove them; and that consequently nothing more is meant here than the removing away from us our sins and iniquities by forgiveness. Archbishop Magee, in his invaluable work on the Atonement, has devoted much labour to the Unitarian objection, and carefully analyzed every word in the whole passage. He candidly and fully, as an inquirer into truth ever should do, submits to the readers the difficulties in question, and concludes the discussion by establishing the propriety and certainty of the usual application of the passage to the sufferings of Christ, as the vicarious sacrifice for the sins of mankind. It would be impossible in the short space of a note to enter into all the elaborate criticisms of the learned Archbishop. His conclusions, which are most satisfactory, can only be here given. He understands and aobɛvɛias to relate to bodily pains and distempers, and x and vórovç to refer to diseases and torments of the mind—he refers the former clause signifying Christ's removing the sicknesses of men by miraculous cures, and the latter to his bearing their sins upon the cross, and he has adduced many examples in support of this interpretation. "Isaiah and Matthew," to use his own words, "are perfectly reconciled, the first clause of each relating to diseases removed-the second to sufferings endured. And by the same steps by which the Prophet and the Evangelist have been reconciled, the original objection derived from St. Matthew's application of the passage, is completely removed, since we find that the bearing applied by the Evangelist to bodily disease, is widely different from that which is applied to sins; so that no conclusion can be drawn from the former use of the word, which shall be prejudicial to its commonly received sense in the latter relation. One point yet, however, demands explanation. It will be said, that the prophet is no longer supposed to confine himself to the view of our redemption by Christ's sufferings and death; but to take in also the consideration of his miraculous cures; and the Evangelist, on the other hand, was represented as not attending merely to the cures performed by Christ, with which alone he was immediately concerned, but as introducing the mention of his sufferings for our sins, with which his subject had no natural connexion. Now to this I reply (says Archbishop Magee) first, with regard to the prophet, that it is not surpris Luke iv. 41. And devils also came out of many, crying out, Galilee. and saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of God. And he, rebuking them, ing that so distinguishing a character of the Messiah, as that of his healing all manner of diseases with a word, and which this prophet (in chap. xxxv. 5.) has depicted so strongly, that our Saviour repeats his very words (Batt's Diss. 2nd edit. p. 109.) and refers to them in proof that he was the Messiah (Matt. xi. 4. and Beausobre in loc.)—it is not I say surprising, that this character of Christ should be described by the prophet. And that it should be introduced in this place, where the prophet's main object seems to be to unfold the plan of our redemption, and to represent the Messiah as suffering for the sins of men, will not appear in any degree unnatural, when it is considered that the Jews familiarly connected the ideas of sin and disease, the latter being considered by them the temporal punishment of the former (for abundant proof of this see Whitby on Matt. viii. 17. and ix. 2. Drusius on the same Crit. Sac. tom vi. p. 288. and Doederl. on Isaiah liii. 4. and Martini also on the same passage.) So that He, who was described as averting, by what he was to suffer, the penal consequences of sin, would naturally be looked to as removing, by what he was to perform, its temporal effects; and thus the mention of the one would reasonably connect with that of the other, the whole of the prophetic representation becoming, as Kennicott happily expresses it, "Descriptio Messiæ benevolentissime et agentis et patientis." (Diss. Gen. §. 79.) That the Evangelist, on the other hand, though speaking more immediately of bodily diseases, should at the same time quote that member of the prophecy, which related to the more important part of Christ's office, that of saving men from their sins, will appear equally reasonable, if it be recollected that the sole object in referring to the prophet concerning Jesus, was to prove him to be the Messiah; and that the distinguishing character of the Messiah was to give knowledge of salvation unto the people by the remission of their sins (Luke i. 77.) So that the Evangelist may be considered as holding this leading character primarily in view; and, at the same time, that he marks to the Jews the fulfilment of one part of the prophecy, by the healing of their bodily distempers, he directs their attention to that other greater object of our Saviour's mission, on which the prophet had principally enlarged, namely, the procuring forgiveness of their sins by his sufferings. And thus the present fulfilment of the prophecy was at the same time a designation of the person, and a pledge of the future more ample completion of the prediction. Cocceius gives this excellent explanation of the passage in question: "He hath taken on himself (suscepit) our sorrows, or sufferings, eventually to bear them away, as he has now testified by the carrying away our bodily distempers." If, after all that has been said, any doubt should yet remain, as to the propriety of thus connecting together, either in the Prophet, or in the Evangelist, the healing of diseases, and the forgiveness of sins, I would beg of the reader to attend particularly to the circumstance of their being connected together frequently by our Lord himself. Thus he says to the sick of the palsy, when he healed him, "thy sins be forgiven thee" (Matt. ix. 2.) And that bodily diseases were not only deemed by the Jews, but were in reality, under the first |