« PreviousContinue »
And when the unclean spirit had
may conclude, that it is with this doctrine as with many others in.
the New Testament. The traditional, popular, literal, and sim-
plest interpretation is most probably correct, for this very satis-
factory reason, that the difficulties the new interpretation are
always greater than 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 incompre-
hensible manner of the bodies and souls of men. On the other
we have Christ, the revealer of truth, establishing falsehood,
sanctioning error, or encouraging deception. We have the
Evangelists inconsistont with themselves, and a narrative,
which is acknowledged to be inspired, and to be intended for
the unlearned-unintelligible, or false. Between such difficul-
ties I profer the former ; aod, if I cannot comprehend, I bow
my reason to the Giver of reason, and confess with reverence
the superiority of Revelation. The difference between Chris-
tianity and Philosopby, or the mode of speculating which as-
sumes 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.
(a) Works, 4th edit. fol. London, p. 28, &c. sermon on John X. 20.
and b. iii. ch. v. on the demons of the New Testament. $) Enquiry
into the Demoniacs of the New Testament. (c) Enquiry into the dis-
eases of Scripture. (d) Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testa-
ment. (e) Remarks on Dr. Ward's dissertations, works, 4to. edit.
Hamilton, vol. 5. p. 475. and vol. i. p. 236. Discourses on the Demo-
niacs. (f) In Matt. iv. 24. (9) Essay prefixed to his Harmony, 4to.
edit. p. 172. (h) Dissertation on the Demoniacs. (i) Remarks on
Ecclesiastical History, works, 8vo. edit. vol. i. p. 199. (k) Essay on
the words Διάβολος, Δαίμων, and Δαιμόνιον- prelim. dissert. vol. i.
p. 182. 4to. edit. of the work on the Gospels. 9) Critical Introduction,
2nd edit. vol. iii. p. 483. (m) Essay prefixed to the Harmony..(n)
Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. p.761. See also Bisbop Gleig's edition
of Stackhouse, vol. iii. p. 57. and Doddridge's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 431.
Kippis' edition. (o) Arrangement of the Old Testament, vol. ii. p. 642.
&c. &c. (p) Ειναι πάντα τον αέρα ψυχών έμπλεων και τουτους
daipovás te kaì ñowas vouíšeobai. Diog. Laert. lib. 8. s. 32. apud
Biscoe, p. 285. (9) Tov koopov oatuóvwv niñon. Diog. Laert. lib.
i. 6. 27. ap Biscoe. (r) They much mistake, says Mr. Biscoe, who
assert that Dæmoniacs abounded in the Jewish nation alone. We learn
from the writers of other nations, that they abounded elsewhere. If
they were not always known by the name of Dæmoniacs, they were
spoken of under several other names, which signify the same thing,
such as ευρυκλείταιt, νυμφόληπτοι ή, θεοφόρητος $, θεόληπτος ,
φοιβόληπτοι , πύθωνες Bacchantes It Cerriti, Lavati It, Lym-
phatici sø, Nocturnis Diis, Faunisque agitatil). (s) Intellectual Sys-
* History of the Acts confirmed, p. 283.
+ 'Eyyaspirat de kaì tvpukleitau txaloĪVTO, &c. schol. in Aristo-
phan. Vesp. p. 503.
Plato in Phæd.
opevouavhs Tiş el copop Tos Æsch. Agamemnon, 1149.
Scholia in Sophoc. Antiq. ad v. 975. Herod. Melpom. . 13.
** Plut. de Orac. def. p. 414.
# Plaut. Amph. act 2. scene 2. v. 71 Herod. lib. iv. g. 79.
* Plaat. Moen. act. 5. scene 4. v. 2. Bag. Amph. v.5, &c. &v. &c.
99 Plin. Nat. Hist, lib. 25. s. 24. and lib. 27. s. 83, &c. &c.
II Plin. Nat, Hist, lib. 30. 5. 24.
Lake iv, 35.
thrown him in the midst, (and)
Capernaum. Mark i. 26. had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of
him, Luke iv. 35. and hurt him not.
36. And they were all amazed, Mark i. 27. insomuch that they questioned, Lukeiv. 36, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is
Mark i. 27. What thing is this ? what new doctrine is this? for with
Lake iv. 36, and power he commandeth the unclean spirits
Mark i. 27. even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him,
Luke iv. 36. and they come out.
Mark i, 28. And immediately
Luke iv. 37. the fame of him went out, (and)
Mark i. 28. spread abroad throughout all the region,
Luke iv. 37. into every place of the country round about,
Mark. i. 28. round about Galilee.
MARK xi. 23-25. and part of ver. 27, 28.
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 bim, saying, Hold thy poace, and
come out of him.
27 And they were all amazed-among themselves, saying-
28 - his fame-
LURE iv. part of ver. 35. 36, and 37.
35 And when the devil he came out of bim.
36 -for with authority and they come out.
tem, vol. i. book i. ch. iv. p. 232. Birch's 4to. edition, London, 1743.
(1) Locke's Essay, book ii. ch. ii. sect. 13. fin. (u) Luke viü. 28–31.
(*) Remarks on Écclesiastical History, Works, 8vo. edit. vol. i. p. 199.
(y) The Socinian version of the New Testament has no note on this
part. With the usual modesty, however, which characterizes the wri-
ters of this school, Evanson is quoted to prove the whole history of the
Gadareno demoniac, (Lake viii. 27–40.) to be an interpolation.
Peter's Mother-in-Law cured of a Fever u.
MATT. viii. 14, 15. MARK i. 29-31. LUKE iv. 38, 39. Luke iv. 38. And he arose out of the synagogue.
Capernaum. Mark i. 29. And forthwith, when they were come out of the syna
gogue, they entered into the house of Simon and An
drew, with James and John.
Luke iv. 38. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever,
Mark i. 30. lay sick;
Mat.viii. 14. And when Jesus was come into Peter's house,
Mark i. 30. anon they tell him of her,
Luke iv.38. and they besought him for her.
Mark i. 31. And he came
Luke iv. 39. and stood over her, and rebuked the fever,
Mark i. 31. and took her by the hand and lift her up, and immedi-
ately the fever left her ;
Luke iv. 39. and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.
MATT. viii. part of ver. 14. and 15.
14 -he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
15 and he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and
MARK i. part of ver. 30, and 31.
30 But Simon's wife's mother-of a fever-
31 --and she ministered unto them,
LUKE iv. part of ver. 38, and 39.
38 -and entered into Simon's house
39 —and it left her-she arose, and ministered unto them.
24 This section is placed here on the united authorities of the five harmonists, and on the Scriptural authority of Luke iv. 88. αναςάς δε εκ της συναγωγής, εισήλθεν, &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 Št. 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.
Christ teaches, and performs Miracles and Cures, through
out Galilee 25.
MATT. iv. 23-25. viii. 16, 17. MARK I. 32-39.
LUKE iv, 40. to the end.
Mark i. 32. And at even, when the sun did set,
Lake iv. 40. was setting, all they that had any sick,
Matt. iv. 24. with divers diseases,
Mark i. 32. they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them
that were possessed with devils :
Mark i. 33. (and all the city was gathered together at the door :)
Luke iv. 40 and he laid his hands on every one of them
Mark i. 34. that were sick of divers diseases
Luke iv. 40. and healed them :
Mat. viii.16. and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all
that were sick :
17. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias
the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and
bare our sicknesses.
25 In placing the tour throughout Galileo, after the cure of Peter's wife mother, all the harmonists are agreed. The scriptural authority is to be found in St. Mark, i. 32. días dè yevomèvns. Michaelis adds here various other cures and miracles ; and Dr. Doddridge has come, in some respects, to the samo conclusion. 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.
28 The Evangelist here quotes from Isaiah liii. 4–12. This chapter of Isaiah 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 owx, or sacrifice for sin, and that the sacrifice itself is not truly propitiary. They further argue that the words, DEAR sins, signifies to bear them away, or remove them; and that consequently nothing more is meant here thau the removing away from us our sins and iniquities by forgiveness. Archbishop Magee has devoted much labours to the Unitarian ob
Luke iv.41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and Galilee.
saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of God. And he, re-
jection, and carefully analyzed every word in the whole passage.
He candidly and fully, as an enquirer into truth ever should
do, submits to the readers the difficulties in question, and con-
cludes the discussion by establishing the propriety and cer-
tainty of the usual application of the passage to the sufferings
of Christ, as the vicarious sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
Archbishop Magee, in his invaluable work on the Atonement,
fully analyzes the whole of the passage ; but it would be im.
possible in tho short space of a note to enter into all his elabo-
rate and learned criticisms. His conclusions, which are most
satisfactory, can only be here given. He understands ab and
aoleveias to relate to bodily pains and distempers, and 1839
and vósous to refer to diseases and torments of the mind-be
refers the former clanse signifying Christ's removing the sick-
nesses 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 re-
moved, since we find that the bearing applied by the evangelist
to bodily disease, is widely different from that wbich is applied
to sins; so that no conclusion can be drawn from the former
nse of the word, which shall be prejudicial to its commonly re-
ceived 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, is 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 bad no natural connexion. Now to this I reply (says Archbishop Magee) first, with regard to the prophet, that it is not surprizing 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 bis 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 surprizing, 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 tho 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 Docderl on Isaiah lii. 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