Luke iv. 35. thrown him in the midst, (and)

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 this?

Mark i.27. What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with
authority,

Luke 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 him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

27 And they were all amazed-among themselves, sayingcommandeth he

28 his fame

LUKE iv. part of ver. 35. 36, and 37.

35 And when the devil-he came out of him.
36 for with authority-and they come out.
37-and-

Capernaum.

tem, vol. i. book i. ch. iv. p. 232. Birch's 4to. edition, London, 1743.
(t) Locke's Essay, book ii. ch. ii. sect. 13. fin. (u) Luke viii. 28-31.
(*) Remarks on Ecclesiastical 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
Gadarene demoniac, (Luke viii. 27-40.) to be an interpolation.

Luke iv. 38.
Mark i. 29.

SECTION VIII.

Peter's Mother-in-Law cured of a Fever ".

MATT. viii. 14, 15. MARK i. 29-31. LUKE iv. 38, 39.
And he arose out of the synagogue.

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,

and

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 immediately the fever left her;

Luke iv.39. and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.

14

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

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 ofver. 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. 38. ἀναςὰς δὲ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς, ἐισῆλθεν, &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.

Capernaum.

Mark i. 32.

SECTION IX.

Christ teaches, and performs Miracles and Cures, through

out Galilee 25

MARK i. 32-39.

MATT. iv. 23-25. viii. 16, 17.

LUKE iv. 40. to the end.

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 26

25 In placing the tour throughout Galilee, 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. opías de yevo μèvηs. Michaelis adds here various other cures and miracles; and Dr. Doddridge has come, in some respects, to the same 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.

26 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 wx, 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 labour to the Unitarian ob

Galilee.

Luke iv. 41

And devils also came out of many, crying out, and Galilee. saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of God. And he, rebuking them,

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 the 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 and
aolevetac to relate to bodily pains and distempers, and
and vooove to refer to diseases and torments of the mind-be
refers the former clause 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 which 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
had no natural connexion. Now to this I reply (says Arch-
bishop 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 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 surprizing,
that this character of Christ should be described by the prophet.
And that it should be introduced in this place, where the pro-
phet's main object seems to be to unfold the plan of our redemp-
tion, and to represent the Messiah as suffering for the sins of
men, will not appear in any degree unnatural, when it is consi-
dered 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 Docderl 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

Mark i. 34. suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him, Galilee. Luke iv. 41. that he was Christ.

Mark i. 35.

And in the morning, rising up a great while before day,

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 hap-
pily 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 impor-
tant 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 cha-
racter 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 cha-
racter 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 for-
giveness 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 distem-
pers."

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 dispensation, in many instances the punishment of sin, we may fairly infer from John v. 14. where Jesus said to him whom he had made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. It should be observed also, that what in Mark iv. 12. is expressed, and their sins should be forgiven them, is given in Matt. xiii. 15. and I should heal them. See also James v. 15. and Isaiah xxxiii. 24. and observe the maledictions against the transgressors of the law, in Deut. xxviii. 21. See also Grot. on John v. 14. and Pole's Syn. on Matt. ix. 2.

None will think this extract too long, who are aware of the great importance of the subject in discussion. The researches of this learned writer afford another proof, if any were wanting, that in proportion to the extent of inquiry and the increase of our knowledge will ever be the confirmation of the great doctrine of the atonement and the divinity of Christ. It is sincerely to be hoped that no theological student will permit his library to be unprovided with this valuable work.