صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

22

and impartiality, and, we will venture to add, with more erudition, can as clearly perceive the laws of justice*, and the obligations of morality, to be strictly regarded, in his sending the devils into a herd of swine, as in any other miracle which he performed, to confirm his claims to a divine commission. In their well-meaning zeal to vindicate Jesus from even being supposed as the author of the mischief here done, some divines have strongly contended, that our Saviour did not command, but only suffered, the devils, at their own request, to take possession of the swine. But the expression, Go, implies, in our opinion, something more than a bare permission; and, for giving this command, we are inclined to think these, among many other reasons, may be satisfactorily alledged.

Without entering into a discussion respecting the extent of power which evil spirits had, to influence the minds of men, during the age in which our Saviour+

* See, in Mr. Farmer's Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testament, p. 294, 307, a long and able vindication of this transaction.

+We could easily quote many expressions of the Apostles, to prove the mighty influence which the Devil, "the God of this world," as St. Paul styles hím, 2 Corinthians iv. 4, possessed in the affairs of men. But it will be sufficient to shew his power in that respect, if we only call to remembrance the injunctions which our Lord gave to his disciples, o supplicate God to deliver them, o Te Top, from the evil one.

appeared upon earth, it is well known, that the Jews ascribed his power of casting out devils, to Beelzebub, the prince of devils. To satisfy, then, the most suspicious, that his controul over the possessed was derived only from the divine will, he sent the devils, which he had ejected out of a poor man, into a herd of swine; and, by that act, made it equally obvious to the learned and ignorant, that, whatever compact might exist between him and the demoniacs, he could have none with the swine. Our Lord might, also, intend to shew, by this miracle, the great malice and power of the devils, and the multitude of them that possessed the one or two persons; since, on that expulsion, they were sufficient to actuate the bodies of a herd of swine, which St. Mark affirms to have consisted of no smaller number than two thousand. By a miracle like this, addressed so completely to the testimony of the senses, the most prejudiced must likewise have been sensible of the great deliverance given to those two tormented persons.

It is the opinion of Grotius*, that he wrought this miracle to convince the Greeks, who lived in Gadara, and kept the herd of swine, that the laws of the Jews were too sacred to be ridiculed with impunity by

* See Grotii Opera, Tom. II, Annot. ad Matthæum, p. 99.

them, as they were, upon account of the prohibition they contained to eat swine's flesh. How far this opinion is entitled to general reception, we shall not presume to determine; but those who may be disposed to cavil at it, will surely admit, that the destruction of the herd of swine was a just punishment upon those to whom the beasts belonged, since, by their soliciting Jesus, immediately afterwards to depart from their coasts, it is very evident, that they preferred their swine before their souls. Yet, either of the foregoing explanations, we should hope, is quite adequate to refute any objections to this miracle, on the score of its unsuitableness to any good purpose; and of its being repugnant to every principle of humanity and justice.

"Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."-Matthew xii. 31, 32.

ACCORDING to their peculiar tenets, have divines

interpreted the meaning of that sin, which is emphatically styled the sin against the Holy Ghost. But, as their learning, like their intentions, is very different, we shall avoid much useless discussion, by briefly collecting the sentiments of the most sagacious and orthodox theologians upon this disputed point. When the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, so explicitly concur in representing the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, as irremissible, "TE I TEHN τω αιωνι, εἴτε ἐν τω μελλοντι,” it is surprising to us that so skilful a commentator as Grotius should attempt to soften the severity of this sentence, by saying, that what is absolutely spoken by our Lord, must be understood comparatively, and only implies the extreme difficulty, though not the absolute impossibility, of obtaining the pardon of this sin.

It may be observed, that, at the time that Jesus declares all hope of forgiveness is excluded from him who vilifies and blasphemes the Holy Ghost, yet a free pardon is assured to him who speaketh against the Son of man; that is, who shall style him a wine-bibber, a glutton, an impostor, and shall impute his miracles to the agency of an infernal spirit*. Now it is evident,

* His threatening, however, in one instance, is as strong as this in the case of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: "Whoever shall deny me

that this heinous offence could not be committed during the actual ministry of Christ, because the Holy Ghost was not to be sent till after his glorious resurrection, and ascension into Heaven. When the descent of the Holy Ghost communicated to the disciples of our Lord the same stupendous powers he had possessed, to revile that extraordinary gift became, therefore, a sin of the most unpardonable nature, because this was the completion of the evidence of his divine mission and character. Thus it appears, that the sin against the Holy Ghost lay in totally resisting and finally rejecting the Gospel, as preached by the Apostles, who supported and established their commission "by signs and wonders, and divers miracles of the Holy Ghost." For those who had witnessed, then, their nature, greatness, and number, still to persist in denying Christ

before men," says Jesus, " him will I also deny before my Father." Matthew, chap. x. v. 33. And yet, when Péter, says Bishop Pearce, shortly afterwards denied him before men, three times, joining oaths and curses with his denials, nevertheless upon his repenting, and weeping bitterly, he was not only forgiven, but continued in his apostleship. Again, when Jesus was upon the Cross, some of the rulers derided him, saying, " he saved others, let him save himself if he be Christ the chosen of God," Luke xxiii. v. 35; by which words, it appears that they acknowledged Jesus to have wrought miracles, and yet rejected them, denying that he wrought them by the holy spirit of God: and yet Jesus prayed to his Father that they might be for given. Luke, chap. xxiii. r.34.

« السابقةمتابعة »