Where, too, let me ask, upon the same supposition, was the merit of Peter's confession

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'-which Jesus declared to have been suggested to the mind of the Apostle by the direct Spirit of God? Nay, further, under what pretence could the Jews have taken up stones to put him to death for blasphemy, for saying

that God was his Father, making himself equal with God,' if he had not claimed the title of the Son of God,' as a distinction of his divinity? and when before the chief priests and the scribes, he declared, in answer to their enquiry whether he were the Christ, hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God;' and the Jews, one and all, instantly enquired Art thou then the Son of God?'-and by acknowledging that he was, deemed him guilty of blasphemy*; where was the supposed blasphemy if he only meant that he were a son of God, unless, indeed, it were in saying, that a mere man should sit on the right hand of the Majesty on high? Again, too, when the Devil, or rather when the evil Spirits

* John xxii. 70, 71.

"Excuse me for interrupting you, Sir," said Mr. Trueman, "but you do not seem aware that, in alluding to the scene of the temptation and the tempter, you are referring to a mere vision and to an imaginary being; and when speaking of those possessed of evil spirits you are talking only of madmen."*

"Visions! imaginary beings! and madmen! I do not quite comprehend you. Christ, himself, distinctly speaks of the existence of Satan, or Beelzebub, and his wiles, the same whom the Apostles declare to have the power of death,' and against whom, as a real adversary of man, they give us such innumerable cautions. With respect to the temptation, that it was a real, and not a visionary scene, may be inferred, I think, from the simple circumstance of the Devil taking our Saviour to an exceeding high mountain,' and thence showing him all the kingdoms of the world;' for if it had been

* See Cappe's "Dissertations," and the notes on chap. iv. v. 2. of St. Matthew's Gospel, of the "Improved Version."

Whatever may be the distinction between diάßoλos and Saμóviov, the possession of an evil spirit is a distinct

merely a vision, where was the necessity of taking him to such an eminence? Or why place him upon one of the pinnacles or wings of the Temple, that he might throw himself down from it? As to the extraordinary power he possessed, at the time of our Saviour's ministry, over the bodies of men, you may call it madness, but it was a kind of mania never before or since seen; for it enabled some who had it to declare, at first sight, Jesus to be the Christ, though never previously known, and this openly to the people around them.” *

"I allow," replied Mr. Trueman, "that many of these unhappy creatures believed Jesus to be the Messiah, or the Great Prophet; and that, according to the current opinion of the age, they

The case of the demons (dauóvia), who had shunned previous intercourse with men, coming out of the tombs and recognising Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, (the same confession as was made, from the direct spirit of God, by Peter,) on his very first appearance in the country, and though at a distance from him, is what none can explain on the supposition of their being madmen. To remove the difficulty, therefore, the whole history of the Gadarene demoniac is conceived by the Unitarians to be an interpolation. See note on Luke viii. 27. of the Improved Version.

were supposed to be possessed by demons; and it was in conformity with the ideas and feelings of the maniacs themselves, that Jesus addressed them after this popular notion; nor can it be shown that the Devil is more than an imaginary being, much less that individuals are possessed by any actual evil spirit, for no where is this asserted, or even hinted at, in the New Testament.”*

"That the possession of evil spirits was not merely a common disorder incidental to man, may be collected, I think, Sir, from the distinction made between the one and the other by St. Luke, who says, that Christ gave his disciples power and authority over all demons or evil spirits, and to cure diseases;' here, surely, the difference is strongly marked, but not so clearly as where it is more specifically said: they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with demons, and those which were lunatic, and those

6

* This is the fact, according to the Improved Version of the New Testament, to which Mr. Trueman is here sup

that had the palsy, and he healed them.' And as a further proof of the real existence of such spirits, St. James declares the demons to believe and tremble.' As to the supposition that our Saviour adopted the popular language and notions of the day, involving the errors of heathen superstition, when speaking of these evil spirits, is, I think, upon your supposition of there being really none, ascribing to him what never can be proved; namely, that he carried on error because it was popular. And with respect to the tempter and the temptation, both Matthew and Luke declare our Saviour to have been led up into the wilderness to be tempted of Satan; and if the temptations he is there said to have overcome, were mere visions, his example cannot be enforced upon us, and the history of these transactions lose their greatest effect. But let me ask, did not the Jews accuse him of performing his marvellous works by the aid and co-operation of the Prince of the Devils, Beelzebub? And how did he refute the charge?

Can,' said he, 6 can Satan cast out Satan?' clearly identifying Beelzebub with Satan, or the Devil. Does he not, moreover, in another