LECTURE LI.

ON DEMONIACS.

AN objection against the doctrine of real possessions, drawn from the use of the term demon, was noticed in my last lecture. This term, it was there shown, is very general, and corresponds in a great degree, to the English word spirit. It does not designate the moral character of the being to whom it is applied. It is used in relation to the Supreme God, by Plato and Isocrates. It was used by certain philosophers, and afterwards by some of the christian fathers, to signify evil spirits of a rank superior to mankind. It was likewise used, and I apprehend, very commonly, to signify the souls of dead men.

The evangelists did not apply the term either in the first or the last of these senses, but in the second. They did not assert that demoniacs were disordered by the Supreme Deity, or by the spirits of the dead, but by spirits of a malignant character, and of a rank superior to men. The term is not used therefore in the New Testament, in a sense unknown among the Greeks.

But, even if it never had been by the Greeks applied to any beings, but the Supreme God, or human ghosts, we could not infer that the evangelists uniformly applied it to these objects. For they use the word eos to signify Jehovah, a Being most strikingly different from the dauon péyiotos and the deified heroes of antiquity, who were indiscriminately denominated vɛoi.

I now proceed to notice a further objection; namely, that evil spirits seem never to have had such power at any other period of the world, or at any other place, as the common opin

ion supposes them to have possessed in Judea at the time of our Saviour.

This objection may be met, either by admitting or denying the fact.

1. Let the fact be conceded, that demoniacal possessions were seldom or never known, but in the land of Judea; and at the time, when Christ was engaged in his ministry on earth.

From the nature of the case, and from numerous express declarations in Scripture, it is evident that there is perpetual hostility between the interest of Christ, and that of Satan. The nature of the case teaches this, because the grand object of the one is to promote order, virtue, and happiness; that of the other to promote confusion, vice, and misery. The declarations of Scripture, to which I refer, are these: I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. (Gen. 3: 15.) For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1. John 3: 8). Again, I beheld Satan, as lightning fall from heaven. This last is termed by Bishop Warburton, "a strong and lively picture of the sudden precipitation of the prince of the air, from the place where he had so long held his usurpation, hanging like a pestilential meteor over the sons of men." The empire of Christ, it is evident, is to be established on the ruins of that which the malignant spirit began, when our first parents were allured to rebel.

Now, when our Saviour came to open his dispensation of grace and purity,-when he came to "turn men from darkness. to light, and from the power of Satan to God;"-when the minds of men were to be redeemed from the slavery of prejudice and crimes, it was to have been supposed, that whatever power over their bodies was permitted to Satan, would be employed with peculiar assiduity and virulence; as it is said in the Apocalypse: The devil is come down unto you, having great wrath because he knoweth he hath but a short time. Nor is it improbable, that, to render the triumph of Christ the more signal and obvious, restraints on infernal malignity and power, a

little previous to our Saviour's ministry, might have been, in some degree, diminished.

But 2. We are under no necessity of granting, that demoniacal possessions were confined to the time at which our Saviour appeared; or even that they were more frequent then, than previously.

The learned writer against the common opinion concerning demoniacs, not only acknowledges this, but. takes much pains to prove it. With respect to demoniacs, says he, we meet with them in writings of the greatest antiquity, particularly in Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. They occur also in the ancient historians, as well as in the writings of physicians. With respect to the philosophers, it is needless to appeal to the testimony of particular persons; for demonology composed a very eminent part of the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy. That possessions were supposed common among the Jews, is evident from Josephus, who speaks of persons having lived many ages before his time, who were distinguished for their skill in exorcism. That possessions were not confined to Judea, is further evident from the Acts of the Apostles. The following occurrence happened at Ephesus: Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them, that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus. The universality of demoniacal possessions appears from Plutarch, as quoted by McKnight, in which a method of treating them is mentioned as practised by most nations.

Now, whether such methods of ejecting demons were whimsical or not, is perfectly immaterial to our present purpose, which is to show, that cases of supposed possession were not peculiar to the age and country of our Saviour.

It may, perhaps, be thought a very strong presumption against this, that we find nothing of this nature at the present day. If evil spirits had once both the disposition and the power to enter and molest human bodies, why, it may be asked, are no similar effects now produced? I answer, that our inability to account for such a fact, is no argument against it. We are unable to

perceive, why some wicked men are permitted to accomplish their designs, while others are restrained. We are unable to show why the plot of Haman for burying in ruins all the captive Jews, was rendered abortive, while that of Herod for murdering the infants was suffered to take effect. We are unable to tell, why Paul was rescued from the forty conspirators, who had vowed his destruction, while on Stephen they were permitted to satiate their malice.

But though our inability to account for a fact asserted, does by no means disprove the assertion; and there might be reasons, why demoniacal possessions should be suffered at one period and not at another, though such reasons were concealed from us, the remark may not be necessary on the present occasion. We are able to assign at least a probable reason for this difference. Since the coming of Christ, the power of Satan over the human mind has unquestionably been restrained. The moral condition of those countries, in which pure Christianity has been promulgated, is changed materially for the better. Now, why should not this influence be restrained, as well in regard to the bodies, as the minds of men? And why should not the triumph of the Saviour be made apparent in both cases? If the common opinion be correct, it has been apparent in both.

A further objection to the doctrine of real possessions is this: St. Paul says, in the 8th chap. of 1 Cor.: We know, that an idol is nothing in the world; and the same idea is evidently communicated in the 10th chapter: What do I say, then, that the idol is any thing? But this I say, that the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they do sacrifice unto demons, and not unto God. Now it is asserted that idols and demons are the If so, we have the declaration of St. Paul, that demons are nothing in the world. Consequently, they could not have produced those effects on human bodies, which have been usually ascribed to them.

Without saying any thing as to the identity of idols and demons in this place, which is however not indisputable, I observe,

that the objection proves too much for those by whom it is of fered. They believe that demons are the souls of dead men; and surely St. Paul did not mean to teach the doctrine of annihilation, by saying that the souls of dead men are nothing, i. e. that the soul has no existence after death. By consequence, the expression must be understood with some limitation. When the Apostle asserted, that an idol is nothing in the world, if he used the word "dolov as synonymous with daiuwv, he must have meant merely that an idol is no god, and as such is not to be regarded. That this is the meaning of the place, expositors seem generally agreed. It is thus expounded by Doddridge, Whitby, McKnight and Piscator.

Again, the account given of the damsel at Philippi, is supposed by some to militate with the common ideas of the demoniacal possession. The account is this: It came to pass, that as we went to prayer, a certain damsel, possessed with a spirit of divination, met us. The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation. Paul, being grieved, turned and said unto the spirit, I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. That which our translators call a spirit of divination, is in the original лvεйμa лúdovos spirit of Python. Now, Apollo, it is well known, has frequently the epithet Pythius, and his priestess at Delphi was denominated Pythia. "It is here asserted then," says the objector, "that the damsel hath a pythonic spirit, or the spirit of Apollo. But who can believe that either the sacred writer, or St. Paul designed to assert any connexion, as subsisting between this disordered person and a heathen god? Therefore, the meaning must be, that the person in question was insane, and that her insanity was of such a kind, as was usually attributed to that prophetic spirit, which was supposed to actuate the priestess at Delphi ;" and if so, the word demonized may be used with similar latitude.

Such is the objection, and I frankly acknowledge, that in my apprehension, it has more weight than any other brought to