a human being possessed with and actuated by some spiritual
malignant being of superior power. The word _demon_ is used by Pagan
writers often in a good sense, and is applied to their divinities; but
the demons of holy writ are malignant spirits. We are not informed very
particularly about their origin or destiny; but we find them represented
as ϖνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα, and ϖνεύματα ϖονηρὰ, _unclean_ and _evil spirits_;
and we must consider them as in league with the devil, as the subjects
of his dominion, and the instruments of his will. They were the
immediate agents in all possessions; and to expel or restrain them, or
to cure the diseases which they were supposed to occasion, was one of
the miraculous gifts of the early times.
2. On this subject an ardent controversy was agitated about the middle
and toward the end of the last century, between Dr. Farmer and his
opponents. In this controversy, of which we shall attempt to give a
short view, it was contended, on the one hand, that the demoniacal cases
recorded in the books of the New Testament, were instances of real
possession; and, on the other, that they were merely diseases, set forth
under the notion of possessions, in conformity with the belief which was
prevalent at the time. By the one party, the language of holy writ was
interpreted literally; and by the other it was considered as figurative,
and used in the way of accommodation to the existing opinions. The
leading asseveration of Dr. Farmer, upon the general question, is, that
miracles, or works surpassing the power of men, are never performed
without a divine interposition; and by a divine interposition he means,
either the immediate agency of the Deity himself, or of beings empowered
and commissioned by him. And the proof of this asseveration, he tells
us, may very easily be found, if we consider that, on any other
supposition, it is impossible to show that a religion supported by
miracles is really from God. For the miracles in question, or works
surpassing the power of human beings, may have been performed by evil
spirits, acting independently of the Divinity, thwarting his purposes,
and marring the operation of his goodness. Should it be said that, from
the tendency of the miracle itself, and _a fortiori_, from the tendency
of the miracle and religion when taken together, we may easily infer the
character of the being from whom the whole scheme proceeds,--to this
also Dr. Farmer is ready with his answer. “With regard to doctrines,”
says he “of a moral or useful tendency, it is not, in all cases, easy
for the bulk of mankind, or even for the wise and learned, to form a
certain judgment concerning them. What to men appeared to have a
tendency to promote virtue and happiness, superior beings, who discerned
its remotest effects, might know to be a curse rather than a blessing,
and give it countenance from a motive of malevolence. On the other hand,
a doctrine really subservient to the cause of piety and virtue, men
might judge to be prejudicial to it. And were the sanctity of the
doctrine ever so apparent, it would not (on the principles of those with
whom we are here arguing) certainly follow from hence, that the miracles
recommending it were wrought by God; inasmuch as other beings, from
motives unknown to us, might interest themselves in favour of such a
doctrine.” In one word, according to this author, we do not know whether
the tendency of the miracle, or of the religion, be good or not; and
therefore we can form no accurate idea of the character really belonging
to the being from whom the revelation proceeds. To our eyes the system
may appear well calculated to promote our happiness, but it may have
been the contrivance of wicked spirits. According to the sense and
discernment of men, the miracle is useful in itself, but we cannot be
sure whether it may not have been performed by one of the rebellious
angels “who kept not their first estate.” In conformity with these
opinions, Dr. Farmer maintains that there is not an instance recorded in
sacred Scripture, where a miracle has been wrought, and where there is
not sufficient reason to believe that the effect was produced either by
the Deity himself, or by agents commissioned and empowered to act in his
name. Hence he considers the Egyptian magicians as jugglers; the witch
of Endor, as a ventriloquist; and, completing the system, he has written
an elaborate dissertation to prove, that when Christ was “tempted of the
devil,” as the Evangelist Matthew expresses it, that apostate angel was
not really present; and that the whole transaction took place in a
vision or a dream.
With regard to the demoniacs of the New Testament, this writer and his
followers contend that, among the Jews, certain diseases, such as
madness and epilepsy, were usually ascribed to the agency of evil
spirits. This was the current notion and belief of the country. Upon
this notion the ordinary phraseology was built. Our Lord and his
Apostles adapted their instructions to this prevailing notion, and used
the language which had been formed upon it; just as Moses, in his
account of the creation, adapts himself to the popular astronomy of his
time, instead of laying before us the true system of the heavenly
bodies. He speaks, not in relation to what is physically correct, but in
relation to what was believed. He founds his instructions upon the ideas
already entertained by the people to whom the revelation was first
communicated: and Christ and his Apostles do the very same thing. They
speak of the demoniacs, not according to the real state of the case, but
according to the notions which the Jews entertained of it. Not a few of
those demoniacs appear to have been persons of a disordered
understanding, subject to attacks of mania; some of them were afflicted
with the epilepsy, or falling sickness, some were deaf, and others were
dumb. When a demon is said to enter into a man, the meaning is, that his
madness is about to show itself in a violent paroxysm; when a demon is
said to speak, it is only the unhappy victim of the disease himself that
speaks; and when a demon or devil is expelled, the exact truth of the
case, as well as the whole of the miracle, is nothing more than that the
disease is cured. Occasionally, too, say those who contend against the
reality of demoniacal possessions, the language of the sacred books
confirms the explanation which has just been given. Thus, in the tenth
chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find the Jews saying of Christ, “He
hath a devil, and is mad,” as if the expressions were perfectly
equivalent; and the person who is represented, in the seventeenth
chapter of Matthew, as a lunatic, is spoken of by St. Mark as vexed with
a dumb spirit. It is farther argued on this side of the question, that
the instances of possession recorded in the books of the New Testament
have all the features and appearance of ordinary diseases. The madness
shows itself in these cases, just as it shows itself in the cases which
occur among ourselves in the present day: it is now melancholy, and the
patient is silent and sullen, and now it vents itself in bursts of anger
and ferocious resentment. And the epilepsy of the sacred books is the
epilepsy of all our systems of nosology: the phenomena of the diseases
are precisely the same. Nor does this, say they, detract from the very
high character which Christ undoubtedly sustains in the inspired
writings, or diminish the value of his miracles as the evidences of our
religion; since it must be allowed, that to cure a disease with a word
or a touch is an effort of power far beyond the reach of any human
being. And let it be remembered, that those who deny the expulsion of
demons are ready to admit that diseases were miraculously cured. There
is a miracle in either case; and, in either case, it is a sufficient
proof of our Saviour’s mission, and an adequate support of the Christian
faith.
3. To these statements and reasonings, the advocates of possessions have
not been slow to reply. They call in question the truth of Dr. Farmer’s
leading asseveration; namely, “that extraordinary works have never been
performed without a divine interposition;” and contend, that as human
beings have a certain sphere and agency allotted them, so it is
reasonable to believe that malignant spirits have a wider sphere, and an
agency less controlled; and that within this sphere, and in the exercise
of this agency, they perform actions, the tendency of which is to thwart
the purposes of the divine beneficence, and to introduce confusion and
misery into the world. They argue, too, that the devil himself, the
chief of the apostate spirits, is often represented in holy writ as
exerting his malignity in opposition to the designs of infinite
goodness; and in the case of our first parents, as a remarkable example,
he tempted them to disobedience, and led them to their fall. It was in
consequence of his machinations, that they brought down upon themselves
the wrath of Heaven, and were driven from the garden in which “the Lord
had placed them.” The advocates of possessions contend still farther,
that the revelation which is made to us in sacred Scripture is addressed
to our understandings; that it is not only in our power, but that it is
our indispensable duty, to examine it, and to judge of it; that the
tendency of any miracle, or system of doctrine, is a sufficient evidence
of the character belonging to him who performs the miracle, or publishes
the doctrine; that good actions are demonstrative of the quality of
goodness; and, in short, that a religion calculated to make us happy
must have proceeded from a Being who has consulted and provided for our
happiness. Nor is this a matter so abstruse and remote from human
apprehension, that we can form no opinion about it. “For,” say they, “if
any thing connected with Christianity be plain, it seems to be that the
tendency of the religion is beneficent; and that it is no less pure in
its character than blessed in its effects. The very miracles recorded in
Scripture are proofs of goodness. They must have been wrought by a good
being. And,” they continue, “we think ourselves entitled to hold our
religion as true, and to regard it as in the highest degree beneficial,
though we must allow, at the same time, that the magicians of Egypt
performed many wonderful works by the agency of wicked spirits; that the
sorceress of Endor was in league with the powers of darkness, and that
Christ was literally tempted ‘of the devil,’ in the wilderness of
Judea.”
4. With regard to the more specific question of demoniacal possessions,
they answer, that though God has often been pleased to accommodate
himself to our apprehension by adopting the current language of the
countries, where the revelation was first published; yet the account of
the creation given by Moses is not altogether an instance in point. For,
say they, while it is granted that the true system of the universe is
not laid before us in the first chapter of Genesis, it ought to be
remembered that the statements in that chapter are exceedingly general;
and that, while the whole truth is not told, it being no part of the
revelation to tell it, there is, at the same time, no error directly
inculcated. In the demoniacal cases, however, the conduct of the
inspired writers, and, indeed, of Christ himself, is widely different.
They positively and directly inform us, that a demon “enters into” a
man, and “comes out” of him; they represent the demons as speaking, and
reasoning, and hoping, and fearing, as having inclinations and aversions
peculiar to themselves, and distinct from those of the person who is the
subject of the possession; they tell us of one unhappy sufferer who was
vexed with many devils; and, in the case of the demoniac of Gadara, they
assure us that the devils were “cast out” of the man, and were
permitted, at their own request, to “enter into” a herd of swine which
were feeding in the neighbourhood, and that immediately the herd ran
violently down a steep place, and were drowned in the sea. Who ever
heard of swine afflicted with madness as a natural disease? Or, when and
where has the epilepsy, or falling sickness, been predicable of the sow?
For, it must be carefully observed that the disease of the man, the
affection of the human sufferer, whatever that affection might have
been, was clearly transferred from him to the animals in question.
Beside, as various instances are recorded in Scripture, and as several
cases are given at considerable length, might we not expect, if
possessions were really nothing more than ordinary diseases, that the
truth would be somewhere told or hinted at? that, within the compass of
the sacred canon, something would be said, or something insinuated,
which would lead us to understand that the language, though inaccurate
and improper, was used in accommodation to the popular belief? Might we
not expect that Christ himself would have declared, in one unequivocal
affirmation, or in some intelligible way, the exact truth of the case?
Or, at all events, when the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Apostles
on the day of pentecost, and when the full disclosure of the revelation
appears to have been made, might it not reasonably have been looked for
that the popular error would have been rectified, and the language
reduced from its figurative character to a state of simple correctness?
What conceivable motive could influence our Saviour, or his Apostles, to
sanction the delusion of the multitude? And does it not strike at the
root of the Christian religion itself, to have it thought, for a single
moment, that its “Author and Finisher,” who came to enlighten and to
reform the world, should have, on so many occasions, not only
countenanced, but confirmed, an opinion which he must have known to be
“the reverse of the truth”?
Let us then, say they, beware how we relinquish the literal sense of
holy writ, in search of allegorical or figurative interpretations. And
if, upon any occasion, we think it proper to do so, let us consider well
the grounds and reasons upon which our determination is built. It is
evident that the devil and his angels, according to all that we can
learn of them in the sacred books, are real beings; that the demons of
the New Testament are malignant spirits; and that they act upon the same
principles, and even under the authority of Satan himself, who is
otherwise called Beelzebub, and the prince of the devils. Nay, in these
very cases of possession, the chief of the apostate angels is clearly
set forth as acting either in his own person, or by means of his
infernal agents. And it is on this supposition alone that we can explain
the language of Christ in that remarkable declaration which he makes to
the Pharisees and rulers of the Jews, and which we find recorded in the
twelfth chapter of the Gospel by St. Matthew. “The Pharisees heard it,”
observes the Evangelist, “and they said, This fellow doth not cast out
devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their
thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself
shall not stand; and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against
himself: how shall then his kingdom stand?”
5. On this subject of diseases it is also to be observed, that the
inspired writers uniformly make a distinction between diseases occurring
in the ordinary course of nature, and diseases occasioned by the agency
of evil spirits. “There is every where,” says Bishop Porteus, “a plain
distinction made between common diseases and demoniacal possessions,
which shows that they are totally different things. In the fourth
chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the very first mention is
made of these possessions, it is said that our Lord’s fame went
throughout all Syria, and that they brought unto him ‘all sick people,
that were taken with divers diseases and torments,’ and those ‘which
were possessed with devils,’ and he healed them. Here those that were
taken with divers diseases and torments, and those possessed with
devils, are mentioned as distinct and separate persons: a plain proof
that the demoniacal possessions were not natural diseases: and the very
same distinction is made in several other passages of holy writ. There
can be no doubt, therefore, that the demoniacs were persons really
possessed with evil spirits; and although it may appear strange to us,
yet we find, from Josephus and other historians, that it was in those
times no uncommon case.”
6. We may conclude, from the argument on both sides of the question,
that the only reason which can be urged for departing from the obvious
sense of Scripture is, that cases of possession involve a philosophical
mystery. This, truly, is a very insufficient ground, and especially when
we consider that if we better knew the nature of spirits, and of our own
frame, the philosophy might appear all on the opposite side, and no
doubt would do so. But no one who admits the Scriptures to decide this
question, can consistently stand upon that objectionable ground of
interpretation to which he is forced by denying the plain and consistent
sense of innumerable passages. If he admits this error, he must admit
many others; for a Bible, so interpreted, may be made to mean any thing.
malignant being of superior power. The word _demon_ is used by Pagan
writers often in a good sense, and is applied to their divinities; but
the demons of holy writ are malignant spirits. We are not informed very
particularly about their origin or destiny; but we find them represented
as ϖνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα, and ϖνεύματα ϖονηρὰ, _unclean_ and _evil spirits_;
and we must consider them as in league with the devil, as the subjects
of his dominion, and the instruments of his will. They were the
immediate agents in all possessions; and to expel or restrain them, or
to cure the diseases which they were supposed to occasion, was one of
the miraculous gifts of the early times.
2. On this subject an ardent controversy was agitated about the middle
and toward the end of the last century, between Dr. Farmer and his
opponents. In this controversy, of which we shall attempt to give a
short view, it was contended, on the one hand, that the demoniacal cases
recorded in the books of the New Testament, were instances of real
possession; and, on the other, that they were merely diseases, set forth
under the notion of possessions, in conformity with the belief which was
prevalent at the time. By the one party, the language of holy writ was
interpreted literally; and by the other it was considered as figurative,
and used in the way of accommodation to the existing opinions. The
leading asseveration of Dr. Farmer, upon the general question, is, that
miracles, or works surpassing the power of men, are never performed
without a divine interposition; and by a divine interposition he means,
either the immediate agency of the Deity himself, or of beings empowered
and commissioned by him. And the proof of this asseveration, he tells
us, may very easily be found, if we consider that, on any other
supposition, it is impossible to show that a religion supported by
miracles is really from God. For the miracles in question, or works
surpassing the power of human beings, may have been performed by evil
spirits, acting independently of the Divinity, thwarting his purposes,
and marring the operation of his goodness. Should it be said that, from
the tendency of the miracle itself, and _a fortiori_, from the tendency
of the miracle and religion when taken together, we may easily infer the
character of the being from whom the whole scheme proceeds,--to this
also Dr. Farmer is ready with his answer. “With regard to doctrines,”
says he “of a moral or useful tendency, it is not, in all cases, easy
for the bulk of mankind, or even for the wise and learned, to form a
certain judgment concerning them. What to men appeared to have a
tendency to promote virtue and happiness, superior beings, who discerned
its remotest effects, might know to be a curse rather than a blessing,
and give it countenance from a motive of malevolence. On the other hand,
a doctrine really subservient to the cause of piety and virtue, men
might judge to be prejudicial to it. And were the sanctity of the
doctrine ever so apparent, it would not (on the principles of those with
whom we are here arguing) certainly follow from hence, that the miracles
recommending it were wrought by God; inasmuch as other beings, from
motives unknown to us, might interest themselves in favour of such a
doctrine.” In one word, according to this author, we do not know whether
the tendency of the miracle, or of the religion, be good or not; and
therefore we can form no accurate idea of the character really belonging
to the being from whom the revelation proceeds. To our eyes the system
may appear well calculated to promote our happiness, but it may have
been the contrivance of wicked spirits. According to the sense and
discernment of men, the miracle is useful in itself, but we cannot be
sure whether it may not have been performed by one of the rebellious
angels “who kept not their first estate.” In conformity with these
opinions, Dr. Farmer maintains that there is not an instance recorded in
sacred Scripture, where a miracle has been wrought, and where there is
not sufficient reason to believe that the effect was produced either by
the Deity himself, or by agents commissioned and empowered to act in his
name. Hence he considers the Egyptian magicians as jugglers; the witch
of Endor, as a ventriloquist; and, completing the system, he has written
an elaborate dissertation to prove, that when Christ was “tempted of the
devil,” as the Evangelist Matthew expresses it, that apostate angel was
not really present; and that the whole transaction took place in a
vision or a dream.
With regard to the demoniacs of the New Testament, this writer and his
followers contend that, among the Jews, certain diseases, such as
madness and epilepsy, were usually ascribed to the agency of evil
spirits. This was the current notion and belief of the country. Upon
this notion the ordinary phraseology was built. Our Lord and his
Apostles adapted their instructions to this prevailing notion, and used
the language which had been formed upon it; just as Moses, in his
account of the creation, adapts himself to the popular astronomy of his
time, instead of laying before us the true system of the heavenly
bodies. He speaks, not in relation to what is physically correct, but in
relation to what was believed. He founds his instructions upon the ideas
already entertained by the people to whom the revelation was first
communicated: and Christ and his Apostles do the very same thing. They
speak of the demoniacs, not according to the real state of the case, but
according to the notions which the Jews entertained of it. Not a few of
those demoniacs appear to have been persons of a disordered
understanding, subject to attacks of mania; some of them were afflicted
with the epilepsy, or falling sickness, some were deaf, and others were
dumb. When a demon is said to enter into a man, the meaning is, that his
madness is about to show itself in a violent paroxysm; when a demon is
said to speak, it is only the unhappy victim of the disease himself that
speaks; and when a demon or devil is expelled, the exact truth of the
case, as well as the whole of the miracle, is nothing more than that the
disease is cured. Occasionally, too, say those who contend against the
reality of demoniacal possessions, the language of the sacred books
confirms the explanation which has just been given. Thus, in the tenth
chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find the Jews saying of Christ, “He
hath a devil, and is mad,” as if the expressions were perfectly
equivalent; and the person who is represented, in the seventeenth
chapter of Matthew, as a lunatic, is spoken of by St. Mark as vexed with
a dumb spirit. It is farther argued on this side of the question, that
the instances of possession recorded in the books of the New Testament
have all the features and appearance of ordinary diseases. The madness
shows itself in these cases, just as it shows itself in the cases which
occur among ourselves in the present day: it is now melancholy, and the
patient is silent and sullen, and now it vents itself in bursts of anger
and ferocious resentment. And the epilepsy of the sacred books is the
epilepsy of all our systems of nosology: the phenomena of the diseases
are precisely the same. Nor does this, say they, detract from the very
high character which Christ undoubtedly sustains in the inspired
writings, or diminish the value of his miracles as the evidences of our
religion; since it must be allowed, that to cure a disease with a word
or a touch is an effort of power far beyond the reach of any human
being. And let it be remembered, that those who deny the expulsion of
demons are ready to admit that diseases were miraculously cured. There
is a miracle in either case; and, in either case, it is a sufficient
proof of our Saviour’s mission, and an adequate support of the Christian
faith.
3. To these statements and reasonings, the advocates of possessions have
not been slow to reply. They call in question the truth of Dr. Farmer’s
leading asseveration; namely, “that extraordinary works have never been
performed without a divine interposition;” and contend, that as human
beings have a certain sphere and agency allotted them, so it is
reasonable to believe that malignant spirits have a wider sphere, and an
agency less controlled; and that within this sphere, and in the exercise
of this agency, they perform actions, the tendency of which is to thwart
the purposes of the divine beneficence, and to introduce confusion and
misery into the world. They argue, too, that the devil himself, the
chief of the apostate spirits, is often represented in holy writ as
exerting his malignity in opposition to the designs of infinite
goodness; and in the case of our first parents, as a remarkable example,
he tempted them to disobedience, and led them to their fall. It was in
consequence of his machinations, that they brought down upon themselves
the wrath of Heaven, and were driven from the garden in which “the Lord
had placed them.” The advocates of possessions contend still farther,
that the revelation which is made to us in sacred Scripture is addressed
to our understandings; that it is not only in our power, but that it is
our indispensable duty, to examine it, and to judge of it; that the
tendency of any miracle, or system of doctrine, is a sufficient evidence
of the character belonging to him who performs the miracle, or publishes
the doctrine; that good actions are demonstrative of the quality of
goodness; and, in short, that a religion calculated to make us happy
must have proceeded from a Being who has consulted and provided for our
happiness. Nor is this a matter so abstruse and remote from human
apprehension, that we can form no opinion about it. “For,” say they, “if
any thing connected with Christianity be plain, it seems to be that the
tendency of the religion is beneficent; and that it is no less pure in
its character than blessed in its effects. The very miracles recorded in
Scripture are proofs of goodness. They must have been wrought by a good
being. And,” they continue, “we think ourselves entitled to hold our
religion as true, and to regard it as in the highest degree beneficial,
though we must allow, at the same time, that the magicians of Egypt
performed many wonderful works by the agency of wicked spirits; that the
sorceress of Endor was in league with the powers of darkness, and that
Christ was literally tempted ‘of the devil,’ in the wilderness of
Judea.”
4. With regard to the more specific question of demoniacal possessions,
they answer, that though God has often been pleased to accommodate
himself to our apprehension by adopting the current language of the
countries, where the revelation was first published; yet the account of
the creation given by Moses is not altogether an instance in point. For,
say they, while it is granted that the true system of the universe is
not laid before us in the first chapter of Genesis, it ought to be
remembered that the statements in that chapter are exceedingly general;
and that, while the whole truth is not told, it being no part of the
revelation to tell it, there is, at the same time, no error directly
inculcated. In the demoniacal cases, however, the conduct of the
inspired writers, and, indeed, of Christ himself, is widely different.
They positively and directly inform us, that a demon “enters into” a
man, and “comes out” of him; they represent the demons as speaking, and
reasoning, and hoping, and fearing, as having inclinations and aversions
peculiar to themselves, and distinct from those of the person who is the
subject of the possession; they tell us of one unhappy sufferer who was
vexed with many devils; and, in the case of the demoniac of Gadara, they
assure us that the devils were “cast out” of the man, and were
permitted, at their own request, to “enter into” a herd of swine which
were feeding in the neighbourhood, and that immediately the herd ran
violently down a steep place, and were drowned in the sea. Who ever
heard of swine afflicted with madness as a natural disease? Or, when and
where has the epilepsy, or falling sickness, been predicable of the sow?
For, it must be carefully observed that the disease of the man, the
affection of the human sufferer, whatever that affection might have
been, was clearly transferred from him to the animals in question.
Beside, as various instances are recorded in Scripture, and as several
cases are given at considerable length, might we not expect, if
possessions were really nothing more than ordinary diseases, that the
truth would be somewhere told or hinted at? that, within the compass of
the sacred canon, something would be said, or something insinuated,
which would lead us to understand that the language, though inaccurate
and improper, was used in accommodation to the popular belief? Might we
not expect that Christ himself would have declared, in one unequivocal
affirmation, or in some intelligible way, the exact truth of the case?
Or, at all events, when the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Apostles
on the day of pentecost, and when the full disclosure of the revelation
appears to have been made, might it not reasonably have been looked for
that the popular error would have been rectified, and the language
reduced from its figurative character to a state of simple correctness?
What conceivable motive could influence our Saviour, or his Apostles, to
sanction the delusion of the multitude? And does it not strike at the
root of the Christian religion itself, to have it thought, for a single
moment, that its “Author and Finisher,” who came to enlighten and to
reform the world, should have, on so many occasions, not only
countenanced, but confirmed, an opinion which he must have known to be
“the reverse of the truth”?
Let us then, say they, beware how we relinquish the literal sense of
holy writ, in search of allegorical or figurative interpretations. And
if, upon any occasion, we think it proper to do so, let us consider well
the grounds and reasons upon which our determination is built. It is
evident that the devil and his angels, according to all that we can
learn of them in the sacred books, are real beings; that the demons of
the New Testament are malignant spirits; and that they act upon the same
principles, and even under the authority of Satan himself, who is
otherwise called Beelzebub, and the prince of the devils. Nay, in these
very cases of possession, the chief of the apostate angels is clearly
set forth as acting either in his own person, or by means of his
infernal agents. And it is on this supposition alone that we can explain
the language of Christ in that remarkable declaration which he makes to
the Pharisees and rulers of the Jews, and which we find recorded in the
twelfth chapter of the Gospel by St. Matthew. “The Pharisees heard it,”
observes the Evangelist, “and they said, This fellow doth not cast out
devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their
thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself
shall not stand; and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against
himself: how shall then his kingdom stand?”
5. On this subject of diseases it is also to be observed, that the
inspired writers uniformly make a distinction between diseases occurring
in the ordinary course of nature, and diseases occasioned by the agency
of evil spirits. “There is every where,” says Bishop Porteus, “a plain
distinction made between common diseases and demoniacal possessions,
which shows that they are totally different things. In the fourth
chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the very first mention is
made of these possessions, it is said that our Lord’s fame went
throughout all Syria, and that they brought unto him ‘all sick people,
that were taken with divers diseases and torments,’ and those ‘which
were possessed with devils,’ and he healed them. Here those that were
taken with divers diseases and torments, and those possessed with
devils, are mentioned as distinct and separate persons: a plain proof
that the demoniacal possessions were not natural diseases: and the very
same distinction is made in several other passages of holy writ. There
can be no doubt, therefore, that the demoniacs were persons really
possessed with evil spirits; and although it may appear strange to us,
yet we find, from Josephus and other historians, that it was in those
times no uncommon case.”
6. We may conclude, from the argument on both sides of the question,
that the only reason which can be urged for departing from the obvious
sense of Scripture is, that cases of possession involve a philosophical
mystery. This, truly, is a very insufficient ground, and especially when
we consider that if we better knew the nature of spirits, and of our own
frame, the philosophy might appear all on the opposite side, and no
doubt would do so. But no one who admits the Scriptures to decide this
question, can consistently stand upon that objectionable ground of
interpretation to which he is forced by denying the plain and consistent
sense of innumerable passages. If he admits this error, he must admit
many others; for a Bible, so interpreted, may be made to mean any thing.