Page images
[ocr errors]

rendered devil we are concerned in this inquiry." He then refers us to Dr. Campbell for proof that it is well known that demons are dead men deified. And in the next chapter he quotes Dr. Campbell as saying that it is difficult to ascertain the precise idea of these words, since they are never confounded with diabolos. So that by his own showing Dr. Campbell is far from laying it down as a well known truth, that demons are dead men deified. The quotation from Dr. Campbell expresses no more, than what the Orthodox have generally believed, that while both the words demon and devil mean evil spirits of some character, they are not strictly speaking synonymous-no nearer so perhaps than the devil and his angels. But such false dealing as this, was sufficient for the purpose of blinding many readers, who had not the means, and many more who would not take the trouble, to detect the falsehood. But as an honest reasoner, he was bound to state what ideas the believers in diabolical agency attached to the word, and show their fallacy if he could; instead of dismissing them in the gross, with one sweeping assertion, designed to convey the idea that no one relied upon them for proof. This way of proof is more expeditious than convincing.

The meanings of the words daimon and daimonion as given in Wahl's Lexicon, are as follows-An evil angel subject to the dominion of satan-that is the same as an unclean spirit, a fallen angel, an evil spirit. In Robinson's Calmet they are made to mean, good and bad angels, but generally bad angels. And it is there further stated, that the Hebrews express demon by serpent, satan, or tempter, sheddim or destroyers. Now all the instances in which a word occurs to which standard writers give such a meaning, Mr. Balfour leaves out of what professes to be a repetition of the proofs on which the Orthodox have relied. By such a method of argument, of the fairness of which you will better judge when I rehearse some of the passages there omitted, he disposes of scores of passages which according to his plan of argument, would otherwise need consideration, and these instances contain some

of the strongest proofs relied on by any one, to prove the doctrine in question.

Some of these instances I will now adduce, requesting the reader to carry along with him, Mr. B.'s definition of daimon, viz: dead men deified, and see how it will apply. Matt. 9: 32. As they went out behold they brought to him a dumb man, possessed of a devil (dead man deified.) And when the devil (dead man deified) was cast out, the dumb spake, and the multitudes marvelled. But the Pharisees said, he casteth out devils (dead men deified) by the prince of devils (dead men deified.) Here the historian tells us, not only that the man was dumb but that he was possessed of a devil, and that the restoration of his speech was the result of the devil's being cast out. And Mr. Balfour has so disposed of the subject, as not to have told us the reasons why we should not believe it. Again, Luke 8: 26. And when they went forth to land, there met him out of the city, a certain man which had devils of a long time, and wore no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, what have I to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man, For oftentimes it had caught him, and he was kept bound with chains, and in fetters, and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness. And Jesus asked him saying, what is thy name? and he said legion, because many devils were entered into him. And they besought him, that he would not command them to go out into the deep. And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountains, and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine.

These will serve as examples of passages, where evil spirits are spoken of under the name ofdaimonion or daimon and which are omitted by Mr. Balfour; because, he tells us, that it is well known that these words have no reference to

that being, christians call devil, but to demons or dead men deified. Surely if this fact were well known, Mr. B. should have exhibited some of the grounds of that knowledge. Because with the books before him, that he occasionally quotes, it must be well known to him, that his opponents have not attained to that knowledge, and will require the proof. And it is much to be regretted, that he has not tried the force of his methods of interpretation, upon these passages-since their testimony is so full and explicit, that we are at a loss to conceive how a plausible evasion could be made out.

One fact which should convince Mr. B. of the disingenuousness and insufficiency of his method of disposing of these passages, is, that in some instances the word demon is made to mean essentially the same as satan or beelzebub. In Matt. 12: 22, we have an account of Jesus casting out devils (demons) and the pharisees attributing it to beelzebub and of Jesus replying-If satan cast out satan he is divided against himself, and how can his kingdom stand? And if I by beelzebub cast out devils, how do your children cast them out? Here demon, satan and beelzebub are used as in such a sense synonymous, that when demons are cast out, satan is said to be cast out, in such a sense that the casting out of demons is at least the casting out of satan's angels. Then in Acts 10: 38. Peter in allusion to Christ's practice of healing demoniacs, says -who went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed with the devil, (diabolos)—as if those possessed of demons, were oppressed with the devil, as if the influence of demons and the influence of the devil were the same influence.

Now with regard to the question, whether evil spirits were actually present, in those said to be possessed with the devil, I have a few considerations to advance. And as Mr. B. has passed this subject in silence, I am under the necessity of conjecturing what objections he would advance to the doctrine of real possessions. This necessity I regret, inasmuch as our opponents are supposed to be the best able to frame their own objections. Though he has asserted, that it is well known that demons are dead men, and hinted at no oth

er meaning as possible, I will not hold him to the necessity, and absurdity of carrying out this meaning, through all the passages where it occurs. I will rather suppose this is a matter, which he did not go into. The folly of such an interpretation, would be seen at once, if you were to substitute dead men deified, in all cases where the word demon occurs, in the passage respecting the Gadarene demoniac. But I will take the most plausible evasion, that I have ever seen advanced. And that is, that these persons were not really possessed of devils, but only supposed to be so by a superstitious people. And that Christ and the sacred historians employed language, in compliance with popular usage and belief, without countenancing or discountenancing that belief. This is a notion into which writers of much respectability for talents have fallen. But the talents they have employed in its defence, have served to show out more completely its unsoundness. They will have it, that Christ spoke of men being possessed of devils, as we use the word lunatic, which in its etymology means moon-struck, for one who is mentally deranged. And that evil spirits had no more agency in the diseases which Christ cured under the name of demoniacal possessions, than the moon has in cases of lunacy which now occur.

But one difficulty in the way of this theory is found in the fact that demoniacs, at once, and in some cases without any previous knowledge of Christ, address him as the Messiah. This did the two which met Christ in the country of the Gergesenes. They were strangers to him, and his fame, exceeding fierce so that no man could even pass them safely, and upon the first meeting of Christ, they cried out-What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? Here must have been some supernatural agency, in imparting to these delirious men if they were only delirious, the knowledge which they had of Christ. And it is no easier to suppose they had the spirit of prophecy, than that they had the spirit of the devil. One or the other it must have been. A similar instance is recorded in Mark 1: 23. And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 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. Now if this man were a mere lunatic, whence had he this knowledge? If he were deranged, his knowledge did not come by natural process, by reasoning from the evidence then before the people, that he was the Son of God.

The sickness of the blind and deaf men, mentioned in Matt. 12: 22, is attributed to satan by Christ himself. He told his opposers, that if he cast out devils in that case by Beelzebub, then we have the absurdity of satan casting out satan, which is as much as to say, that satan was cast out when the demonized man was healed. Nor can it with truth be said, as it has been sometimes suggested, that this was a mere argumentum ad hominem, reasoning on the ground of his opponents, without admitting it. For it is not suggested in the objection of the Pharisees that the beings that were cast out were satan. But Christ goes beyond their suggestion, and says if satan cast out satan. It is Christ and not the Pharisees that makes the casting out of demons, the casting out of satan. And of the woman who had been sick eighteen years, he said, satan bound her. Now suppose that when Christ cast out devils, and when he addressed the demons themselves, and commandded them to depart, he at the same time knew, that the disease was entirely natural, and that devils had nothing to do with it; there was not the mere use of a customary expression, which use had sanctioned; there was a direct confirmation of an erroneous opinion. And the opinion, if it was an error, was according to Mr. B. one of great magnitude, so great as to require a whole chapter of Mr. B. to display all the evils thereof. But if this belief be an error, and one so mischievous, is it not surprising that among all that is said in relation to the subject at least apparently giving countenance, not one clause or word is any where thrown in to intimate that there was no intention to give countenance, to the belief in question.

Recur now to the passage already quoted from Luke, describing the demoniac in the country of Gadarenes. Here the demon is represented as speaking repeatedly, and offering a

« PreviousContinue »