If, then, they were fallen angels, the Jews of ancient times were ignorant of their existence, and had no fears respecting them. In Psalm 96: 5, we are told that "all the gods of the heathen are idols" (daimonia). The heathen worshipped the deified ghosts of dead men, and their idols were representations of these ghostly gods. But the Bible declares that these gods had no real existence; and the mere representation of them was all that did really exist.

There are now three questions which demand serious consideration. 1. What was the theory adopted by the Jews respecting these demons? 2. From whence did they derive their opinions concerning them? 3. Had their opinions in relation to them any foundation in truth?

1. What were their opinions respecting demons? On the authority of Josephus, we affirm that they believed these demons to be the souls or spirits of dead men. From reading what is said. about these demons in the New Testament, it is evident the Jews believed there was a vast number of them. It is also evident they believed these demons sometimes came back to this world, entered into the bodies of the living, and had power to torment them, by inflicting various maladies upon them, such as dumbness, blindness, lunacy, epilepsy, madness, &c. This opinion is alluded to, Matt. 9:32-34; Luke 11: 14-26; Matt. 12: 22-28, and 17: 14 -18; and Luke 8: 26-38. Madness was supposed to be occasioned by a demon of the very worst and most malignant kind. The number of demons which a man had was supposed to be in proportion to the strangeness and malignity of the disease with which. he was afflicted. They had observed that, when a person was cured of insanity or madness, and afterwards had a relapse, the disease seized hold of him with increased violence. Hence they supposed the old demon had returned, and brought other demons with him; or that a new demon, of more malignant character than the first, had taken possession of him. This opinion is alluded to, Luke 11: 24-26, and Matt. 12: 43-45. They believed that all the demons were subordinate to one great chief or leader, and this chief they called Beelzebub. This opinion is alluded to by Mark 3: 20 -26; Matt. 12: 22-28, and Luke 11: 14-26. They seem to have thought that these demons were in due time to be sent into some place of punishment, — under the earth, or under the sea.

This we infer from Luke 8: 31, and Matt. 8: 29. They believed these demons might be expelled by human agency; and hence they practised exorcism for that purpose. Matt. 12: 27, and Luke

11: 19.

2. From whence did they derive these opinions? It could not be from the Bible, for we have seen the Bible teaches no such doctrines. Where, then, could they have learned them? We answer, they learned them from the heathen. We have seen that their fathers knew nothing about the existence of such beings, and had no fear of them. We have also seen that when the Jews first began to worship such beings they worshipped "new gods," which came "newly up," and of which their fathers, although enjoying a revelation from God, had never heard. But when did they learn these opinions? Dr. Knapp, an orthodox German divine, whose work on Theology has been translated at Andover, and highly approved by the professors there, says: "There is no trace of a belief in the existence of evil spirits, even among the Jews, until the Babylonian captivity." And every person at all acquainted with Jewish history knows that, during their seventy years' captivity in Babylon, they learned a vast many heathen notions, and, by incorporating them with their own religion, corrupted the religion of their fathers, and even made void the law of God by their traditions. But where did the heathen learn these opinions? Certainly not from divine revelation, for they enjoyed no such revelation. In fine, we can trace these opinions to no higher or better source than the vain imaginations of the heathen. They originated from the same source as did the heathen opinions concerning the angel of darkness, the angel of light, the god Baal, the god of the grove, the god of the hills, the god of the valley, the god of thunder, the god of storms, the god of peace, the god of war, &c., &c. They owe their origin to the same source as did all the gods of the heathen, of whom there were no less, in the time of Christ, than thirty thousand. If any man thinks he can trace them to a higher or better source than this let him nerve himself to the task. We feel very confident he will fail in the undertaking. Let us now hear what the learned Wakefield says on this subject. He says: "Demoniacs was a popular name for one sort of madness, chiefly of the raging kind, founded on a foolish superstition of the vulgar, that madmen were possessed by the spirits of dead men, called demons, just as

others were called lunatics, as if affected by the moon. So modern times have had their St. Vitus' dance, and St. Anthony's fire; and these terms are used without scruple by those who have not the least notion of the interference of these saints in these particular disorders. Indeed, all great irregularities in the system of nature, of which raging madness is one, the ancients, both heathen and Jews, but especially the latter, were accustomed to attribute to supernatural agency. Thus, for instance, an unusual and lucky cast of the dice was called by the Romans the cast of Venus,' as if occasioned by that goddess. It is wonderful to me how any man, conversant with classic authors, can entertain any other opinion of the demoniacs of the New Testament. Indeed, it is the most remarkable instance I know of the triumph of prejudice and superstition over learning and good sense. This idea is nothing new. The same opinion was maintained by several great men, both of the last and present century; and, among the rest, by Joseph Mede, of Christ's College, Cambridge, as learned, and, in every view, as respectable a divine as England ever produced."

Such being the facts in relation to demons and demoniacs, we are led necessarily to adopt the following conclusions, namely:

1. That all that is said in the New Testament concerning demons is spoken in accordance with the generally received opinions of the people of that day, and without any intention to sanction those opinions, or give them the least countenance or support.

2. When persons are spoken of in the New Testament as having been possessed with demons, all that ought to be understood by it 18, that the persons were laboring under some kind of disease, either bodily or mental, which was supposed to be occasioned by a demon or demons.

John

3. When the Jews accuse Christ of having a demon, 10: 20, 21, and 7: 20, and 8: 48, 49, 52, — and John the Baptist of having a demon, Matt. 11: 18, and Luke 7: 33, — all that is to be understood by it is, that either they accused them of this out of malice, or else they actually believed them to be deranged, and supposed their derangement to be occasioned by a demon. Indeed, they say of Christ, John 10: 20, " He hath a demon, and is mad." Now, all will admit that when they supposed John and Christ to have a demon, they were mistaken. Why, then, not

admit that they were equally as mistaken in supposing any one to have a demon?

4. When it is said of Christ, and of his disciples, that they cast demons out of persons, we are to understand by it that they removed the diseases under which the persons were laboring, and which were supposed to be produced by demons. Indeed, it is expressly said. of such, that "they were healed." Matt. 4: 24, and 12: 22, and 17: 18, and 15: 28; Acts 5: 16.

5. When Christ gave his disciples power to cast out demons, we are to understand that he gave them power to cure or remove those diseases which were supposed to be occasioned by evil spirits called demons.

we are

6. When it is said of Mary Magdalene that seven demons were cast out of her, we are to understand that a disease was removed from her which was supposed to be occasioned by the power of seven demons. And when it is said that a legion of demons were cast out of the Gadarene demoniac, Luke 8: 30, 33, to understand that he was cured of a madness of such malignant kind that it was supposed to be produced by the combined influence of a whole legion of demons. That his disease was madness is evident, not only from his conduct, but from the fact that it is expressly said of him, "he was restored to his right mind." Luke 8: 35, and Mark 5: 15.

7. When it is said of Christ that he cast a dumb demon out of one man, -Luke 11: 14,— and a blind and dumb demon out of another, Matt. 12: 22, we are to understand, not that the demons were blind, or dumb, or both, but that the person himself, in the one case, was dumb, and in the other, both blind and dumb. And as Christ restored the speech of one, and both the speech and sight of the other, hence it was supposed by the Jews that he had cast out the demons which were supposed by them to occasion these disorders.

To the views which we have presented on this subject, it will undoubtedly be objected as follows, namely:

1. "Both Christ and his disciples speak of demons as real beings, nor do they give the least intimation that they were not. Now, if they believed that the opinions of the Jews respecting demons were mere superstitious whims, why did they not inform them of this fact?"

ANSWER. We will answer this question by asking another. Christ speaks of mammon as a real being, — Matt. 6: 24; Luke 16: 9,- nor does he give any intimation that he did not believe in the existence of such a being. Now, if Christ believed that no such being as mammon existed, why did he not inform the people of that fact? Mammon was one of the heathen gods the god of riches; and if the silence of Christ respecting his disbelief in the existence of demons proves that such beings do really exist, then his silence respecting his disbelief in mammon proves that such a god as mammon does really exist. Again, Christ and his disciples speak of the devil, of death, and of wisdom, as real beings; but who believes that they intended to countenance the belief of the heathen respecting the existence of an evil god, or of the Jews respecting the existence of an all-powerful evil spirit, called the devil, who was once an angel of God? In Chapter II. of this work we have shown that Christ used the term devil in the same sense that the term Satan is employed in the Old Testament; and that it is not once used to signify a personal being called the devil. Is it to be supposed that, when Christ and his disciples speak of death and wisdom as personal beings, they meant to recognize the real existence of the angel of death, supposed to exist by the Jews? or the goddess of wisdom, supposed to exist by the heathen? Certainly not. No more is it to be supposed that, when they speak of demons, they meant to recognize the real existence of such beings. Once more. The disciples of Christ speak of the doctrine of preëxistence; John 9:1-3; of the doctrine of transmigration; Matt. 14: 1, 2, and 16: 14; Mark 6: 15, 16; Luke 9: 7, 19; nor were either of these doctrines pointedly or particularly condemned by Jesus Christ. But are we to infer from this fact that these doctrines are true? In Gal. 3: 1, Paul speaks of witchcraft, nor does he say that he did not believe in witchcraft. But are we to infer from this that Paul really believed in the existence of witches? In Acts 16: 16, we read of a certain damsel who was possessed of ation," or "of Python," as it is in the margin. heathen prophetess, or fortune-teller, and it was supposed by the heathen that she was inspired by the spirit of Apollo Pythias. Paul is said to have cast this spirit out of her; and nothing is said, either by Luke or Paul, respecting the falsity of the heathen notions respecting the source of the inspiration of this damsel, nor even of

a

66

spirit of divinThis damsel was a