and Elders acted upon the appeal made from certain brethren in Antioch, as we would act in a similar case, by the exercise of our own | judgment upon the points referred, and upon the sacred scriptures supposed to bear upon them. Their decision was sanctioned by the Holy Spirit as sound and judicious, insomuch that in the letters moved by James to be written to the Gentile brethren they say, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." But the peculiarity of this sentence "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," demands a little attention. What means “and to us,” unless they were two and not one! The Holy Spirit, therefore, approved, and they approved the measure. Hence the sentence goes forth as emanating from both, as we would say, "It seemed good to the King and his Ministers," meaning that each had thought upon the subject individually, and on comparing their sentences they agreed. This seems to autho- | rize me in concluding that having compared their own judgment of the case with the scriptures of truth as quoted and applied by James, they felt that their mind and that of the Holy Spirit agreed. They did not, then, say “ and to us” to sanction the | Spirit's decision, but to inform their brethren that the case was to them so obvious that the sentence to which they came exactly corresponded with the oracles of the Spirit of God. No other view can be taken of this passage, in my judgment, that will justify the style of the Apostles. The legitimate inferences, therefore, are that the case was referred to the Apostles and Elders in the character of bishops or overseers of the flock of Christ; that they came together to deliberate upon the subject, and came to a conclusion so rational and consistent, that it exactly tallied with the words spoken by the Holy Spirit seven hundred years before that time. Such is the case; and its utility is, that it shows us how we ought to refer and judge all matters likely to disturb the peace and harmony of the kingdom of Messiah. But some men will say, "The case is not exactly parallel with ours.' On that view of parallelism scarcely a case of discipline in the New Testament could instruct us, unless it be almost identical with that on hand. We have but two or three cases of discipline in the whole book, and we have but a very few rules on the subject; but we have in the cases occurring and in the precepts, given certain principles which are to us as much rules of action as the broadest precepts in the decalogue. How much is left to human judgment on some occasions by the words " and such like?" This is the apostolic custom: after specifying certain characters he concludes with " and such like."* Are we not, then, to judge in all such cases ? Are not cards, dice, wheels of fortune, games of chance, theatres, balls, cabals, horseraces, bull-fights, cock-fights, &c. to be condemned by the church, and they who practice them to be excommunicated, by the potency of the words " and such like,” as well as "envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and they who practice such things?" If they are not by inference and implication, they are not all to be condemned. The 15th of the Acts, then, establishes a principle of reference or appeal in all difficult cases, to the presbytery of a different church or churches; and authorizes such elders to come together to consider and decide the matter. It does not institute stated, annual, biennial, or triennial synods, councils, or conventions; but it institutes a special conference or convention when exigencies may require. And it makes such decisions final and ultimate on the parties. If I am asked how it makes such a decision final and imperative, I Galatians v. 21. tribunal that shall decide the question, they are more likely to be reconciled to its award than they would be to that of an itinerant, local, or stated court, with whose creation they had nothing to do. The method taught us in this chapter of settling debated questions, whether of doctrine or discipline about to affect our spiritual relations, is, therefore, as evidently wise and judicious as it is plain and practicable, and I trust does or will commend itself to the understanding and good sense of the whole Christian brotherhood. Should any one, however, worthy of being heard, object to the views offered, it will afford us pleasure to consider objections, and still farther to expatiate on this interesting and important subject. answer that this is the very spirit or intent of the appeal. If the parties agree to refer it to certain Elders and Apostles, then by the very fact of agreement, they pledge themselves to be ruled by the decision. And, indeed, if one party refuse reference altogether, it is proof of conscious injustice on its side, and will justify the other party in referring at its own option. These are such common sense views and principles, that methinks a moment's reflection will demonstrate their necessity and utility to every intelligent and candid man. There is, then, no danger of interminable references and endless appeals -of disturbing the peace of the whole Christian community, by admitting the rational and scriptural mode of preventing unenlightened, partial, and arbitrary decisions, and of guaranteeing the enjoyment of personal independence, character, and Christian liberty to every member of Christ's kingdom. Who could commit his moral destiny to any particular community, to whose decision, however partial, self-willed, unjust, and in--While the antiquary is gathering formal, he must forever submit! I, for one, most certainly would not. My guarantee is, that there are other elderships in Chrsit's kingdom, to whom on any painful exigency I can appeal, as ultimate and final in the case. I may be asked, Why say that I will appeal to "the Elders and Apostles" of another church, or churches? I answer, because the Elders to whom I appeal acknowledge the supremacy of the Apostles (not of the Pope, nor of any superior ecclesiastical tribunal), and will, after judging the case as faithfully as they can, do, as they did in Jerusalem, finally hear the Apostles, and accept their decision of the matter. The multiplication of appeals, in the very nature of things, seldom, if ever, proves more satisfactory than one. When the parties have liberty to choose-indeed, to constitute the DEMONOLOGY. A. C. An Address delivered to the Popular BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. up the mouldering ruins of ancient temples, palaces, or cities, or poring over the coins, medals, and statues of other ages, seeking to prove or to embellish some theory of the olden times; while the astronomer is directing his largest telescope to some remote ethereal field, far beyond the milky way, in search of new nebula, unseen before, in hope to find the nucleus of some incipient solar system; while the speculative geologist is delving down to the foundations of the eternal mountains, in quest of new evidences of his doctrine of suc cessive and long-protracted formations of the massy strata of Mother Earth, "rock ribbed and ancient as the sun;" while the sceptic is exultingly scanning the metaphysical dreams of some imaginary system of Nature, or seeking in the desolations of the ancientMythologies arguments against the mighty facts and overwhelming demonstrations of the Christian faith -may I be indulged, gentlemen, to invite you into the precincts of Demonology, and to accompany me in a brief excursion into the land of demons, whence, dark and mysterious though it be, we may, perhaps, guided by some friendly star, elicit some useful light on that grand and awful world of spirits, which, as we descend the hill of life, rises higher and higher in its demands upon our time and thoughts, as embracing the all-absorbing and transcendant interests of human kind. Think not, however, that I intend to visit the fairy realms and enchanting scenes of wild romance; or that I wish to indulge in fascinating fictions of poets, ancient or modern; think not that I am about to ascend with old Hesiod, into his curious theogony of gods and demigods, or to descend with our late Sir Walter Scott to the phantasmatic realms of his Celtic and Scottish ghosts and demons. I aim at more substantial entertainment, at more sober and grave realities, than the splendid fancies of those gifted and fortunate votaries of popular applause, rather than of the approvals of the conscien blended in the same tradition; and, therefore, neither awed by authority, nor allured by the fascinations of novelty, he institutes an examination into the merits of a subject, which, if true, cannot but deeply interest the thoughtful; and which, if false, should be banished from the minds of all. That a class of beings of some sort, designated demons, has been an element of the faith, an object of the dread and veneration of all ages and nations, as far back as all memory reaches, no one who believes in a spiritual system-no one who regards the volumes of divine inspiration, or who is only partially acquainted with Pagan and Jewish antiquity, can reasonably doubt. But concerning these demons, of what order of intelligences, of what character and destiny; of what powers intellectual and moral, or immoral, there has been much debate, and still there is need of farther and more satisfactory examination. But before entering philosophically or practically into this investigation, it is necessary that we define the true and proper meaning of the term demon. This word, it is said, is of tious and sedate. Grecian origin and character — of It is the subject of demons, as which, however, we have not full forming a portion of the real anti-assurance. In that language it is quities of the world-as connected with Pagan, Jewish, and Christian theology; it is the subject of demons, sometimes called devils, not in their fictitious, but true character, that I purpose to discuss: for even here there is the fact and the fable, the true and the false, the real and the imaginary, as in every thing else. The extravagant fancies of the poets, the ghosts and spectres of the dark ages, have spread their sable mantles upon this subject, and involved it all either in philosophical dubiety, or in a blind indiscriminate infidelity. The inductive and Christian philosopher in this department, as in most others, finds both truth and fable | written and pronounced daimoon; and, according to some etymologists, is legitimately descended from a very ancient verb pronounced daioo, which means to discriminate, to know. Daimoon, or demon, therefore, simply indicates a person of intelligence-a knowing one. Thus, before the age of philosophy, or the invention of the name, those were called demons, as a title of honour, who afterwards assumed the more modest title of philosophers. Aristotle, for his great learning, was called demon, as was the celebrated Thucydides: hence, among the Platonists it was for some time a title of honour. But this, it must be observed, was a special appropriation, like our use of the words divine and reverend. When we apply these titles to sinful men, who, because of their calling, ought to be not only intelligent, but of a divine and celestial temper and morality, we use them by a special indulgence from that sovereign pontiff with whom is the jus et norma loquendi. But as some of the Platonists elevated the spirits of departed heroes, public benefactors, and distinguished men, into a species of demi-gods, or mediators between them and the Supreme Divinity, as some of our forefathers were accustomed to regard the souls of departed saints, this term began to be used in a more general sense. Among some philosophers it became the title of an object of worship; while, on the other hand, it degenerated into the genii of poetry and imagination. In tracing the popular transitions and transmigrations of words, permit me, gentlemen, to say that we are not to imagine that they very ceremoniously advance, as our naval and military officers, from one rank to another, by some systematic or conventional agreement, amongst the heads of the departments in the army of words and phalanxes of human speech. On the contrary, the transitions are exceedingly anomalous and sometimes inverted. In this instance the term demon, from simply indicating a knowing one, became the title of a human spirit when divested of the appendages of its clay tenement, because of its supposed initiation into the secrets of another world. Thus a separated spirit became a genius, a demi-god, a mediator, a divinity of the ancient superstition, according to its acquirements in this state of probation. But we shall better understand the force and import of this mysterious word from its earliest acceptation among the elder Pagans, Jews, and Christians, than from the speculations of etymologists and lexicographers. Historical facts, then, and not etymological speculations, shall decide not only its meaning, but the character and rank of those beings on whom, by common consent, this significant title was conferred. To whom, then, among Pagan writers, shall we make our first appeal? Shall we not at once carry up the question to the most venerable Hesiod, the oldest of Grecian bards, whose antique style even antedates that of Homer himself almost one hundred years? Shall we not appeal to the genealogist of all the gods, the great theogonist of Grecian mythology? Who than he more likely to be acquainted with the ancient traditions of demons? And what is the sum of his testimony in the case? Hear him speak in the words of Plutarch: "The spirits of mortals become demons when separated from their earthly bodies." The Grecian biographist not only quotes with approbation the views of Hesiod, but corroborates them with the result of his own researches, avowing his conviction that "the demons of the Greeks were the ghosts and genii of departed men ; and that they go up and down the earth as observers, and even rewarders of men; and although not actors themselves, they encourage others to act in harmony with their views and characters." Zenocrates, too, as found in Aristotle, extends the term to the souls of men before death, and calls them demons while in the body. To the good demons and spirits of deceased heroes they allotted the office of mediators between gods and men. In this character, Zoroaster, Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Plutarch, Celsus, Apuleius, and many others, contemplated the demons of their times. * Whoever, indeed, will be at pains to examine the Pagan mythologies, * Hence the saint worship and saint mediators of the dark ages, and of the less favored portions of our Anglo-Saxon race. The one and all, will discover that some mise of it to Abraham, demons were doctrine of demons, as respects their recognised and worshipped. nature, abodes, characters, or em-consultation of the spirits of the dead, ployments, is the ultimate foundation the art and mystery of necromancy, of the whole superstructure; and that the species of familiar spirits, and the radical idea of all the dogmata of wizards, are older than Moses, and their priests, and the fancies and spoken of by him as matters of anfables of their poets, are found in cient faith and veneration. Statues, that most ancient and veritable tra- indeed, are ordained, and laws are dition that the spirits of men survive promulged from Mount Sinai in Aratheir fallen tabernacles, and live in a bia, from the voice of the Eternal disembodied state from death to the King, against the worship of demons, dissolution of material nature. To the consultation of familiar spirits, these spirits in the character of genii, the practice of necromancy, and all gods, or demi-gods, they assigned the the arts of divination; of which we fates and fortunes of men and coun- may speak more particularly in the tries. With them a hero became a sequel. Hence we affirm that the demon in hades; and a demi-god, a doctrine of a separate state-of disnumen, a divinity in the skies. It embodied ghosts, or demons—of neis not without some reason that the cromancy and divination, is a thouwitty and ingenious Lucian makes sand years older than Homer or his dialogist, in the orthodoxy of his Heisod, than any Pagan historian, age, thus ask and answer the follow- philosopher, or any poet whatsoever. ing questions: What is man? A And so deeply rooted in the land of mortal god? And what is God? An Canaan, so early and so long cherished immortal man. In one sentence, all and taught by the seven nations was Pagan antiquity affirms that from this doctrine in all its branches, that, Titan and Saturn, the poetic progeny notwithstanding the severe statutes of Cœlus and Terra, down to Escu- against it, traces of it are found lapius, Proteus, and Minos, all their among the Jews for almost a thousand divinities were the ghosts of dead years after Moses. Of the wicked men, and were so regarded by the Jeroboam it is said, "He ordained most erudite of the Pagans themselves. priests for the high places, and for Think not, gentlemen, that because the demons." (Duet. xviii. 10. Lev. we summon the Pagan witnesses first, xvii. 7), &c. Even David admits that we regard them either as the that his nation "learned the works first in point of age or character. of the heathen, served their idols, and Far from it. They were a pack of sacrificed their sons and daughters to plagiarists, from Heisod to Lucian. demons ;" and he adds, "they ate the The Greeks were the greatest literary sacrifices of the dead," a clear intithieves and robbers that ever lived, mation that worshipping demons was and they had the most consummate art worshipping the dead. Isaiah, too, of concealing the theft. From these lamenting their idolatry, asks the Pagans, whether Greeks or Romans, mortifying question, "Shall a people we ascend to the Jews and to the seek the living to the dead?” Patriarchs, whose annals transcend those of the most ancient Pagans many centuries. In the times of the Patriarchs, in the infancy of the Abrahamic family, long before the time of their own Moses, we learn that in the land of Canaan, almost coeval with the pro But there is a peculiarity in the acceptation of this term among Jews and Pagans which demands special attention. Amongst them the term demon generally, if not universally, denoted an unclean, malign, or wicked spirit; whereas amongst the Pagans it is as often represented a good as an |