have not seen them: the record is now given that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ. But if God has not given this kind of evidence, has he thrown us upon mere belief of written testimony? By no means; he has given us another kind of supernatural evidence, equally powerful to the first, which calls upon us to receive the gospel with as much assurance as if we had lived when Christ rose from the dead. Mr. Campbell then said that he would now offer abundant reasons why the oracle of God should be heard with all reverence by those to whom it is proclaimed in the present day. The way in which the gospel was at first attested by Christ and his apostles was by the exhibition of sensible miracles, which left those who witnessed them without excuse in their unbelief. But, said Mr. Campbell, miracles are also given to us at the present hour for the purpose of proving the truth of Christianity. They are not of the first class, but a kind which make their appeal to the intellect, and therefore in their uses and tendency as powerful as the first. In these remarks, Mr. Campbell referred to the evidence of prophecy, and proved that none but God could utter prophecies; and therefore, in their nature, were as supernatural and powerful as miracles. The prophecy more particularly adduced by Mr. Campbell was one which referred to the dispersion of the Jews, and preserving them as a distinct nation throughout all time, as given by Isaiah, the prophet, 600 years before | Christ. He showed that the writings of Isaiah were just as much public property then as they are now; for they were not only read in the Hebrew language, but also in Greek, years before Jesus Christ was born. The lecturer, in remarking upon this prophecy, said that, at the time it was delivered, there was the greatest improbability that it should ever be fulfilled. Mr. Campbell then asked the audience if the prophecy referred to was not fulfilled to the very letter? The Jews were scattered throughout the whole world ; and yet, after all, as it was prophesied, they still preserve their national identity and peculiarities; and while there was not a man living who could in reality say that he possessed a drop of the Greek or Roman blood in his veins, the seed of Abraham remained intact amidst the downfall of nations. Mr. Campbell next particularly referred to the passage in Deuteronomy which he first read, and showed the reason why the declaration in the passage was made. The people of Israel had heard the awful voice of the Almighty from Mount Sinai, and so terrible was it, that they entreated Moses that it should not be spoken to them again. "Let God," said they, "not speak to us again in his own person. God heard their petition, and so he commanded Moses to declare that a "Prophet shall the Lord their God raise up amongst their brethren like unto him," &c. as if he had said, "This prophet shall be your oracle, and those who would not hear him would be destroyed from amongst the people." Christ, then, is the only true oracle of God, and when he has spoken, he has declared to us the mind and will of God. | Having showed that Jesus was the oracle of God, the lecturer proceeded to lay before his audience one great oracle on which Jesus, as the Messiah, founded his church. Before proceeding to do this, Mr. C. in order to show the supremacy of Jesus Christ as the oracle of God, recapitulated the scenes on the mount of Transfiguration. The oracle referred to was the confession of Peter to the query of Jesus, "Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?" Peter, as the mouth of the Apostles, said, "We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." Jesus having approved of the confession, said, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, Peter, upon which the Christian Church but my Father, who is in heaven," was reared. All, then, who make &c. Mr. Campbell, in passing, the same good confession are built showed the total weakness of the upon Jesus Christ, and consequently Roman Catholic superstructure in entitled to a place in the Church of having been built upon a gross gram- God. From this, Mr. Campbell matical absurdity—in supposing that showed, in a clear and striking manthe Church of Christ was built uponner, that the Church of Christ was the flesh, blood, and bones of Peter, not founded upon either the 39 artiinstead of on the noble confession cles of the Church of England, or the which that Apostle made. The lec- 158 folios of the Church of Rome; turer said that he was astonished that for it is not of human reason, but of there could be found a man, with the divine revelation. It is not contained least spark of common sense or intel- in the articles of Amiens, or upon ligence, who could receive such a the five points of Calvin, or upon any gross and absurd assumption. Mr. number of isolated abstractions of Campbell then went on to explain human opinion, or the metaphysics the reason why Jesus adopted the of all the Doctors of Divinity in the parabolic teaching. Every man, he world; but solely upon Jesus Christ said, had his own idiosyncrasy in himself. "This is the tried rockthe manner of communicating his the sure foundation-stone; and whothoughts to his hearers; and this, it soever buildeth thereon, shall never would appear, was the peculiar mode be ashamed." Jesus Christ adopted in teaching his disciples. The lecturer, in confirmation of this, referred to a number of other passages, where his thoughts so accommodated the beauties of external nature to the purposes of the instruction he was communicating to his disciples. The lecturer then, in again alluding to the confession of Peter, said that the whole communicated this great truth, THAT UPON ONE GRAND CONFESSION CHRIST WOULD BUILD HIS CHURCH. There were but three ideas in this confession; and upon reflection it will be found, said Mr. Campbell, that we have only three distinct ideas of any man, viz.-1st, his person; 2nd, the office he sustains in society; and in the 3rd place, the character which he bears in fulfilling the duties of his office. The same understanding of Jesus Christ is what the grand confession of Peter indicated, viz. his person, his office, and character—that is to say, in his person he is the son of God; in his office he was the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King; and in his character he was the only foundation' In referring to that part of the answer of Jesus, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee," &c. Mr. Campbell combatted the popular, but erroneous, idea that was entertained by the theologians of the present day on the subject. It was said that it was the Holy Spirit which revealed this truth to Peter. This, however, was a mistake. The Holy Spirit had his work, and Jesus Christ performed his. Jesus Christ said that it was not the Spirit that revealed the truth to Peter, but his heavenly Father. Mr. Campbell then showed when and how this was done, by a reference to the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus, when a voice from the excellent glory proclaimed, "This is my Son, the beloved in whom I delight: hear ye him." Every man, then, said Mr. C. that believed with Peter, and confessed like him, is a fit subject for baptism, and of the Christian Church, for he has believed in Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, and the Saviour of mankind. This, then, is the only basis upon which Christianity is reared—the faith that saves the soul-the power of God and the wisdom of God to every man that believes, and the only foundation of a glorious immortality. But here another difficulty presents itself: If the spirits of bad dead men can communicate information to the living, why may not the spirits of good dead men also make revelations by which living men may be saved? The revelations of bad spirits leads to condemnation, and OBJECTIONS TO ESSAY ON why not the revelations of good spirits 66 DEMONOLOGY. NO. I. DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL-Your essay on Demonology has perplexed me more than any thing ever written by you. This transmigration of spirits, or souls, is a doctrine that I have not sufficiently investigated to become a believer in it. You say the habitation of Mary Magdalene was rather her misfortune than her crime. Viewing it in this light, you must, of course, admit, or rather contend, that the bodies of the living may be inhabited by the spirits of the dead without the volition of the living; and if so, a kind of fatality attaches itself to the idea. If those spirits pollute the living, an abstract operation must of necessity be wrought for their relief, else their fate is sealed. It seems to me that necromancy, witchcraft, &c. &c. were not permitted to enter any, without an act of volition on their part; else I cannot see the propriety of enacting laws against these things. Law without volition appears to me to be useless, to say the least of it; and if by an act of volition those spirits are let in, then Mary Magdalene was a criminal because she broke the law enacted against suffering such spirits taking possession of her. But it seems that the expulsion of demons was classed among the miracles in the days of the Lord and his Apostles; therefore I conclude that from that time the spirits of the dead (if they be demons) have been prohibited from inhabiting the living, else miracles are still necessary in order to their expulsion. If demons are expelled by the gospel, then it would be hard to distinguish between sins and demons. If evil spirits, or the spirits of evil men who have died, become demons, and enter into living men, then I should suppose that the spirits of good men may in like manner enter into living men; and if the bad spirits make bad men, then the good spirits make good men. And who knows but what the doctrine of personal election can be sustained on this ground? If those spirits enter without the volition of the party, surely the doctrine is true. And how can the Holy Spirit be distinguished from the spirits of good men who have died, seeing that the same effect is produced by their inhabitation? lead to justification? But I have scattered difficulties enough for one sheet. Suffice it to say, that I am sceptical in relation to revelations being made by dead men or their spirits. Affectionately yours, M. WINANS. NO. II. DEAR BROTHER CAMPBELL-Your essay on "Demonology" has set me to examining and thinking on the subject. In my last I let you know that my mind had been much perplexed-the difficulty grew out of your definition of Demons. I dared not directly call in question_your definition; and if admitted when I put the definition (spirits of dead men) in the room of (demons or devils), I was perplexed; for those spirits of dead men were frequently heard by living men to cry out with a loud voice, and say many things which were understood by the living; besides, those possessed were always known to be so possessed by the people of that age: and physical power seems to be imparted by those spirits to those whom they inhabited-as in the case of the Gadarene, who excelled Sampson, for he could not be bound with chains; and also the case of the Asiatic, who subdued seven men, stripping and wounding them. Whether those spirits were visible or invisible I have not been able clearly to make out. The circumstances would seem to justify the notion that they were visible, as well as audible, in some cases. the case of the Gadarene they were counted, and found to be "about two thousand.” In I infer from your essay that witches, wizards, and necromancers of all grades were inspired by the spirits of dead men ; and, as a matter of course, those books. used by the heathen world were the revelations of the spirits of dead men, of which there were burnt in Ephesus at one time in value fifty thousand pieces of silver. Brother Campbell, did Jannes and Jambres work real miracles, as well as Moses, only inferior in their kind? And did Simon the sorcerer work real miracles in Samaria, before Philip went there? Or were the people deceived by Jannes and Jambres and by Simon? I had almost concluded that all the curious arts of the ancients were mere deceptions, by which the people were imposed on, and led to worship nonenities -and things having no power. Were not idols of all kinds called demons by the ancients? And were not the worshippers of idols called the worshippers of demons? If so, is an idol any thing-has it a real existence, or real powers? Should there not be a distinction drawn between wizards, witches, &c. and those possessed of demons? Enough for this time. Yours as ever, M. WINANS. REPLY TO M. WINANS. BROTHER WINANS-You are one of that class of men whose instant assent to the essay on Demonology I little expected; but of whose final and ultimate acquiescence I as little doubted. You believe some things only because you cannot believe their contraries, and to assent to others only because you cannot dissent from them. Therefore I anticipate the final and happy removal of all your doubts. But should you never concur with me in this matter, it will not in the least mar that good opinion I have formed of your understanding, nor that affection I have cherished for you on the ground of your moral excellence. In this material and sceptical age -this age of general laws and general providences—this reign of Nature and secondary causes, in which flesh overcomes spirit, and the animal man controls the spiritual—in which that which is seen prevails over that which is unseen, and the temporal over the eternal, I have long since discovered that the neologistical speculations of Genevan metaphysicians are much more popular and fascinating than the old-fashioned doctrine of angels, spirits, demons, and a spiritual system. Difficulties there are in forming any conception of spiritual existences, either of their mode of existing or operating. But that they do exist and operate, is as certain and as evident as that we ourselves live. Regarding demons, the difficulty is the same, whether you imagine them to have been angels or the spirits of dead men; especially when you attempt to conceive of their manner of operating upon or through human bodies. And to make them metaphors, rhetorical figures, or any sort of allegoric representations of things, is at once to abandon every safe principle of interpretation, and to make of non-effect the volume of inspiration. I teach that the Bible means what it says-that when it speaks of a demon, it means just a demon, and no more nor less than a demon; and when it details the operations of a demon, I understand these operations to be as real as the operations of a man, or any other agent of which the Bible speaks. I do not think that a demon means an angel as respects nature or character, though it may sometimes be used to represent officially a messenger from God, as the winds or the waves may be. The But angels are not demons, though it should seem that demons are sometimes messengers. Demons were not always courted when they possessed men; nor when courted, did they always appear to them that sought their aid. facts, not the philosophy of them, is first to be considered. But the difficulty you suggest seems to grow out of an idea not necessary to the subject at all. Familiar spirits and spirits of divination are represented as spirits sought after; while demons in the work of possession were always unwelcome guests. Misdeeds and rebellion may have, in many instances, superinduced such a visitation; or, as in the case of a man born blind, they may have been permitted, in extraordinary eras, to domineer over men, that the power and glory of God might be demonstrated in their vanquishment and expulsion. Nor does it follow that because evil demons delighted in possessing and in tormenting the unhappy victims of their power, that good demons possess any desire of inhabiting human bodies; for, when absent from the body, they are at home with the Lord. But as proved in my essay on Demonology, the scriptural acceptation of the term warrants not the application of it to the spirits of the saints as lingerers about the coasts of time, and reluctantly separating from the depositories of their old mortalities. The remaining difficulty suggested in your laconic remarks-as to the comprehension of the modus operandi of spirits of any sort, human or angelic, upon our spirits-lays not only against demonology, as I have viewed it, but against the gospel history itself! inasmuch as spiritual influence, direct and indirect, by various instrumentalities, is the order of things under the new economy, and is every where supposed to be essential to the complete subjugation of our nature to the Lord, and the perfect fruition of the reign of grace, both now and hereafter. "If the spirit of him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies by his spirit that dwells in you." There is no need of ghostly revelations, since we have one from the Holy Spirit, on any point touching our spiritual relations and eternal destiny; and, therefore, no oracle, suggestion, or communication from any ghost or demon, would, were it offered, be accepted by any one conversant with the precepts and promises of the gospel. I wonder not, then, that you are sceptical in all such revelations. We agree in this, as in a thousand other points; and, therefore, I contemplate the doctrine of demons as no way responsible for such opinions, reasonings, and conclusions, as some might superficially deduce from your doubts and difficulties on the subject. In reply to some of your questions touching Jannes and Jambres, and Simon the Sorcerer, I give it as my opinion that they did work miracles; and these miracles only served as a foil to set off the superior powers of the Divine Spirit in his messengers. Idols were not called demons by the ancients; but some of the demons were worshipped in the statues and busts erected to their memory. That there is a difference between demons, wizards, and necromancers, no one conversant with the scriptures of truth can doubt. But our principles of interpretation demand that the term demon be taken in its commonly received sense in the times of the Apostles, and in no special and private interpretation of our own. What that acceptation was I have shown, and I believe incontestibly set forth. It appearing, then, that in our Saviour's time it was so understood, especially in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, we must admit the fact that the demons of the New Testament were the spirits of dead men; for so all the Apostles seemed to have used it. Paul characterizes Popery by its demon doctrines; and John in the Apocalypse says that Babylon in ruins shall be the habitation of demons-certainly neither angels nor human bodies, but the spirits of the slain inhabitants. I have yet many things to say on this subject, hard indeed to be uttered, and harder to be believed, because of the dulness of hearing of this generation. Meanwhile I rejoice in your consolation-that the Lord's triumph over demons has greatly retrenched, if not wholly circumscribed their dominion over men. Indeed I have long reflected with pleasure on these words of an old seer-"There is no enchantment against Jacob, nor divination against Israel." Happy the people in such a case! But Yours in haste and all affection for the hope's sake, A. C. LETTERS FROM EUROPE-XII. Edinburgh, August 14, 1847. MY DEAR CLARINDA―Though personally in Edinburgh, my subject is |