league with the powers of darkness, would have done more towards enlightening this world, not only than any individual, whether prince or philosopher, but incomparably more than all inspired men of every age? Whether a person whose character was that of deceit, consummate falsehood and impiety, as the character of Jesus must have been, if he wrought miracles by infernal power, would have set himself, summis viribus, against every vice, every prejudice, and corrupt propensity: and while he exhibited in his own life, unparalleled and untarnished purity, would have communicated to the world a system of religion, which was never embraced by a nation, a community, or an individual, without producing an extraordinary measure of happiness and virtue; a religion whose votaries are the excellent of the earth, just in proportion as they honor its author nd conform to his precepts.

But you will never, I am confident, have occasion to resort to this reasoning. You will never meet a person, who, after being convinced that Christ wrought the miracles, which are attributed to him, will deny the truth and divinity of the Gospel. Whenever he acknowledges, that Jesus did eject demons, no doubts will be pretended, whether it were done by Beelzebub, or by the finger of God.

Now if a vast majority of Christians, far from being stumbled at the doctrine of demoniacal possessions, believe Christianity the more firmly on account of that power which Christ displayed in counteracting them; and if infidels do never reason in the manner which the objector supposes, and if they did, could be answered with perfect facility, how little ground does this objection afford for discarding the opinion usually received.

LECTURE LII.

ON DEMONIACS.

It is my present object to consider some of those passages in the New Testament, which relate to demoniacal possessions; that we may better judge, whether they can be reconciled with the opinion, that nothing more is meant, than bodily distempers.

In giving an account of our Saviour's preparing his twelve apostles for their ministry, Mark uses the following language: And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out demons. Here, you perceive, that the ejection of demons is clearly distinguished from the cure of diseases. Now, if demonized persons were merely under the influence of natural disorders, why should the sacred historian make this distinction? On this supposition, it is very evident, that the latter clause conveys no new idea at all; it only reiterates part of what has just been asserted. Say, if you please, that demonized persons had a particular kind of disorder. Be it so. The language will, however, be precisely similar to this: He sent them forth to cure sickness, and to cure fevers. What conceivable need is there for adding the latter clause ?

In the Gospel of St. Luke, we find observed the same distinction between those who were demonized and those who were sick; for he speaks of "certain women, who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities;" and when the twelve disciples were actually sent forth, their commission was couched in similar language: Then called he his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure dis

eases. Further, Jesus said in relation to Herod: Go and tell that fox, Behold I cast out demons, and do cures.

Now, let it be considered, that whatever may be the truth, as to demoniacal possessions, the Jews, in our Saviour's time, did believe in them. And is it not extremely evident, that the language which our Saviour used, was calculated to confirm them in their opinion? The sentiment if true, is an error of no inconsiderable magnitude. According to the ideas of our opponents, it is an error of great magnitude. It has filled the world, they tell us, with various kinds of superstition. It is inconsistent with scriptural ideas of divine supremacy, and even with that proof of revelation, which arises from miracles. But if this be true, our Saviour must have known it, as well as the gentlemen who make these remarks. Is it not then surprising, that he said nothing to correct the error? But he did more than barely to leave them in quiet possession of the opinion; he did much, it would seem, to establish it. This will further appear from other passages. The following account is given ust by St. Luke: When he came forth to land, there met him out of the city a man which had demons a long time, and ware 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 often times it had caught him; and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the demon into the wilderness. And Jesus asked of the demon, What is thy name? And he said, Legion, because many demons had entered into him. And they besought him, that he would not command them to go out into the deep. And there was an herd of many swine, feeding on the mountain, And they besought him, that he would suffer them to enter into them; and he suffered them. Then went the demons out of the man and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

Here you will observe, the demon is represented as speaking repeatedly, and as offering a request. If the demoniac were under the influence merely of a bodily distemper, what was it, which asked permission to enter the swine? Was it the distemper? The very idea is absurd. Was it the man himself? "Yes, replies an opponent, he fancied himself possessed by an evil spirit, and believed that the spirit through the medium of his organs made this request." There would be plausibility in this reply, but for the two following considerations; 1. If such were the fancy of the insane person, why should our Saviour, who came to diffuse truth, and not to establish errors, use such language, as was obviously calculated to leave this impression on all present, that demons were concerned in the case? That his words are thus calculated I need not assert, after having read them.

2. The request was granted: Then went the demons out of the man, and entered into the swine. Surely this was not the demoniac; for he, at this time, was cured. Yet, whatever it was, it was the same, which asked the liberty. It was therefore, neither the man, nor the distemper. The inference seems undeniable. I therefore repeat the question, which has been proposed. Why did our Saviour and the evangelists, use such language, as tended to confirm a popular error, especially if, as many assert, the error tends to produce extensive mischief? Or rather, can it be supposed that they did so?

To this inquiry the opponents of the doctrine under examination reply, "That it is no unusual thing for all sorts of persons, and particularly the divinely commissioned instructors of mankind, to adopt the popular language, without designing to countenance the opinion on which the language was originally founded." In proof of this, they tell us that the sacred writers speak of the rising and setting of the sun, though the succession of a day and night is well known to proceed not from the revolution of the sun, but of the earth.

In answer to this I observe, that there are three cases, in which popular language, founded on false opinion, may be

adopted. 1. When it is difficult to change the popular phraseology, and when the error on which it is founded is of no importance. This applies to passages of Scripture, in which the sun is said to rise and set, and to rejoice in running his race. It is so difficult to alter this phraseology, that philosophers have not attempted it. They speak of the sun passing through the Zodiac, and of the sun's rising and setting, with as much constancy as the common people. The error, so far as morality or religion is concerned, is perfectly innocent. The system of Copernicus has done nothing towards rendering the obligations of virtue either stronger or weaker.

2. Popular language, though founded in error, may be used, when its original import is no longer restrained; as a vile person may be termed a villain, though we have no reference to the tenure of land; and a person of vivacity may be called sprightly, though we have no belief in the existence of sprights. For this reason, as we have endeavored to show, the writer of the Acts was justified in saying of the damsel at Philippi, that she had лvεuμa núvwvos, though he had no belief that she was inspired by Apollo. The phrase, we believe, had lost its primitive reference, and expressed nothing more than the term prophesying spirit.

But, 3. The case is widely different, when popular language is used under such circumstances as render it probable, and almost certain, that persons who hear will be confirmed in dangerous errors. Now the belief of demoniacal possessions, is, by those who reject it, considered an error of great magnitude, and of a tendency extremely mischievous. Why then, I repeat it, if our Saviour and the evangelists were of the same opinion, did they use such language as tended directly to establish the error?

The answer which has been given, you perceive, is by no means satisfactory, because the two cases compared are so extremely different.

Nor does it appear, that our Lord and the evangelists were under any necessity of using the popular language, that con