followers contend that, among the Jews, certain diseases, such as
madness and epilepsy, were usually ascribed to the agency of evil
spirits. This was the current notion and belief of the country. Upon
this notion the ordinary phraseology was built. Our Lord and his
Apostles adapted their instructions to this prevailing notion, and used
the language which had been formed upon it; just as Moses, in his
account of the creation, adapts himself to the popular astronomy of his
time, instead of laying before us the true system of the heavenly
bodies. He speaks, not in relation to what is physically correct, but in
relation to what was believed. He founds his instructions upon the ideas
already entertained by the people to whom the revelation was first
communicated: and Christ and his Apostles do the very same thing. They
speak of the demoniacs, not according to the real state of the case, but
according to the notions which the Jews entertained of it. Not a few of
those demoniacs appear to have been persons of a disordered
understanding, subject to attacks of mania; some of them were afflicted
with the epilepsy, or falling sickness, some were deaf, and others were
dumb. When a demon is said to enter into a man, the meaning is, that his
madness is about to show itself in a violent paroxysm; when a demon is
said to speak, it is only the unhappy victim of the disease himself that
speaks; and when a demon or devil is expelled, the exact truth of the
case, as well as the whole of the miracle, is nothing more than that the
disease is cured. Occasionally, too, say those who contend against the
reality of demoniacal possessions, the language of the sacred books
confirms the explanation which has just been given. Thus, in the tenth
chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find the Jews saying of Christ, “He
hath a devil, and is mad,” as if the expressions were perfectly
equivalent; and the person who is represented, in the seventeenth
chapter of Matthew, as a lunatic, is spoken of by St. Mark as vexed with
a dumb spirit. It is farther argued on this side of the question, that
the instances of possession recorded in the books of the New Testament
have all the features and appearance of ordinary diseases. The madness
shows itself in these cases, just as it shows itself in the cases which
occur among ourselves in the present day: it is now melancholy, and the
patient is silent and sullen, and now it vents itself in bursts of anger
and ferocious resentment. And the epilepsy of the sacred books is the
epilepsy of all our systems of nosology: the phenomena of the diseases
are precisely the same. Nor does this, say they, detract from the very
high character which Christ undoubtedly sustains in the inspired
writings, or diminish the value of his miracles as the evidences of our
religion; since it must be allowed, that to cure a disease with a word
or a touch is an effort of power far beyond the reach of any human
being. And let it be remembered, that those who deny the expulsion of
demons are ready to admit that diseases were miraculously cured. There
is a miracle in either case; and, in either case, it is a sufficient
proof of our Saviour’s mission, and an adequate support of the Christian
faith.
3. To these statements and reasonings, the advocates of possessions have
not been slow to reply. They call in question the truth of Dr. Farmer’s
leading asseveration; namely, “that extraordinary works have never been
performed without a divine interposition;” and contend, that as human
beings have a certain sphere and agency allotted them, so it is
reasonable to believe that malignant spirits have a wider sphere, and an
agency less controlled; and that within this sphere, and in the exercise
of this agency, they perform actions, the tendency of which is to thwart
the purposes of the divine beneficence, and to introduce confusion and
misery into the world. They argue, too, that the devil himself, the
chief of the apostate spirits, is often represented in holy writ as
exerting his malignity in opposition to the designs of infinite
goodness; and in the case of our first parents, as a remarkable example,
he tempted them to disobedience, and led them to their fall. It was in
consequence of his machinations, that they brought down upon themselves
the wrath of Heaven, and were driven from the garden in which “the Lord
had placed them.” The advocates of possessions contend still farther,
that the revelation which is made to us in sacred Scripture is addressed
to our understandings; that it is not only in our power, but that it is
our indispensable duty, to examine it, and to judge of it; that the
tendency of any miracle, or system of doctrine, is a sufficient evidence
of the character belonging to him who performs the miracle, or publishes
the doctrine; that good actions are demonstrative of the quality of
goodness; and, in short, that a religion calculated to make us happy
must have proceeded from a Being who has consulted and provided for our
happiness. Nor is this a matter so abstruse and remote from human
apprehension, that we can form no opinion about it. “For,” say they, “if
any thing connected with Christianity be plain, it seems to be that the
tendency of the religion is beneficent; and that it is no less pure in
its character than blessed in its effects. The very miracles recorded in
Scripture are proofs of goodness. They must have been wrought by a good
being. And,” they continue, “we think ourselves entitled to hold our
religion as true, and to regard it as in the highest degree beneficial,
though we must allow, at the same time, that the magicians of Egypt
performed many wonderful works by the agency of wicked spirits; that the
sorceress of Endor was in league with the powers of darkness, and that
Christ was literally tempted ‘of the devil,’ in the wilderness of
Judea.”
4. With regard to the more specific question of demoniacal possessions,
they answer, that though God has often been pleased to accommodate
himself to our apprehension by adopting the current language of the
countries, where the revelation was first published; yet the account of
the creation given by Moses is not altogether an instance in point. For,
say they, while it is granted that the true system of the universe is
not laid before us in the first chapter of Genesis, it ought to be
remembered that the statements in that chapter are exceedingly general;
and that, while the whole truth is not told, it being no part of the
revelation to tell it, there is, at the same time, no error directly
inculcated. In the demoniacal cases, however, the conduct of the
inspired writers, and, indeed, of Christ himself, is widely different.
They positively and directly inform us, that a demon “enters into” a
man, and “comes out” of him; they represent the demons as speaking, and
reasoning, and hoping, and fearing, as having inclinations and aversions
peculiar to themselves, and distinct from those of the person who is the
subject of the possession; they tell us of one unhappy sufferer who was
vexed with many devils; and, in the case of the demoniac of Gadara, they
assure us that the devils were “cast out” of the man, and were
permitted, at their own request, to “enter into” a herd of swine which
were feeding in the neighbourhood, and that immediately the herd ran
violently down a steep place, and were drowned in the sea. Who ever
heard of swine afflicted with madness as a natural disease? Or, when and
where has the epilepsy, or falling sickness, been predicable of the sow?
For, it must be carefully observed that the disease of the man, the
affection of the human sufferer, whatever that affection might have
been, was clearly transferred from him to the animals in question.
Beside, as various instances are recorded in Scripture, and as several
cases are given at considerable length, might we not expect, if
possessions were really nothing more than ordinary diseases, that the
truth would be somewhere told or hinted at? that, within the compass of
the sacred canon, something would be said, or something insinuated,
which would lead us to understand that the language, though inaccurate
and improper, was used in accommodation to the popular belief? Might we
not expect that Christ himself would have declared, in one unequivocal
affirmation, or in some intelligible way, the exact truth of the case?
Or, at all events, when the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Apostles
on the day of pentecost, and when the full disclosure of the revelation
appears to have been made, might it not reasonably have been looked for
that the popular error would have been rectified, and the language
reduced from its figurative character to a state of simple correctness?
What conceivable motive could influence our Saviour, or his Apostles, to
sanction the delusion of the multitude? And does it not strike at the
root of the Christian religion itself, to have it thought, for a single
moment, that its “Author and Finisher,” who came to enlighten and to
reform the world, should have, on so many occasions, not only
countenanced, but confirmed, an opinion which he must have known to be
“the reverse of the truth”?
Let us then, say they, beware how we relinquish the literal sense of
holy writ, in search of allegorical or figurative interpretations. And
if, upon any occasion, we think it proper to do so, let us consider well
the grounds and reasons upon which our determination is built. It is
evident that the devil and his angels, according to all that we can
learn of them in the sacred books, are real beings; that the demons of
the New Testament are malignant spirits; and that they act upon the same
principles, and even under the authority of Satan himself, who is
otherwise called Beelzebub, and the prince of the devils. Nay, in these
very cases of possession, the chief of the apostate angels is clearly
set forth as acting either in his own person, or by means of his
infernal agents. And it is on this supposition alone that we can explain
the language of Christ in that remarkable declaration which he makes to
the Pharisees and rulers of the Jews, and which we find recorded in the
twelfth chapter of the Gospel by St. Matthew. “The Pharisees heard it,”
observes the Evangelist, “and they said, This fellow doth not cast out
devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their
thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself
shall not stand; and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against
himself: how shall then his kingdom stand?”
5. On this subject of diseases it is also to be observed, that the
inspired writers uniformly make a distinction between diseases occurring
in the ordinary course of nature, and diseases occasioned by the agency
of evil spirits. “There is every where,” says Bishop Porteus, “a plain
distinction made between common diseases and demoniacal possessions,
which shows that they are totally different things. In the fourth
chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the very first mention is
made of these possessions, it is said that our Lord’s fame went
throughout all Syria, and that they brought unto him ‘all sick people,
that were taken with divers diseases and torments,’ and those ‘which
were possessed with devils,’ and he healed them. Here those that were
taken with divers diseases and torments, and those possessed with
devils, are mentioned as distinct and separate persons: a plain proof
that the demoniacal possessions were not natural diseases: and the very
same distinction is made in several other passages of holy writ. There
can be no doubt, therefore, that the demoniacs were persons really
possessed with evil spirits; and although it may appear strange to us,
yet we find, from Josephus and other historians, that it was in those
times no uncommon case.”
6. We may conclude, from the argument on both sides of the question,
that the only reason which can be urged for departing from the obvious
sense of Scripture is, that cases of possession involve a philosophical
mystery. This, truly, is a very insufficient ground, and especially when
we consider that if we better knew the nature of spirits, and of our own
frame, the philosophy might appear all on the opposite side, and no
doubt would do so. But no one who admits the Scriptures to decide this
question, can consistently stand upon that objectionable ground of
interpretation to which he is forced by denying the plain and consistent
sense of innumerable passages. If he admits this error, he must admit
many others; for a Bible, so interpreted, may be made to mean any thing.
DESTRUCTIONISTS, a denomination of Christians who believe that the final
punishment threatened in the Gospel to the wicked and impenitent,
consists not in eternal misery, but in a total extinction of being; and
that the sentence of annihilation shall be executed with more or less
previous torment, in proportion to the greater or less guilt of the
criminal. This doctrine is largely maintained in the sermons of the late
Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich; Mr. S. Bourn, of Birmingham; and many
others. In defence of the system, Mr. Bourn argues, that there are many
passages of Scripture, in which the ultimate punishment to which wicked
men shall be adjudged is defined, in the most precise and intelligible
terms, to be an everlasting destruction, proceeding from Him who is
equally able to destroy as to create; and who, by our Lord himself, is
said to be “able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” By the
“everlasting punishment of the wicked,” therefore, Mr. B. understands
“everlasting destruction,” literally speaking, “from the presence of the
Lord,” which is “the second death;” from which there can be no
resurrection, and which is set in opposition to “eternal life.” In
speaking of the images used to illustrate this subject, Mr. B. remarks,
that the wicked are compared to combustible materials, as brands, tares,
&c, which the fire utterly consumes: so Sodom and Gomorrah suffer “the
vengeance of eternal fire,” that is, they are destroyed for ever; and
the phrases, “the worm that dieth not, and the fire which is not
quenched,” are placed in opposition to entering into life, and denote
the termination of existence, Mark ix, 43.
To all this it may be answered: 1. That annihilation, as a punishment,
admits of no degrees. 2. If we connect with this a previous state of
torment, (as Mr. Winchester says, “for ages of ages,”) annihilation must
be rather a relief from punishment, than the punishment itself. 3. That
annihilation is rather a suspension than an exertion of divine power. 4.
That the punishment of impenitent men is described as the same with that
of the fallen angels, who are not annihilated, Matt. xxv, 41, but remain
in expectation of future punishment, “Art thou come to torment us before
the time?” Matt. viii, 29. 5. In the state of future punishment, there
is said to be “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” Matt. xxiv, 51. 6. As the
happiness of saints in the future state consists not merely in being,
but in well being, or happiness; so the punishment of the wicked
requires the idea of eternal suffering to support the contrast. It might
be added, that annihilation, as far as we know, forms no part of the
divine economy. One thing is also certain and indisputable: the strong
language of Scripture is intended to deter men from sin; and whoever
attempts to remove the barrier, offers insult to the divine wisdom, and
trifles with his own destiny. But the capital argument is, that it is
unscriptural:--“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched,” is, like many others, a declaration, to which no dexterity of
interpretation can give any other good sense, than the continuance of
conscious punishment.
DEVIL, _Diabolus_, an evil angel. The word is formed from the French
_diable_, of the Latin _diabolus_, which comes from the Greek διάϐολος,
which, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies _calumniator_, _traducer_,
or _false accuser_, from the verb διαϐάλλειν, _to calumniate_, &c; or
from the ancient British _diafol_. Dr. Campbell observes, that, though
the word is sometimes, both in the Old Testament and the New, applied to
men and women, as traducers, it is, by way of eminence, employed to
denote that apostate angel, who is exhibited to us, particularly in the
New Testament, as the great enemy of God and man. In the two first
chapters of Job, it is the word in the Septuagint by which the Hebrew
שטן, _Satan_, or _adversary_, is translated. Indeed, the Hebrew word in
this application, as well as the Greek, has been naturalized in most
modern languages. Thus we say, indifferently, _the devil_, or _Satan_;
only the latter has more the appearance of a proper name, as it is not
attended with the article. There is, however, this difference between
the import of such terms, as occurring in their native tongues, and as
modernized in translations. In the former, they always retain somewhat
of their primitive meaning, and, beside indicating a particular being,
or class of beings, they are of the nature of appellatives, and make a
special character or note of distinction in such beings. Whereas, when
thus Latinized or Englished, they answer solely the first of these uses,
as they come nearer the nature of proper names. Διάϐολος is sometimes
applied to human beings; but nothing is more easy than to distinguish
this application from the more frequent application to the
arch-apostate. One mark of distinction is, that, in this last use of the
term, it is never found in the plural. When the plural is used, the
context always shows that it refers to human beings, and not to fallen
angels. It occurs in the plural only thrice, and that only in the
epistles of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii, 11; 2 Tim. iii, 3; Titus ii, 3.
Another criterion whereby the application of this word to the prince of
darkness may be discovered, is its being attended with the article. The
term almost invariably is ὁ διάϐολος. The excepted instances occur in
the address of Paul to Elymas the sorcerer, Acts xiii, 10; and that of
our Lord to the Pharisees, John viii, 44. The more doubtful cases are
those in 1 Peter v, 8, and Rev. xx, 2. These are all the examples in
which the word, though used indefinitely or without the article,
evidently denotes our spiritual and ancient enemy; and the examples in
which it occurs in this sense with the article, are too numerous to be
recited.
2. That there are angels and spirits, good and bad, says an eminent
writer; that at the head of these last, there is one more considerable
and malignant than the rest, who, in the form, or under the name, of a
serpent, was deeply concerned in the fall of man, and whose head, in the
language of prophecy, the Son of Man was one day to bruise; that this
evil spirit, though that prophecy be in part fulfilled, has not yet
received his death’s wound, but is still permitted, for ends to us
unsearchable, and in ways which we cannot particularly explain, to have
a certain degree of power in this world, hostile to its virtue and
happiness,--all this is so clear from Scripture, that no believer,
unless he be previously “spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit,” can
possibly entertain a doubt of it. Certainly, among the numerous
refinements of modern times, there is scarcely any thing more
extraordinary than the attempt that has been made, and is still making,
to persuade us that there really exists no such being in the world as
the devil; and that when the inspired writers speak of such a being, all
that they mean is, to personify the evil principle! A bold effort
unquestionably; and could its advocates succeed in persuading men into
the universal belief of it, they would do more to promote his cause and
interest in the world than he himself has been able to effect since the
seduction of our first parents. But to be armed against this subtle
stratagem, let us attend to the plain doctrine of divine revelation
respecting this matter. In the Old Testament, particularly in the first
two chapters of Job, this evil spirit is called Satan; and in the New
Testament, he is spoken of under various titles, which are also
descriptive of his power and malignity; as for example, he is called,
“the prince of this world,” John xii, 31; “the prince of the power of
the air,” Eph. ii, 2; “the god of this world,” 2 Cor. iv, 4; “the
dragon, that old serpent, the devil,” Rev. xx, 2; “the wicked one,” 1
John v, 19. He is represented as exercising a sovereign sway over the
human race in their natural state, or previous to their being
enlightened, regenerated, and sanctified by the Gospel, Eph. ii, 2, 3.
His kingdom is described as a kingdom of darkness; and the influence
which he exercises over the human mind is called “the power,” or energy,
“of darkness,” Col. i, 13. Hence believers are said to be “called out of
darkness into marvellous light,” 1 Peter ii, 9. Farther, he is said to
go about “as a roaring lion, seeking its prey, that he may destroy men’s
souls,” 1 Peter v, 8. Christ says, “He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him;
when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of that which is his own, for he is
a liar, and the father of it,” John viii, 44. We are also taught that
this grand adversary of God and man has a numerous band of fallen
spirits under his control; and that both he and they are reserved under
a sentence of condemnation unto the judgment of the great day, Jude 6;
and that “everlasting fire,” or perpetual torment, “is prepared for the
devil and his angels,” Matt. xxv, 41. In these various passages of
Scripture, and many others which might be added, the existence of the
devil is expressly stated; but if, as our modern Sadducees affirm,
nothing more is intended in them than a personification of the abstract
quality of evil, the Bible, and especially the New Testament, must be
eminently calculated to mislead us in matters which intimately concern
our eternal interests. If, in inferring from them the existence of evil
spirits in this world, we can be mistaken, it will not be an easy matter
to show what inference deduced from Scripture premises may safely be
relied on. It ought not, however, to surprise Christians that attempts
of this kind should be made. St. Paul tells us, that in his day there
were “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into
the apostles of Christ; and no wonder,” says he, “for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light,” 2 Cor. xi, 13, 14.
3. To the notion, that the Jews derived their opinions on this subject
from the oriental philosophy, and that like the Persians they set up a
rival god; it may be replied, that the Jewish notion of the devil had no
resemblance to what the Persians first, and the Manicheans afterward,
called the evil principle; which they made in some sort coördinate with
God, and the first source of all evil, as the other is of good. For the
devil, in the Jewish system, is a creature as much as any other being in
the universe, and is liable to be controlled by omnipotence,--an
attribute which they ascribed to God alone.
4. The arguments from philosophy against the existence of evil spirits
are as frail as that which is pretended to be grounded upon criticism.
For that there is nothing irrational in the notion of superior beings,
is plain from this: that if there be other beings below us, there may be
others above us. If we have demonstration of one Being at least who is
invisible, there may be many other created invisible and spiritual
beings. If we see men sometimes so bad as to delight in tempting others
to sin and ruin, there may exist a whole order of fallen beings who may
have the same business and the same malignant pleasure; and if we see
some men furiously bent upon destroying truth and piety, this is
precisely what is ascribed to these evil spirits. It is one of the
serious circumstances of our probation on earth, that we should be
exposed to this influence of Satan, and we are therefore called to
“watch and pray that we enter not into temptation.”
5. The establishment of the worship of devils so general in some form
throughout a great part of the Heathen world, is at once a painful and a
curious subject, and deserves a more careful investigation than it has
received. In modern times, devil-worship is seen systematized in Ceylon,
Burmah, and many parts of the East Indies; and an order of devil-priests
exists, though contrary to the Budhist religion, against the temples of
which it sets up rival altars.