for holiness, and to seek their intercession in articulo mortis. Vide Jo. Himmelius, De Natura Veræ ac Religiosæ Invocationis, Contra Barthold.; Nihusium, 1624. Protestant theologians-e. g., Brochmand and Baumgartenhave allowed that angels may give good counsel, awaken pious thoughts, and produce pleasurable emotions. CHAPTER II. OF THE FALLEN ANGELS, OR EVIL SPIRITS. SECTION LXII. OF THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL SPIRITS; AND THEIR In addition to the works of Ode, Cotta, and others, mentioned s. 58, note, the student should consult the following, in reference to the history of this doctrine. J. G. Mayer, Historia Diaboli, &c., Ed. 2; Tubingæ, 1780, 8vo-a work in which the existence, condition, power, agency, &c., of evil spirits are considered, and in which the common doctrine is defended; and, on the other side, the work "Versuch einer biblischen Dämonologie, oder Untersuchung der Lehre vom Teufel und seiner Macht," with a preface and appendix by Semler; Halle, 1776, 8vo; in which the agency of the devil is denied. Cf. the work of Ewald, above cited. Other works relating to some particular points in this doctrine will be noticed, s. 65. [A complete view of the literature of this doctrine is contained in Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 67.] I. The Existence of Evil Spirits. It is undoubtedly true, as has been often contended, that the more savage and ignorant men are, the more slavish is their fear of such invisible beings, whether gods, angels, or of some other name, as are supposed to be evil and malignant; and also that the belief in the existence and influence of such beings commonly decreases as science and civilization advance. Some of the ancient nations believed in only one evil spirit, while others conceived of many such, under the government of one head. These were regarded as the authors of every description of evil, natural and moral, and to them were attributed all the diseases and calamities with which men are visited. The doctrine of the Jews respecting evil spirits, which has a general resemblance to that of other nations, though in many points it is entirely different, was not fully developed, as has been already remarked (s. 58, II. 3), until the time of the captivity. exhibited in the Jewish and Christian scriptures has been either doubted or wholly denied by some philosophers in every age. The principal objections urged by them against the existence of evil spirits are the following: 1. The idea of a spirit, by nature wise and intelligent, and yet opposed to God, seems, they think, to involve a contradiction. But if this objection were valid with regard to angels, it must also hold true with regard to men; and it would be impossible to find a man highly intelligent and sagacious, and yet wicked. [This is the principal objection upon which Schleiermacher rests his rejection of the common doctrinė respecting evil angels. If Satan were acquainted with God, and knew his power, he could not hope to succeed in opposing him; with all the high intelligence ascribed to him he must see the folly and ruin of wickedness, and repent, otherwise his understanding and his will would remain in fixed opposition; whereas the functions belonging to any real existence must be harmonious. Hence the conclusion is, that the idea of Satan, as a being possessed of high intelligence and yet opposed to God, contains logical contradictions, and cannot therefore be received. But if the existence of a depraved will be not inconsistent with the highest degree of intelligence with which we are acquainted in human beings, how can we tell that it may not be consistent with a far higher, and indeed the very highest, degree of finite intelligence? Besides, in a moral apostasy, though the defection of the will must precede the error of the understanding, yet the error of the understanding is sure to follow; and the higher intelligence which angels by nature possess may have become perverted by their fall, as is the case with men.-TR.] 2. There is no trace of a belief in the existence of evil spirits, even among the Jews, until the time of the Babylonian captivity. [But if, as has been shewn in a previous section, there was no necessity for the revelation of this doctrine before that time, and then it became necessary, the fact of its being previously unknown cannot, surely, be an argument against its truth when revealed. It is enough that it was at any time taught by inspired prophets.-TR.] [3. Connected with the foregoing objection, and perhaps implied in it, is another, which needs to be more fully stated. It is said, that the Biblical doctrine of a Satan is derived from the system of dualism so prevalent in the East, and is liable to the objections to which that system is exposed. This objection is urged by Henke, Eckermann, and others of the same school. But in answer to this it may be said, that even supposing the Biblical doctrine respecting Satan to agree with oriental dualism, The existence of any such evil spirits as are it does not follow that the former is untrue. If it is taught by inspired writers, it certainly does not become less true by having been taught by Zoroaster, and believed by the Persians, any more than the doctrines of God and divine providence are to be discarded because universally believed. But there are, it must be remembered, very obvious differences between the demonology of the sacred writers and of the Eastern philosophers. According to the latter, the two principles of good and evil are co-eternal and in every respect equal; and it is from this representation that all the evils connected with oriental dualism result; and it is in this very point that it differs from the Biblical doctrine. According to this, Satan himself, and all his legions, are creatures of God, dependent upon him, and trembling before him. Thus, although possessed of vast power, they are still under the entire control of the Ruler of the universe; and so our trust in him remains unshaken.-TR.] 4. Belief in evil spirits is confined, it is said, to rude and uncultivated men, and disappears as science and civilization advance, and ought therefore, in these enlightened times, to be wholly discarded. But it should be remembered that learned men in enlightened periods sometimes fall into errors, as well as ignorant men in barbarous ages, and that an opinion is not true merely because believed by the one, nor false because believed by the other. Those who deny the existence of evil spirits are called Ademonists. Many of these, who are hardly prepared flatly to oppose the authority of the inspired writers and to set aside their instructions, undertake the useless labour of explaining away the doctrine of the devil from the Bible, and in doing this resort to the most forced and unauthorized modes of interpretation. Vide Morus, p. 93, s. 13. [The modes of interpretation here alluded to were practised long since by the Rationalists of the seventeenth century-the Cartesians, Spinoza, and his friends. A good specimen of the manner in which these fathers of modern Rationalism disposed of the instructions of the Bible upon the subject of evil spirits is given by Stosch, in his "Concordia rationis et fidei," p. 8, s. 17: "Quæ de angelis et dæmonibus tam in s. scriptura quam historia humana traduntur, sunt partim somnia, partim visiones et apparitiones, partim phantasmata, partim morbi, partim figmenta et illusiones." But the most plausible of all the systems of Ademonism is that by which Satan is made to denote, not a real existence, but some mode of moral evil. This system is well expressed by Ammon when he says, "Acquiescamus non tam in existentia et factis, quam notione Satana," Sum. Theol. Christ. p. 105. The particular form of moral evil denoted by the word Satan is very various according to different authors, each of whom modifies it to suit his own philosophical system. Thus, according to one, it is that disposition which pursues evil for its own sake, and not for any advantages with which it may be connected-pertinacia in damnum proprium vel alienum agendi, absque illecebris carnis, vel mundi, sive gloriæ vanæ. In the school of Kant, Satan is the IDEA of what is absolutely displeasing in the sight of God, and so is the direct opposite of the Son of God, who, according to Kant, is the IDEA of what is absolutely well-pleasing with God. Thus in each different system does Satan, at the option of the framer, assume a different form, and act a different part.-TR.] Our modern theologians have often chosen a middle course, and endeavoured to unite the opinions of those who totally deny the existence of demons, and of those who contend strongly for their existence and agency; but, as is usual with those who endeavour to please opposite parties, they have given satisfaction to neither. In order to prevent the appearance of rejecting the authority of the holy scriptures, they admit the existence of evil spirits, while, in order to avoid the difficulties to which the common doctrine is liable, and to conform to the prevailing notions of the day, they deny that the devil can exert any power on men, at least at the present time, (a very necessary limitation for them to make;) that to us, therefore, it is all the same as if he did not exist; and that when Christ and the apostles spoke of the agency of the devil, they merely accommodated themselves to the popular superstitions of the Jews, while they themselves neither believed in demoniacal influence, nor even, as some will go so far as to say, in the existence of a devil. (Of this number, the most distinguished perhaps is Wegscheider, who thus gives his views in his "Institutiones," s. 106: "Verisimile est magistrum illum divinum rectius quidem de demonologia Judæorum cogitantem, at formulis quibusdam usum symbolicis, regnum divinum regno diabolico oppositum adumbrantibus, quæ apud Judæos tunc temporis pervulgatæ erant, a discipulis suis non satis intellectum fuisse, et ipsam providentiam divinam posteritati doctrinam istam emendendam tradi voluisse." Cf. De Wette, Bib. Dogm. s. 241.-TR.] But these views are liable to very weighty objections; for, (a) Since it was a great object with Jesus to free mankind from hurtful prejudices, and especially, during his earthly ministry, to eradicate the errors which prevailed among the Jews, we may be very certain that he would not have spared their belief in the existence and agency of the devil, if he had regarded it as false. It is said, indeed, that it was necessary for him to indulge those prejudices of the Jews which he could not at once eradicate, and that when he spoke of the influences of Satan it was merely in condescension to those deep-rooted Jewish prejudices. But an examination of his words, in the connexion in which they stand, will convince us that this was not the case. Christ does not merely forbear to contradict this prevailing doctrine, or merely allude to it incidentally, but he frequently brings it directly forward, and expressly teaches the existence of the devil and his agency upon men. Thus, for example, in John, viii. 38, 44, he speaks of the devil, without having the least inducement on the part of his hearers for so doing, and this in the very same discourse in which he demands from them implicit faith in everything which he says, on his simple word, and in which he declares his utter abhorrence of all falsehood and deception. Vide ver. 38-47. And he frequently mentions this doctrine in his discourses, when he could have had no motive for doing so from a desire of pleasing his hearers, and siding with their prejudices. Vide Matt. xii. 22—31, 43–45; xiii. 39. Had not Christ himself believed this doctrine he would have introduced it as seldom as possible into his discourses, and would have thrown out hints here and there, by which the more discerning would have discovered that he himself entertained different opinions on the subject. It could not certainly have been through fear of any consequences injurious to himself attending the denial of this doctrine, that he was induced to indulge and authorize it; since the Sadducees had before renounced it without experiencing persecution; and since Christ was never known in other cases to give way to any false or dangerous opinions, how much soever the Pharisees and the Jewish people might have been attached to them. Thus, for example, he fearlessly opposed their doctrine respecting traditions, though this was far more important in their view than the doctrine respecting angels. (b) Christ himself informs us, that during his life on earth he privately taught his disciples many things which were not to be published by them till after his ascension, (Matt. x. 26, 27;) and that much which he could not teach them, because they were unable to bear it, would be communicated to them by the Paracletus, John, xvi. 12, 13. But we do not find that among these more familiar instructions the disciples were taught that there is no devil, or that he is not the author of evil, or that he is destitute of all power. On the contrary, Christ expressly and particularly sanctions a belief in evil spirits, in presence of his disciples, (Matthew, xiii. 39, seq.; Luke, xxii. 31;) and even mentions the fact that the prince of this world is judged, (not that there is no Satan,) as one of those things of which the Holy Ghost would convince the world through their instru mentality. After the ascension of Jesus, the apostles made use of the same expressions and representations with regard to evil spirits which he himself had employed; as, 1 John, iii. 8; 1 Pet. v. 8; and often in the Acts. With what freedom and fearlessness does Paul often attack the prevailing prejudices and superstitions of the Jews and Greeks! But so far is he from either opposing this doctrine, or merely passing it by unnoticed, that he expresses his own belief in all the essentials of the Jewish demonology; Ephes. ii. 1, 2, seq.; vi. 11, seq. et passim. The apostles, indeed, held this doctrine in a manner somewhat different from that in which it was held by the Jews, and discarded many of their gross and fabulous representations; but yet, as it must appear from what has been said, they themselves really believed it. Our modern philosophers are at liberty to follow their own convictions upon this subject, and to reason upon their own principles; but they are not at liberty to ascribe their hypothesis to Christ and the apostles, nor to impose upon the common people this boasted wisdom, which they will never relish, and by which they will be rather confounded than enlightened. Our belief of this doctrine must rest ultimately on our conviction of the divine mission of Christ in its most full and proper sense. If we receive him as a divinely-commissioned teacher, we must abide by his decision on this subject as well as on all others, whatever difficulty we may find in the way. Otherwise, we are driven to the alternative of saying either that Christ did himself believe and teach the existence of evil spirits, though they do not exist,— in which case he is not an infallible teacher,or, that Christ did not himself believe, but yet taught the existence of evil spirits, in which case his moral character is impeached. The same is true in regard to the apostles. [Note 1.-In confirmation of the remark of the author, that our belief of this doctrine must depend ultimately on the testimony of Christ, it may be said that the attempts which have been made to prove the existence of evil spirits by arguments à priori, have proved as unsuccessful as the attempts to disprove it by arguments of the same nature. The most noted attempt of this kind is, perhaps, that made by Heinroth, in the last chapter of his late work, "Ueber die Wahrheit." He there endeavours to demonstrate the existence of evil spirits from the apostasy of man, which he thinks can be accounted for only on the supposition that he was tempted by a being who had previously fallen. Man was made pure and holy, and could therefore find no inducement to disobedience from anything in his own nature. The inducement to sin must therefore have come to him from without; and as he acts only in view of seeming good, he must have been made to believe that | leave the authority of the Bible uninfringed, and the whole sense of scripture unperverted. The following is the simple scriptural view of this subject which the religious teacher should exhibit:-(a) Christ, by his death and the gracious dispensation which he administers, has taken away from the devil the power of injuring his true followers; those, therefore, who are sincerely pious towards God, and believers in Christ, and followers of his instructions, have nothing to fear. (b) The existence of demons and their influence may, however, furnish us with motives to piety and virtue, and serve to deter us from vice and corruption. If we are pious, we are citizens of the kingdom of God; if wicked, citizens of the kingdom of Satan-representations by which the states of moral goodness and badness are figuratively described. Vide Morus, p. 90, s. 8, seq. [Cf. Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 723.] II. Apostasy of Evil Spirits. All the angels, according to the Jews and the writers of the New Testament, were placed ori transgression would conduce to his advantage; in short, he must have been deceived. But he could not have been deceived by God, nor anything in the world in which he was placed, which is a work and revelation of God; and if | deceived at all, therefore, it must have been by an older apostate, a spirit of evil, a father of lies; and only on the admission of such a spirit can the incontrovertible fact of the fall of our race be in any way accounted for. But, in the first place, this temptation does by no means account for that moral act in which the essence of the apostasy consisted. A change in man's moral character must have already taken place, before transgression could have been made alluring. With out this previous defection of his will from God, and the consequent disorder of his powers and darkness of his mind, he could have seen no attraction in what was forbidden, and could have| looked upon the inducements to it, as Christ did, only with abhorrence, and certainly never would have preferred them to the infinitely stronger inducements which the government of God holds out to the obedient; and even if,ginally in a state of innocence and holiness; without this change, he had yielded to the influence of some delusion from without to which he had been subjected, he would have been chargeable with mistake only, and not have been guilty of sin. And, in the second place, the agency of a tempter, though employed as a matter of fact in the apostasy of man, is not abso-tained on these subjects. lutely necessary to account for it. If the fall of Adam cannot be accounted for except by the influence of temptation, neither can that of Satan; and the tempter himself must have been before tempted and deceived. But if Satan—a | spiritual existence, and stationed near the throne of God-could have apostatized without having been drawn away by an older apostate, certainly this may be supposed of Adam, in whom, both from his nature and his circumstances, apostasy must have been more probable. The argument of Heinroth is liable, therefore, to the twofold objection, that the agency of a tempter does not fully account for the apostasy of Adam, and that it is not neces-garded the devil as the tempter; but it does not sary to account for it, since the tempter himself fell without any such agency, though possessed of a nature and placed in circumstances far more favourable to obedience.-TR.] Note 2. Since demons and their influence are mentioned so frequently in the New Testament, the doctrine which relates to them ought not to be omitted in popular instruction. If it is passed by, the common people will fall into very erroneous and superstitious notions with regard to evil spirits. The truth ought therefore to be exhibited with wise caution, in such a way as to obviate both unbelief and superstition, to rectify false views, and yet so as to some of them afterwards sinned, apostatized from God, and were consequently punished. Respecting the time at which this apostasy took place, or in what the sin of the fallen angels consisted, we are not clearly informed in the scriptures; hence very different opinions have been enter 1. Some suppose that the first sin of the apostate angels was the temptation which they offered to the progenitors of the human race. This opinion has been advocated in modern times by Cocceius, Vitringa, Heilmann, Schmid of Wittenberg, and others. The devil is not indeed expressly mentioned in the narrative in Gen. iii.; but after the Israelites were made better acquainted with the nature and influence of evil spirits (s. 58), they always supposed that they were intended in this passage, and that death and sin had come into the world by Satan. So the Book of Wisdom, ii. 24, and the New Testament everywhere. They accordingly re appear that they regarded the temptation as his first offence, that by which he first rebelled against God. On the contrary, they seem to presuppose that he was previously wicked. The passage, John, viii. 44, cannot therefore be employed, as Heilmann has employed it, in support of this opinion. The sense of this passage may be thus given:-"You resemble the devil in your dispositions and conduct, (ix Toù яatpòs rov diaßóλov isté ;) he was a murderer from the beginning, (áv♪pwxoxtóvos ȧn' ȧpxys, alluding to the murder of Abel by Cain, Gen. iii.; 1 John, iii. 12, and other events,) and remained not in the truth, (the knowledge and worship of God, or moral rectitude, or both united ;) the love of | New Testament, especially in the passages 2 truth and integrity is not in him; it is his plea- Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6, 7. The first passage sure to speak and propagate falsehood and error, teaches, that we cannot expect that God will (To Evdos, Rev. xxi. 27; xxii. 15;) for he is leave transgression unpunished; "for he spared the author (ar) and patron of falsehood and not the angels that sinned, but cast them down error, (unbelief, superstition, and immorality, of to hell (raprapwoas), where he keeps them in which he is always represented as the founder.)" reserve for future punishment, (sis xpiow.)” This passage certainly does not teach that this Still clearer is the parallel text, Jude, ver. 6, was the first instance in which Satan revolted where we are taught that God keeps enchained from God. (vлò Çópov) in Tartarus, reserved for the judg ment of the great day, the angels roùs μỶ TypŃσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ idov oixtypov. 'Apxy does not here signify, their original state, but the dominion entrusted to them as governors. Typeiv is tueri, conservare, to retain, and the latter clause is not a descrip tion of their punishment, but of their crime, Thus Jude and Peter, though they by no means take part in all the Jewish notions with regard to the apostasy of the fallen angels, clearly authorize the general doctrine of the Jewish teachers, as given above. 2. Others place the chief offence of the evil spirits in pride, which was shewn, according to some, in one way, according to others, in another. So Athanasius, Hieronymus, Augustine, and others, particularly the Latin fathers, who were followed by many of the schoolmen, and in modern times by Luther, Buddeus, Mosheim, Cotta, and others. They refer to the passage 1 Tim. iii. 6, (which, however, admits of another interpretation,) and also to the proud expressions which are ascribed to the seducer of men in the holy scriptures, Gen. iii. 5; Matt. iv. 9. This view is partially correct; but the first sin of the fallen angels may be ascertained still more definitely. 3. We are led to believe by the writings of the apostles that in many particulars they agreed with the Jewish teachers of their own day respecting the first transgression of fallen spirits. We may accordingly consider the Jewish opinions, in these particulars, as sanctioned by the assent of the apostles. Now the Jews held, especially after the Babylonian captivity, that God entrusted to angels, as overseers or governors, particular provinces of the earth, and also the heavenly bodies (cf. s. 60, II.), while their more proper home and abode was heaven. The Jews further held that some of these angels were discontented with their lot, and entered into a rebellious concert among themselves. They proudly aspired to higher posts than those assigned them, revolted from God, and deserted heaven; and then, for their punishment, were thrust by God into Tartarus, like the giants or Titans, who, according to the Grecian mythology, were cast as rebels out of heaven. Tartarus is now their proper abode, as heaven was formerly; and from thence they exert, under the the Divine permission, an influence upon the world. They seduced our first parents, and brought sin and death into the world; they reign over heathen nations, whom they led into idolatry; they also rule wicked men-i. e., exert a controlling influence over them; but, together with those over whom they have ruled, they will be punished in Tartarus after the day of judgment. With this account the Jews mingled many fabulous and unscriptural representations, which were adopted even by many of the Christian fathers; but the general account above given is very clearly authorized even in the Note. The question has been asked, how it can appear probable, or even possible, that such perfect beings as angels are represented to be, with all their intelligence and knowledge, could have fallen in this manner, and so foolishly have rebelled against God, with whom they must have been acquainted? It might be asked, with equal plausibility, how it is possible that men can act so frequently as they do against the clearest knowledge and strongest convictions of duty? We often find men, endued with the greatest ta lents, and possessing the clearest discernment, who are yet grossly vicious, and act in a man, ner unaccountably foolish and unadvised, Eminent intellectual endowments are not unfre quently attended by eminent virtues, and then are eminently useful; but they are also frequently accompanied by vices, and then are to the last degree hurtful. But were it not that experience justifies this remark, it would be easy to demonstrate, à priori, that high intelligence and moral depravity could not possibly go together, Demonstrations à priori on such subjects are therefore wholly inadmissible. SECTION LXIII. OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF EVIL SPI- I. Their Nature and Attributes. |