23, coll. v. 12, 19. This now, and everything | Epya zoù diaßónov, and according to Col. ii. 15, regarded as a consequence of the apostasy to Christ prevailed and triumphed over Satan. which Satan tempted our first parents, is con- The works of the devil are sin, and everything sidered as belonging to his kingdom, and is by which sin and unbelief are occasioned. ascribed to his influence, even in those cases in Where sin, and misery as its consequence, prewhich he himself may not have been imme- vail, there Satan rules. John says, in the pasdiately engaged. Thus all errors, especially sage above cited, ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐκ τοῦ those in religion, all wickedness, deceitfulness, diaẞónov totív. Thus he rules over unbelieving and whatever else is offensive to God, are Jews and Christians, as well as over the heaascribed to him, even when he himself has not then, John, viii. 44. been personally or immediately active in promoting them; and this, because he is the first cause of all this evil which has followed; just as, on the contrary, all the good which is opposed to this evil is ascribed to God, even in those cases where he has not immediately produced it, only because it is according to his will, and results from the wise institutes which he has founded. And so everything connected with moral evil, as cause or as consequence, and all wicked men, (ó xósμos, ¿ oxóros,) belong to the kingdom of Satan, (vide Morus, p. 91, Num. 1;) while, on the contrary, all the pious, and all moral goodness, with its causes and consequences, belong to the kingdom of light-the kingdom of God, or of Jesus Christ. Vide the texts referred to, ubi supra. From what has now been said, light is cast upon the following Biblical representations and expressions :—" (a) The prevalence of immorality and the diffusion of false religious observances are striking proofs of the great corruption of human nature; they are accordingly ascribed in a peculiar sense to the influence of evil spirits, who are hence called the gods or rulers of this world. Eph. ii. 2, apzwv τηs éžovoias Toù dépos, prince of the power of darkness, (ȧýp, tenebræ, Homer, Od. ix. 144; Virgil, aëre sepsit)—i. e., of the heathen world, darkened by ignorance and error. Cf. Eph. vi. 12, oi xosμoxpáropas Toù exóτovs TOV AirOS TOUTOV. To the former passage the apostle subjoins the declaration that evil spirits were ἐνεργοῦντες ἐν υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας, and in ver. 3 mentions αἱ ἐπιθυμίαι τῆς σαρκός, the de- | sires which spring from our bodily nature, and which lead to immorality. Satan is called in the same sense & Sɛòs Toù aiwvos Tourov, who blinds the understanding of the unbelieving, 2 Cor. iv. 4; also apzwv rov xóбμov, John, xii. 31; xvi. 11; and paganism, irreligion, and immorality, are called įžovoía rov Zarava, Acts, xxvi. 18; while the Christian church, the object of which is to make men pious, and to prepare them to become citizens of the society of the blessed above, is called Basinɛía roù riov Col. i. 13. où, (b) Christ came into the world in order to remove the misery and disorder arising from the seduction of our first parents by the devil, and to shew us the way to true holiness and happiness. 1 John, iii. 8, ¿pavepwdŋ—űva avon rà (c) All the hindrances to the spread of Christianity, and to the prevalence of that piety and holiness which Christianity is intended to promote-all the temptations and persecutions which Christians are called to endure;-in short, the whole system of efforts opposed to Christianity, are regarded as the works of Satan, and the enemies of Christianity as his instru ments. Morus, p. 91, s. 9, note. Hence, when Judas formed the infernal purpose (as we should say) of betraying Christ, it is said, the devil entered into him-i. e., took possession of him, John, xiii. 2, 27, coll. Acts, v. 3. By the wiles of the devil, Eph. vi. 11, seq., the persecutions which Christians were called to endure, and the efforts made to turn them aside from the truth, are principally intended. Cf. 1. Pet. v. 8, 9, where naμata are expressly mentioned. The enemies of Christians are the instruments by which he brings suffering upon them, in order to injure them and lead them to apostasy and unbelief. He has a hand also in the schisms, controversies, and heresies which arise among Christians themselves, 2 Cor. ii. 11; xi. 14, 15, diáxovo Zarava. Unbelief in particular individuals is also ascribed to him, Luke, xxii. 31, as are all gross vices and crimes. (d) Death, and every other evil which may be regarded as the punishment of sin, is also ascribed to the devil, and is said to have come into the world through him; Book of Wisdom, | ii. 4; John, viii. 44; Heb. ii. 14. In the last passage he is described as the one who has power over death, τὸ κράτος ἐχῶν τοῦ θανάτου, which is taken from the image of the angel of death, Asmodi, or Samael. And as sickness may also be regarded as the punishment of sin, they too are often represented as the works of the devil. We are prevented, however, from considering Satan as the sole and independent cause of the death of men, by those texts in which the power over life and death, and the whole disposal of the destinies of man, is ascribed to God alone. The representation, therefore, that Satan is the author of death and misery, is to be understood figuratively; for he is such to individuals only as he was the first cause of that apostasy of man which brought death and misery upon our race. Still we are taught in the Bible, that for the same wise reasons which lead him to permit other evils, for the attainment of certain good power to evil spirits, in particular cases and at certain times, than they commonly possess. ends, not otherwise attainable, God allows more | fined upon, and the belief in a literal, substantial indwelling of the devil was abandoned, and the term possession was understood to indicate merely the powerful influence which Satan sometimes exerted in controlling and abusing the bodies of men said to be possessed. In the New Testament we do indeed sometimes meet with a phrase like the following, Zaravas (e) But evil spirits, according to the doctrine of the Bible, cannot, with all their efforts, do us harm, unless we resemble them in our disposition, and are ourselves devoted to sin; 1 John, v. 18; iii. 8; John, viii. 44. Christ has robbed evil spirits of their power, has conquerede i oйadev eis twa ('Iovdav), John, xiii. 27; them-i. e., has rendered them harmless to those who believe in him; and this he has done, partly by delivering us from the punishment of sin, and partly by freeing us from its power and dominion, the one, by his sufferings and death, the other, by his instructions and example. All those, therefore, who, in compliance with his precepts, and in conformity with his example, keep themselves from sin, or are pardoned for sins already committed, are secured against the temptations and wiles of evil spirits, 1 John, v. 18. Prayer, faith in Christ, the wholesome use of his precepts, watchfulness, in short, the means prescribed in the Bible for security against vice and sin, these, and only these, are the means appointed for security against evil spirits; Eph. vi. 11-18; 1 Peter, v. 8, seq.; James, i. 14; iv. 7. Morus, p. 93, n. 6. The excuse, therefore, that one has been tempted of the devil, and is on that account exculpated, is always unfounded, even in those cases, if such occur, in which it is capable of proof that the inducement to sin was really offered by the devil; for he could not, according to the doctrine of the Bible, have found this opportunity unless the nature of our hearts had been depraved, 1 Cor. vii. 5. In those cases only in which men indulge the sinful desires of their own hearts (James, i. 14) are they liable to temptations either from the devil or any other quarter; they themselves, in such cases, are always in fault. APPENDIX. POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY SECTION LXV. OF THE BODILY POSSESSIONS RECORDED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. I. Meaning of the term "Possession." ORIGINALLY it was doubtless supposed to denote a real indwelling in the human body. An agent, in order to exert an influence on the human body, must, it was thought, be near to it, and substantially dwell in it, as the soul dwells in the body. Such was at first the general, indeterminate notion. But it was afterwards re but by this phrase nothing more than an obsessio II. History of this Doctrine. 1. Among the Greeks. The belief of this doctrine is found among many heathen nations both of ancient and modern times. The general ori. gin of this idea is to be sought in the fact that uncultivated men are in the habit of ascribing everything, the immediate cause of which they do not perceive, (especially if the thing is in any degree extraordinary,) to the direct influence of the Deity, or of some other spiritual agent more powerful than man. Whatever of this kind is good or desirable they regard as an effect proceeding immediately from good spirits; and the opposite, from evil spirits. Cf. s. 58, II. Thus it came to pass that evil spirits were considered often as the authors of all kinds of sickness, and especially of those diseases which were attended with unusual and inexplicable phenomena. For the cure of such diseases, which were supposed to be miraculously inflicted by a malignant deity, or by demons, and therefore to be beyond the reach of human art, resort was had to miraculous remedies. The diseases which have commonly been regarded by different nations as of this miraculous nature are, melancholy, madness; also such nervous diseases as are attended with the more frightful appearances cramp, epilepsy, lunacy, &c. These general opinions prevailed among the Greeks, as appears from the writings of some of their oldest physicians-e. g., Hippocrates, who lived 400 years before Christ, and wrote epi τns tips, vógov, also Galen, and Aretæus of Cappadocia, who is quoted by Wetstein, Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 282, seq. Hence it was common among the Greeks to use the phrases δαιμονᾷν, κακοδαιμοvậy, and dauóviov exew, as synonymous with paivosa. This is seen in the writings of Xenophon, Aristophanes, and others; and also in the New Testament, as John, vii. 20; x. 20, 21. In the earliest ages, the Greeks ascribed such diseases as those above mentioned to some malignant deity. Thus it is said even in Homer, Odyssey, v. 396 ἔχραε στυγερός δαίμων. But when, at a later period, the doctrine of intermediate spirits was received among the Greeks, and these spirits were called daíuoves, (demigods, heroes, and the souls of the departed;) they were now censidered as the authors of these evils; and this not by the people only, but by many of the philosophers, who adopted these ideas into their systems, and formed theories respecting them, as was the case with the New Pythagoreans and the New Platonists, especially in Egypt, hoth before and after the birth of Christ. But Hippocrates, Galen, and some other Greek physicians, who supposed they could explain these diseases in part from natural causes, rejected this prevailing opinion as superstitious; and in this many of the philosophers agreed with them. Origen remarks, in his Commentary on Matt. xvii., that the physicians in his day did not believe in possessions. They, however, retained the expressions which were in common use among the people on this subject; such as daiμoviCsodai, daiμwv sioépzɛrai, ἐξέρχεται, ἐκβάλλεται, δεῖαι νόσοι. 2. Among the Jews. in any part of the Old Testament, either in the older books, or in those composed after the Babylonian exile. It is indeed often said that particular diseases, or deaths, were inflicted by God, or by his angels, even by evil angels (messengers of evil) sent by him. Vide s. 58. But this does not at all correspond with the idea of demoniacal possessions entertained at a later period by the Jews. There is one passage, however, 1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, where an evil spirit is said to come upon Saul, which has sometimes been appealed to on this subject. But the evil spirit here mentioned was not one whose moral character was evil; and in this respect, therefore, the case of Saul is distinguished from the cases of bodily possession in the New Testament. The evil spirit here mentioned is an evil spirit from Jehovah, in opposition to the good spirit which came from Jehovah upon David, ver. 13, and previously upon Saul himself, 1 Sam. x. 10. This good spirit inspired him with a high and kingly disposition, and with resolution for great and good deeds; but the other spirit was to him the messenger of evil, and harassed him with anxiety and melancholy, which ended in total madness. Nor is there any mention of bodily possessions in the Grecian apocryphal books which were written before the coming of Christ; in short, no trace of this opinion can be found among the Jews before the Christian era. (b) But the age of Christ and his apostles is altogether remarkable in this respect. There were then in Judæa and Galilee many sick persons, whose diseases were considered by the great body of the Jews (the Sadducees, perhaps, only excepted) as the effects of the agency of evil spirits. It is worthy of notice that this is not found to be the case at all in the age preceding that of Christ, nor, at least in the same degree, in those which followed it. We see from the New Testament that Jesus, and after him the apostles, healed many of these diseases; nor do we anywhere find that Jesus assigned other causes for these diseases than those to which they were supposed to be owing by the contemporary Jews; nor that on this subject more than on others the apostles and evangelists undertook to go farther than their Master. We see also, from the New Testament, that the Pharisees interested themselves in this subject, and at least attempted the cure of some of these diseases. Cf. Matt. xii. 27. The truth of these facts-viz., that there were at that time sick persons of this description in Palestine and its vicinity-that they were there almost universally regarded as possessed of evil spirits, and that many, especially from among the Pharisees, appeared as exorcists, is confirmed by the testimony of Josephus, Ant. viii. 2. A few only of (a) There is no mention made of possessions the Jews, who pretended to be more liberal and enlightened than the rest, either wholly rejected the belief of possessions, and indeed of the existence of evil spirits, (as was done by the Sadducees in Palestine,) or adopted the opinion of the later Greeks, according to which demons were regarded, not as evil angels, but as a sort of intermediate spirits the souls of the deceased, &c., as was done by some of the more learned Jews, who wished to conform to the philosophy of the age. Of this class was Josephus, who says, Bel. Jud. vii. 6, và xaλovμɛva δαιμόνια-πονηρῶν ἐστι ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα. of Christ, more prevalent in the Western church than from the end of the fifteenth to the middl's of the seventeenth century. Hence we find that this belief was received even by Luther and Melancthon, and other theologians of both the protestant churches, and was transmitted by their disciples to those who came after them. (b) But about the middle of the seventeenth century some doubts arose with regard to demoniacal possessions, and in general with respect to the whole notion that the power of evil spirits, especially over the material world, still (c) The Jews of later times, after the second continued. These doubts were engendered at century, believed very generally, not only that first by the prevalence of the principles of the there had been possessions formerly, but that Cartesian philosophy. The first public attack instances of the same kind sometimes occurred was made upon this doctrine in England, about even in their own day. The latter opinion was, the year 1676, and was shortly followed up in however, denied by Maimonides and some other France. But a new epoch in the history of this Rabbins; while others, with the Sadducees, re-doctrine was made by Balthasar Becker, a Car. jected the whole doctrine of evil spirits, and tesian philosopher, and a preacher at Amsterdeclared themselves decidedly for adæmonism. | dam, who in 1690 published at Leuwarden a Vide Wetstein, ubi supra. 3. Among Christians since the second century. (a) The early Christian teachers since the second century are united in the opinion that the so called demoniacs of the New Testament were truly possessed by the devil, because Christ expressly declared them to be so. This was the opinion of Origen himself. They moreover believed that there might be, and actually were, demoniacs in their own day; although we have not sufficient evidence to convince us that those whom they regarded as possessed were so in truth. But as this was believed by the Christians of that day, exorcists soon appeared among them, who adjured the demons in the name of Jesus to depart, and who were afterwards in many places established as regular officers of the church, and placed in the same rank with the clergy. Among these Christian teachers of the second and third centuries there were many New Platonists, who contributed much to the diffusion of the belief that possessions continued beyond the first ages of the church, and who, in full accordance with the philosophic theory which they had adopted, understood by the demons supposed to occupy the body, not evil spirits, but uxai ȧnosavóvtav-the opinion of Josephus, as stated above, No. i. Such is the doctrine expressed by Justin the Martyr, Apoll. ii. This latter opinion, however, was not universal, and gradually disappeared, as the influence of the New Platonic philosophy ceased; though a belief in the continuance of real possessions still prevailed both in the Eastern and Western church, and in the latter was retained even by the schoolmen. At no time, however, was the belief that evil spirits have power to possess the bodies of men, even since the age quarto volume, entitled, The Enchanted World, afterwards translated into German by Schwager, and published at Leipsic, 1781-82, with a preface and notes by Semler. This work attracted great notice, and the author of it was severely persecuted. He did not deny the existence of evil spirits, but only their influence upon men, and, of course, all demoniacal possessions, even those mentioned in the New Testament. His opinions met with great approbation at the beginning of the eighteenth century in England and the Netherlands, and were adopted and advocated by Wetstein, Le Clerc, and many other Arminian theologians; but in Germany and Holland these opinions were uniformly rejected by the protestant theologians during the first half of the eighteenth century; nor did even Thomasius agree with Becker on this subject. Semler was the first among the protestant theologians of Germany who adopted, with some modifications, the opinions of Becker, and supposed that the demoniacs of the New Testament were people afflicted with common and natural diseases. He first published an essay, De dæmoniacis quorum in Nov. Test. fit mentio; Halle, 1760; and afterwards his larger work, Untersuchung der dämonischen Leute; Halle, 1762; which were followed by still other writings on the same subject. This opinion at first excited great attention, and had to encounter strong opposition, but it gradually gained ground, until it has now become almost the prevailing opinion among the learned theologians of the protestant church. Some, however, even of modern times, have declared their opinion that the question is not altogether settled, and that there remains something to be said upon the other side. In the English church the opinion of Semler has found many advocates, among whom Hugo Farmer, the author of an Essay on | tative and peremptory tone which has of late Demoniacs, is distinguished. In the Romish sometimes been assumed. That demoniaca church, the old doctrine that the so called de- possessions are impossible cannot be proved; not moniacs of the New Testament were really pos- can it be shewn from the fact of there being none sessed of devils, and that these possessions were at the present time that there never were any. A not confined to that particular age, remained the disease-e. g., epilepsy—which may be owing common and professed belief during the greatest at one time to a natural cause, may at another part of the eighteenth century. But during the be produced by the agency of an evil spirit; nor last few years, many of the theologians, even can the opposite of this be proved. It is also of this church, have come over to the opinions possible that Divine Providence may have sufprevailing among protestants. The interest on fered in a former period, for the attainment of this subject was revived in the protestant and particular ends, what it no longer permits now catholic churches in Germany by the practices that those ends are obtained. Vide No. 3. of the celebrated conjurers, Schröpfer and Gessner, who appeared in the latter half of the eighteenth century. As the difference of opinion was very great, (some protestant theologians-e. g., Crusius and Lavater, maintaining not only that there might possibly be possessions and conjurations at the present day, but that such were sometimes actually known,) many works were written on both sides of the question. The result of this discussion in the minds of the more unprejudiced and moderate was, that although God, for particular reasons, and for the sake of certain ends, might formerly have permitted demoniacal possessions, there is no proof that there are any such at the present day; and there are no infallible signs by which these alleged possessions can be certainly distinguished at the present day from diseases merely natural. III. Remarks on the Possessions recorded in the 2. There are, indeed, difficulties attending the doctrine of demoniacal possessions, and many things about it are dark and inexplicable; but, great as these difficulties may be, those which follow from rejecting this doctrine are still greater. They who deny the reality of demoniacal possessions will find it difficult either to maintain the authority of Christ as a teacher, especially as a divine teacher, and the highest ambassador from God to man, (which he always affirmed himself to be,) or even to vindicate his moral character. This subject is commonly treated at the present day in altogether too partial a manner; and I regard it as the duty of the Christian theologian, arising especially from the wants of the age in which we live, boldly to resist all such partial views in matters of religion, not concerned as to the judgment which may be formed of him by the multitude, if he can but succeed in gaining the minds of the more candid and enlightened, which he may depend will, sooner or later, be found on the side of truth. In reference to this subject, two things are perfectly undeniable-viz., (a) that Jesus himself spoke of these diseases as effects produced by evil spirits, and never gave the remotest occasion to suppose that he believed they were anything else, not even in his more confidential discourses with his disciples, nor in those cases in which he would have found it necessary to contradict the prevailing opinion, if it had been different from his own, Matthew, viii. 28—32; xvii. 19— 21; Luke, x. 17-21; Matt. xii. 28, 29. * 1. The common opinion at the present time is, that all these disorders are to be explained by merely natural causes; and that when Jesus and the apostles attributed them to the influence of evil spirits, they spoke in accommodation to the prevailing error of their contemporaries. The ancients, it is said, from their want of pathological science, referred many diseases which were purely natural to demoniacal influence; and this was the case with regard to the diseases mentioned in the New Testament. Christ and his apostles did not appear in the character of theoretic physicians, and were not required by their calling to give instruction concerning the true causes of human diseases. Such is the reason-same mind; and that the evangelists did regard ing often employed at the present day; and in this way do some attempt to escape from difficulties, and to free Christ from the charge of entertaining the superstitious opinions of his countrymen; but, as we shall see hereafter, they thus involve themselves in greater difficulties than they attempt to escape. The question respecting the reality of the possessions recorded in the New Testament is at least open to discussion, and cannot be decided in that authori This being the case with Christ, it will not be thought strange, (b) that his apostles and other disciples should always have been of the these sick persons as true demoniacs is obvious at first sight. Cf. Matt. viii. 28, seq. If Christ and the apostles had regarded this opinion as erroneous they would not have hesitated to declare it so, even if their doing this had been attended with danger from the Jews; for where truth was concerned, they were not accustomed to be governed by regard to consequences. They could not, however, have had any reason to apprehend serious disadvantages from denying the U |