Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

had so long held his usurpation, hanging like a pestilential meteor over the sons of men." The empire of Christ, it is evident, is to be established on the ruins of that which the malignant spirit began, when our first parents were allured to rebel,

Now, when our Saviour came to open his dispensation of grace and purity,-when he came to turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of satan to God;"—when the minds of men were to be redeemed from the slavery of prejudice and crimes, it was to have been supposed, that whatever power over the bodies of men, was permitted to satan, would be employed with peculiar assiduity and virulence; as it is said, in the apocalypse, "The devil is come down unto you, having great wrath because he knoweth he hath but a short time." Nor is it improbable, that, to render the triumph of Christ the more signal and obvious, restraints on infernal malignity and power, a little previous to our Saviour's ministry, might have been, in some degree, diminished.

But, 2ndly. We are under no necessity of granting, that demoniacal possessions were confined to the time at which our Saviour appeared; or even that they were more frequent then, than previously.

The learned writer against the common opinion concern. ing demoniacs, not only acknowledges this, but takes much pains to prove it. With respect to demoniacs, says he, we meet with them in writings of the greatest antiquity, particularly in Eschylus, Sophocles and Eurypides. They occur also in the ancient historians, as well as in the writings of physicians. With respect to the philosophers, it is needless to appeal to the testimony of particular persons; for demonology composed a very eminent part of the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy. That possessions were supposed common among the Jews, is evident from Josephus, who speaks of persons having lived many ages before his time, who were distinguished for their skill in exorcism, That possessions were not confined to Judea, is futher evi

dent from the Acts of the Apostles. The following occurrence happened at Ephesus, "Then certain of the vaga bond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them, that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus." The universality of demoniacal possessions appears from Plutarch, as quoted by MacKnight, in which a method of treating them, is mentioned, as practised by most nations.

Now, whether such methods of ejecting dæmons were whimsical or not, is perfectly immaterial to our present purpose, which is to show, that cases of supposed possession were not peculiar to the age and country of our Saviour.

It may, perhaps, be thought a very strong presumption against this, that we find nothing of this nature at the present day. If evil spirits had once both the disposition and the power to enter and molest human bodies, why, it may be asked, are no similar effects now produced? I answer, that our inability to account for such a fact, is no argument against it. We are unable to perceive, why some wicked men are permitted to accomplish their designs, while others are restrained We are unable to show why the plot of Haman for burying in ruins all the captive Jews, was rendered abortive, while that of Herod for murdering the infants was suffered to take effect. We are unable to tell, why Paul was rescued from the forty conspirators, who had vowed his destruction, while, on Stephen they were permitted to satiate their malice.

But though our inability to account for a fact asserted, does by no means disprove the assertion; and there might be reasons, why demoniacal possessions should be suffered at one period and not at another, though such reasons were concealed from us, the remark may not be necessary on the present occasion. We are able to assign at least a probable reason for this difference. Since the coming of Christ, the power of satan over the human mind has unquestionably been restrained. The moral condition of those countries, in which pure christianity has been promulgated, is changed materially for the better. Now, why should not

this influence be restrained, as well in regard to the bodies, as the minds of men? And why should not the triumph of the Saviour be made apparent in both cases? If the common opinion be correct, it has been apparent in both.

A further objection to the doctrine of real possessions is this. St. Paul says, in the 8th chap. of 1. Corin, "we know, that an idol is nothing in the world;" and the same idea is evidently communicated in the 10th chapter; "What do I say then, that the idol is any thing? But this I say, that the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they do sacrifice unto dæmons, and not unto God." Now it is asserted that idols and dæmons are the same. If so, we have the declaration of St Paul, that dæmons are nothing in the world. Consequently, they could not have produced those effects on human bodies, which have been usually ascribed to them.

Without saying any thing as to the identity of idols and dæmons, in this place, which is however, not indisputable, I observe, that the objection proves too much for those, by whom it is offered. They believe that dæmons are the souls of dead men; and surely, St. Paul did not mean to teach the doctrine of annihilation, by saying that the souls of dead men are nothing, i. e. that the soul has no existence after death. By consequence, the expression must be understood with some limitation. When the Apostle asserted, that an idol is nothing in the world, if he used the word εidwλov, as synonomous with dauwv, he must have meant merely that an idol is no god, and as such is not to be regarded. That this is the meaning of the place, expositors seem generally agreed. It is thus expounded by Doddridge, Whitby, MacKnight and Piscater.

Again, the account, given of the damsel at Philippi, is supposed by some to militate with the common ideas of the dæmoniacal possession. The account is this: "It came to pass, that as we went to prayer, a certain damsel, possessed with a spirit of divination, met us. The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salva

tion. Paul, being grieved, turned and said unto the spirit, I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." That which our translators call a spirit of divination, is in the original пvενμа vævоs spirit of Python. Now, Apollo, it is well known, has frequently the epithet pythius, and his priestess at Delphi was denominated Pythia. "It is here asserted then," saith the objector, " that the damsel had a pythonic spirit, or the spirit of Apollo. But who can believe that either the sacred writer, or St. Paul designed to assert any connexion, as subsisting between this disordered person and a heathen God? Therefore, the meaning must be, that the person in question was insane, and that her insanity was of such a kind, as was usually attributed to that prophetic spirit, which was supposed to actuate the priestess at Delphi;" and if so, the word dæmonized may be used with similar latitude.

Such is the objection, and I frankly acknowledge, that in my apprehension, it has more weight than any other, brought to oppose the common opinion. Still I conceive it is not insurmountable.

I concede at once, that the sacred writer did not mean to assert any connexion between the disorderd person and a heathen god. I am willing to allow too, that merely the circumstance of her being said to have the spirit of Python, is not sufficient to prove her a demoniac. That she was such however, is shown by other circumstances. Paul commanded the spirit to come out of her, and it came out the same hour; at which time, her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone that they should no longer be paid for her soothsaying, i. e. foretelling future events; the power of doing which could not surely result from insanity, or from bodily distemper.

By the terms spirit of Python, the sacred writer means merely a prophesying spirit. Whatever reference the term once had to Apollo, by long use, this reference seems to have been lost. Accordingly Abp. Potter and Scapula, de

fine nubov, a prophesying daemon. From the former of these authors, I quote the following remarks. "As to the origin of this name, there are various conjectures: the most probable of which seems to be, that it it was taken from Appollo Pythias, who was thought to preside over all sorts of divination, and afterwards appropriated by custom to this species for so we find a great many words of general signification, in time made peculiar to some one part of what they signified before. To give one instance Tugavvos, by the ancient Greeks, was applied to all kings, as well the just and merciful, as the cruel, and whom we now call tyrannical: but in more modern ages, was appropriated to the latter sort, and became a name of the greatest ignominy and detestation. On the contrary, words of a more narrow and limited sense, have sometimes passed their bounds, and taken upon them a more general and unconfined one: so μavrea, which at first signified only that sort of prophesying, which was inspired with rage and fury, being derived aro Tov paevɛoat, from being mad, came at length to be a general name for all sorts of divination."

To those of you, who give most attention to this subject the following idea, perhaps, at this moment occurs; viz. that the word dapoviconevos, may have lost some part of its original import, as well as the phrase εχειν πνεύμα πύθωνος. And why may we not suppose, that the evangelists had as little reference to any evil spirits, when they used the former, as the writer of the acts had to Apollo, when he used the latter?

This I conceive to be exhibiting the objection in the strongest possible light. To which my answer is this. I do not consider the doctrine of real possessions, as proved merely by the circumstance, that the persons in question are said to be dæmonized, or to have dæmons; but chiefly by the manner, in which they are addressed by our Saviour, by their conduct, and by the remarks, which the evangelists make on the subject, all which will be more particularly considered hereafter.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »